Attorney Ques- how does this unionization issue play out for wake or private schools?

This sounds like besides northwestern other private schools like wake could unionize. This could really get ugly for wake, duke, stanford, vandy, etc

Or more specifically the ACC considering they have 7 private schools.

Could this alter their role in college NCAA sports faster than other state schools???

Ohr's decision opens the door for football and men's basketball teams at 16 other private universities in FBS conferences to request that a union represent them, as the National Labor Relations Act governs private businesses nationally. Any move to create athlete unions at public universities would have to be pursued through state labor laws, which vary widely.

It plays out with the NLRB decision being reversed, which is par for the course lately.

Like most lower level labor courts, they make a lot of crappy rulings. It's a few years away from anything probably being implemented. The TL/DR of the case is: student-athletes aren't students, but employees first, so they can unionize and get paid.

I'm hoping that it plays out with a fix by Congress that forces a drastic change in the NCAA.

I took labor and employment law at wake, although it is not what I practice now. I have a hard time believing this ruling will stand when it goes before the full NLRB, and eventually to the Court of Appeals. But, even on the slight chance that it does open the door for college player unions, it does not mean that unionization will take hold. First, players would actually have to vote in favor of a union representing them. At most, all the employer has to do is bargain in good faith. If a deal isn't reached, then there is no contract between employees/ union and employer. I have a hard time believing players at an individual school will gain much from a union. The reason they are so effective on the professional level is they represent everyone, not just a single team.

I don't think congress wants to get anywhere near this. This will be appealed to the full board at NLRB. Remember that there is a on going lawsuit claimimg that Obama illegaly appointed the last three appointments to the NLRB, which would void their decisions. Is there anybody at ESPN who doesn't like the original ruling?

wakelaw13 said:

I took labor and employment law at wake, although it is not what I practice now. I have a hard time believing this ruling will stand when it goes before the full NLRB, and eventually to the Court of Appeals. But, even on the slight chance that it does open the door for college player unions, it does not mean that unionization will take hold. First, players would actually have to vote in favor of a union representing them. At most, all the employer has to do is bargain in good faith. If a deal isn't reached, then there is no contract between employees/ union and employer. I have a hard time believing players at an individual school will gain much from a union. The reason they are so effective on the professional level is they represent everyone, not just a single team.

Click to expand...

The current board is really out there. I think it likely will uphold this decision. But the Court of Appeal and ultimately SCOTUS--I sort of doubt it.

It's going to be very hard to show that football and basketball players aren't employees first when they spend much more time "working" than they do "studying" and when the revenue generated for the schools by their performance is so high. That's going to be a very difficult case to argue.

vadimivich said:

It's going to be very hard to show that football and basketball players aren't employees first when they spend much more time "working" than they do "studying" and when the revenue generated for the schools by their performance is so high. That's going to be a very difficult case to argue.

Click to expand...

Can the same be said about other athletes? Golfers for instance? Can my employer turn my salary into a tax free grant in aid? If the status of a student/athletes can be changed to employee, can grant in aid change to a salary?

I hope they all unionize and get the right to be paid. And then the schools can't afford to pay so they kill all the major sports and become schools of women's teams and Olympic sports. It would serve every one of those spoiled brats right. Let them qualify and pay for school like a regular kid.

I am not anti-union, but I think this is complete bullshit. Unfortunately, while the unc scandal is hilarious and great entertainment regarding the carolina way, it does hurt the whole "free college for athletic participation" argument.

I couldn't agree more, Scooter!

DEACS76 said:

Can the same be said about other athletes? Golfers for instance? Can my employer turn my salary into a tax free grant in aid? If the status of a student/athletes can be changed to employee, can grant in aid change to a salary?

Click to expand...

If the grant in aid is changed to a salary, then it's going to be darn near impossible for the school to claim the income generated by those salaried employees is tax exempt.

scooter84 said:

I hope they all unionize and get the right to be paid. And then the schools can't afford to pay so they kill all the major sports and become schools of women's teams and Olympic sports. It would serve every one of those spoiled brats right. Let them qualify and pay for school like a regular kid.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't see why the players are "spoiled brats" for wanting a cut of the giant pie that is college athletics revenue, but the administrators and coaches raking in millions of dollars a year are not. That's just an absurd leap of logic I can't make.

vadimivich said:

I guess I don't see why the players are "spoiled brats" for wanting a cut of the giant pie that is college athletics revenue, but the administrators and coaches raking in millions of dollars a year are not. That's just an absurd leap of logic I can't make.

Click to expand...

How hard is it to understand that they are getting their share by virture of having access to an education that wouldn't otherwise have access to (a benefit that is pretty much priceless - ask the millions of regular students that cannot get into the school that want to attend while less academically qualified athletes get in) - and, not only do they get access, they get it free. How nice would that be? I am trying to figure out how to pay for the school my kids want to attend...

And, the great majority of the money in the 'huge pie' that is created by basketball and football goes to pay for and support all the other sports that do not bring in any meaningful money.

The arms race in coaches' salaries is misguided but is a different issue.

And, I think the NCAA needs to lighten up on ways to allow kids to make money on their own name - or whatever. But players unionizing and possibly getting paid? I think it is ridiculous and, in any plan that I have ever seen, unworkable.

scooter84 said:

How hard is it to understand that they are getting their share by virture of having access to an education that wouldn't otherwise have access to (a benefit that is pretty much priceless - ask the millions of regular students that cannot get into the school that want to attend while less academically qualified athletes get in) - and, not only do they get access, they get it free. How nice would that be? I am trying to figure out how to pay for the school my kids want to attend...

And, the great majority of the money in the 'huge pie' that is created by basketball and football goes to pay for and support all the other sports that do not bring in any meaningful money.

The arms race in coaches' salaries is misguided but is a different issue.

And, I think the NCAA needs to lighten up on ways to allow kids to make money on their own name - or whatever. But players unionizing and possibly getting paid? I think it is ridiculous and, in any plan that I have ever seen, unworkable.

Click to expand...

As someone who works in college admissions, this is absolutely true. People forget about the "access"--the fact that students are getting admitted to some of these colleges only BECAUSE of their athletic talent.

scooter84 said:

How hard is it to understand that they are getting their share by virture of having access to an education that wouldn't otherwise have access to (a benefit that is pretty much priceless - ask the millions of regular students that cannot get into the school that want to attend while less academically qualified athletes get in) - and, not only do they get access, they get it free. How nice would that be? I am trying to figure out how to pay for the school my kids want to attend...

And, the great majority of the money in the 'huge pie' that is created by basketball and football goes to pay for and support all the other sports that do not bring in any meaningful money.

The arms race in coaches' salaries is misguided but is a different issue.

And, I think the NCAA needs to lighten up on ways to allow kids to make money on their own name - or whatever. But players unionizing and possibly getting paid? I think it is ridiculous and, in any plan that I have ever seen, unworkable.

Click to expand...

Though it's early yet, the players getting paid seems to far off the radar. And the arms race is by no means a separate issue. A complicated issue without easy roads out. However, given the professionalization of the collegiate environment and the dollars involved I don't blame the players for trying to find a voice. The NCAA hasn't lightened up yet, and currently shows little interest in doing so.

scooter84 said:

How hard is it to understand that they are getting their share by virture of having access to an education that wouldn't otherwise have access to (a benefit that is pretty much priceless - ask the millions of regular students that cannot get into the school that want to attend while less academically qualified athletes get in) - and, not only do they get access, they get it free. How nice would that be? I am trying to figure out how to pay for the school my kids want to attend...

And, the great majority of the money in the 'huge pie' that is created by basketball and football goes to pay for and support all the other sports that do not bring in any meaningful money.

The arms race in coaches' salaries is misguided but is a different issue.

And, I think the NCAA needs to lighten up on ways to allow kids to make money on their own name - or whatever. But players unionizing and possibly getting paid? I think it is ridiculous and, in any plan that I have ever seen, unworkable.

Click to expand...

Lots of stuff is going on here. I only quoted scooter's posts because holy shit is that misguided, patronizing bullshit. "Education" is a fucking sham in collegiate athletics. Hell, a decent chunk of four year athletes don't even graduate, instead staying eligible long enough to compete before they either don't have the credits or the grades to actually get the diploma. Also, the arms race in coaches' salaries only reinforces the remakrable hypocrisy at play. It's not a different issue. It's the other side of the coin.

I'll also ask you, scooter, to qualify or substantiate the bolded statement.

I don't know how this will play out, but I do hope that the NLRB holds up this decision because I am intrigued equally in seeing how this plays out and how much it shatters people like scooter84's ignorant worldviews.

DEACS76 said:

Can the same be said about other athletes? Golfers for instance? Can my employer turn my salary into a tax free grant in aid? If the status of a student/athletes can be changed to employee, can grant in aid change to a salary?

Click to expand...

vadimivich said:

I guess I don't see why the players are "spoiled brats" for wanting a cut of the giant pie that is college athletics revenue, but the administrators and coaches raking in millions of dollars a year are not. That's just an absurd leap of logic I can't make.

Click to expand...

The most important distinction, IMO, is that grant-in-aid (or tuition remission) is typically refers to scholarship money. I think y'all may be conflating grant-in-aid and fellowship/stipend funding. The former is non-taxable; the latter is taxable. Both "work" in institutions of higher learning and at both undergraduate and graduate levels. This is really not that controversial a concept.

How compatible this model is with a unionization model (see the UAW's latest work with NYU TAs) remains to be seen, but it's really not THAT much of a leap given what already happens in terms of funding in higher education. At the very least, though, this move may give the players'/student athletes' leverage that they need to get a "piece of the pie."

vadimivich said:

If the grant in aid is changed to a salary, then it's going to be darn near impossible for the school to claim the income generated by those salaried employees is tax exempt.

Click to expand...

? The professors at a university are paid a salary and the income (tuition) they generate is tax exempt...

Strickland33 said:

Lots of stuff is going on here. I only quoted scooter's posts because holy shit is that misguided, patronizing bullshit. "Education" is a fucking sham in collegiate athletics. Hell, a decent chunk of four year athletes don't even graduate, instead staying eligible long enough to compete before they either don't have the credits or the grades to actually get the diploma. Also, the arms race in coaches' salaries only reinforces the remakrable hypocrisy at play. It's not a different issue. It's the other side of the coin.

I'll also ask you, scooter, to qualify or substantiate the bolded statement.

Click to expand...

For 95% or more of the athletes who get access to a free education, that education is not a sham. Most college athletes are truly student athletes - working their ass off at their sport and their schoolwork and leaving school with a degree and good job prospects as something other than a professional athlete.

One problem is that there is a lot of nebulous talk about players getting paid, or getting "their share" or having rights or whatever - but no consensus that I have seen as to what they should really get. I don't think anyone has a real problem with players receiving some kind of living stipend beyond what they get now - assuming it works with budgets. The problem, from a mathematical and workability standpoint, arises when people start talking about paying players any kind of real money. How do you do that?

The questions have been asked before ad nauseum, but, who gets paid (everyone? stars more than others? revenue-producing sports only?). How do you deal with Title IX? How do you pay players and still have the money to support the great majority of sports that do not product revenue. Most athletic budgets are running at a loss now - so where does the money come from?

People will point at the millions being paid to coaches as evidence that there is money to be shared - and that is a valid point. But, how much can you reasonably expect to scale that back? Would you ever be able to save enough there to help pay athletes in any significant way?

The NCAA is a screwed up organization is so many ways! But the one goal they have which seems necessary to me is keeping some kind of parity in recruiting. The system can never be such that schools with more resources can pay more.

Maybe you have a plan that will work - I don't know. Maybe college athletics as we know it simply has to go away - I don't know.

It just annoys me when athletes at a place like Northwestern, where a 4-year scholarship is worth probably $250k and where many of them could never sniff the school without athletics, want to complain about not getting their fair share. (and, by the way, I don't even know what these particular athletes even want...)