NLRB Rules College Athletes are EMPLOYEES

[GUNTERSVOL]

I'm sure I missed something, but if they are employees, then why give them a scholarship or an allowance? Maybe a year-end bonus.

They will probably have to receive same school related benefits of rest of employees. Not sure how health related and housing etc. could be handled. Uncle Sam and states will want their cut of any PAY. Lawsuits from other employees would also be problematic. Will they try to go independent contractor route? They will all find out more about fair market value than they want.

 

[MHS Rebel]

They will probably have to receive same school related benefits of rest of employees. Not sure how health related and housing etc. could be handled. Uncle Sam and states will want their cut of any PAY. Lawsuits from other employees would also be problematic. Will they try to go independent contractor route? They will all find out more about fair market value than they want.

Athletes' benefits are much better that the average university employee, especially health-related benefits. Are they going to lower their standards or raise those of the other employees?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Athletes' benefits are much better that the average university employee, especially health-related benefits. Are they going to lower their standards or raise those of the other employees?

They don't have to do either. See Coach Heupel's salary and benefits compared to Donde Plowman's as an example

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

Athletes' benefits are much better that the average university employee, especially health-related benefits. Are they going to lower their standards or raise those of the other employees?

If and when they become employees, they leave the amateur scholly rules umbrella and join the employee pool. A million years and industries ago, apartments did the ole x$ a month plus rent deal for management and rent for security(law folks) but gov ended that and forced it onto pay stub to get not only income tax, but SS and other payroll taxes. Doubt that has changed. So I would bet they get a cost plus adders gross pay and the deductions required once employment is in play. Interesting to see if they will allow the players to pick which status and mix them in rosters. Both could still be counters.

The smart guys in the courts have only opened Pandora’s box. The variability in costs, and standing employee benefits at each institution will require spreadsheet skills for family and reps.

Going to mess up the old model for 100% of players when only a small percentage across all divisions are going to be big dollar pro worthy. Lawyers and accountants going to be happy.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

They don't have to do either. See Coach Heupel's salary and benefits compared to Donde Plowman's as an example

He would not get FREE tuition but a discount. Bet his basic insurance is same as professors or maintenance folks. Would think deductions for sharing benefits costs each check. Probably some paid optional adders for dental and vision etc.

His bigger pay comes with bigger taxes.

ANY UT employees on here to define the structure of their check?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I'm sure I missed something, but if they are employees, then why give them a scholarship or an allowance? Maybe a year-end bonus.

The simple reason is value.

Why did boosters pay players under the table before NIL when the players already had a scholarship and player benefits?

Value. That's what the market does. It rewards workers for value.

When schools started illegally paying players, they created a market where the workers could "bid up" their services. With NIL it's in the open.

Some players are far more valuable than the scholarship, which is EXTREMELY valuable, but Nico is a millionaire + his scholarship and benefits because he has skills UT highly values.

They won't pull his scholarship unless they either want him to leave or bump his pay elsewhere to cover it.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

If and when they become employees, they leave the amateur scholly rules umbrella and join the employee pool. A million years and industries ago, apartments did the ole x$ a month plus rent deal for management and rent for security(law folks) but gov ended that and forced it onto pay stub to get not only income tax, but SS and other payroll taxes. Doubt that has changed. So I would bet they get a cost plus adders gross pay and the deductions required once employment is in play. Interesting to see if they will allow the players to pick which status and mix them in rosters. Both could still be counters.

The smart guys in the courts have only opened Pandora’s box. The variability in costs, and standing employee benefits at each institution will require spreadsheet skills for family and reps.

Going to mess up the old model for 100% of players when only a small percentage across all divisions are going to be big dollar pro worthy. Lawyers and accountants going to be happy.

It's not necessarily an either/or situation.
They can still attend classes.
Tuition, room, and board can still be part of the deal.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

It's not necessarily an either/or situation.
They can still attend classes.
Tuition, room, and board can still be part of the deal.

I believe the problem is room, board, etc provided by the employer is taxable. The academic tuition might be iffy, but it's probably a taxable benefit also. Certainly the extensive academic tutoring available to athletes would be taxable. I'm unsure about the trainers, physical therapy, etc but they are likely also taxable benefits.

An employee player who takes a traditional scholarship, board, meals, etc likely incurs taxes on what might be $100k per year of employee benefits. That's quite a kick in the tax bill.

Given the choice, an athlete would likely be encouraged by their CPA to not enroll in classes and be a pro athlete only.

Players as employees is a huge mess for colleges. Universities just don't need to be in the pro sports business.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

I believe the problem is room, board, etc provided by the employer is taxable. The academic tuition might be iffy, but it's probably a taxable benefit also. Certainly the extensive academic tutoring available to athletes would be taxable. I'm unsure about the trainers, physical therapy, etc but they are likely also taxable benefits.

An employee player who takes a traditional scholarship, board, meals, etc likely incurs taxes on what might be $100k per year of employee benefits. That's quite a kick in the tax bill.

Given the choice, an athlete would likely be encouraged by their CPA to not enroll in classes and be a pro athlete only.

Players as employees is a huge mess for colleges. Universities just don't need to be in the pro sports business.

"Need"? The federal courts are saying that college athletes have't gotten fair market value for decades. That's due to the NCAA's exploitive, illegal model. They got away with it for far too long.

Compensation is inevitable. The only real question is if the athletes are going to be employees it contractors.

You have zero basis for saying that the universities don't need to be in the sports business.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

"Need"? The federal courts are saying that college athletes have't gotten fair market value for decades. That's due to the NCAA's exploitive, illegal model. They got away with it for far too long.

Compensation is inevitable. The only real question is if the athletes are going to be employees it contractors.

You have zero basis for saying that the universities don't need to be in the sports business.

The University mission isn't to run a sports business, make a bunch of revenue, etc.

The University was founded for educational purposes. I'm uncertain running a few pro sports franchises fits in that mission.

I'm VERY aware that the courts are going to declare the athletes employees, let them collectively bargain and unionize, probably waive the silliness of pro athletes being forced to masquerade as college students, etc.

As those things happen, it gets more and more obvious: why the heck is a university running a sports business?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

The University mission isn't to run a sports business, make a bunch of revenue, etc.

The University was founded for educational purposes. I'm uncertain running a few pro sports franchises fits in that mission.

I'm VERY aware that the courts are going to declare the athletes employees, let them collectively bargain and unionize, probably waive the silliness of pro athletes being forced to masquerade as college students, etc.

As those things happen, it gets more and more obvious: why the heck is a university running a sports business?

The University's first mission is to do whatever it takes to ensure long term financial success in order to perform the other compo debts of the mission. That includes sports, especially football.

If I'm wrong, show me a university that keeps the doors open without money. I'll wait.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The University's first mission is to do whatever it takes to ensure long term financial success in order to perform the other compo debts of the mission. That includes sports, especially football.

If I'm wrong, show me a university that keeps the doors open without money. I'll wait.

Hehehehe. Universities aren't businesses that seek profit. Unless you count the bogus ones.

UT HAS NEVER been pressured by the state to develop a "business plan" to make itself profitable.

Either you have never attended a university or it didn't serve you well when you did attend.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Hehehehe. Universities aren't businesses that seek profit. Unless you count the bogus ones.

UT HAS NEVER been pressured by the state to develop a "business plan" to make itself profitable.

Either you have never attended a university or it didn't serve you well when you did attend.

That's a logical fallacy. You failed Logic 101 - if you ever took it.

To wit: Strawman. I said "long term sustainability". That's not "profit" and it's bogus if you yo claim that it is.

To wit: Non Sequitur. I said nothing about the state or pressure. Try to focus on what was actually said instead if interjecting .

You should go back to school and seem the ability to avoid illogic and also seek the ability to discern.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

That's a logical fallacy. You failed Logic 101 - if you ever took it.

To wit: Strawman. I said "long term sustainability". That's not "profit" and it's bogus if you yo claim that it is.

To wit: Non Sequitur. I said nothing about the state or pressure. Try to focus on what was actually said instead if interjecting .

You should go back to school and seem the ability to avoid illogic and also seek the ability to discern.

Hehehehehe. Long term sustainability isn't an issue for a University. The state funds them as a service to the people.

They continue to exist at the whim of state govt which does occasionally, though frankly more rarely than they should, shutter a university.

They aren't businesses. They don't turn a profit. They aren't designed to turn a profit.

 

[woodpusher]

I believe the problem is room, board, etc provided by the employer is taxable. The academic tuition might be iffy, but it's probably a taxable benefit also. Certainly the extensive academic tutoring available to athletes would be taxable. I'm unsure about the trainers, physical therapy, etc but they are likely also taxable benefits.

An employee player who takes a traditional scholarship, board, meals, etc likely incurs taxes on what might be $100k per year of employee benefits. That's quite a kick in the tax bill.

Given the choice, an athlete would likely be encouraged by their CPA to not enroll in classes and be a pro athlete only.

Players as employees is a huge mess for colleges. Universities just don't need to be in the pro sports business.

The graduate fellowships I'm familiar with (not at U-T) involve full tuition waiver plus stipend. The tuition waiver is not taxable; the stipend is.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The graduate fellowships I'm familiar with (not at U-T) involve full tuition waiver plus stipend. The tuition waiver is not taxable; the stipend is.

Yeah, taxable issues are going to be complex.

Unlike the graduate plans, as you say which involve a tuition waiver and stipend, this $20M is being couched as "revenue sharing" from the athletic department revenue from the athlete's work.

This strongly implies an employee status, IMO.

I'm not a tax CPA and the nuance of a stipend vs revenue sharing to the IRS may be the same.

I suspect that a "tuition waiver" for an employee is considered a benefit, likely a taxable benefit, but you may be right.

 

[Voltopia]

Hehehehehe. Long term sustainability isn't an issue for a University. The state funds them as a service to the people.

They continue to exist at the whim of state govt which does occasionally, though frankly more rarely than they should, shutter a university.

They aren't businesses. They don't turn a profit. They aren't designed to turn a profit.

Completely right.

Not only are they not a business, but even the vaunted "athletics programs" have not been operated as for-profit businesses - that is, not until the networks crammed billions of dollars into their collective educational g-strings.

Many college programs operate at a loss. And even in the vaunted SEC, the majority of the money is reinvested directly back into the program, in the form of facilities, athletic support, coaching salaries, travel, debt servicing where new facilitie are being built, etc. The amount of actual profit generated by college programs has been, at best, negligible. When a program is very good, yes, the school that runs it get to bank some small degree of money, but that's it. Which is why I chuckle whenever people go on about how "they've made themselves rich at the expense of the players." Aside from the bloated salaries for football and basketball staff, and the ADs at the major programs who pay them, which I'll granted have been Jimmy Sexton'd into the stratosphere, ain't nobody getting rich. All that money was sunk back into the programs, to create opportunities for current and future athletes - because the mission wasn't profit, it was to sustain and grow athletic opportunities for students at the school. A trhiving ecosystem of student-athletes competing at major P5 schools.

Well. At least, it was. Not anymore.

 

[volfan102455]

As those things happen, it gets more and more obvious: why the heck is a university running a sports business?

Many will opt out of sports and considering most of these universities are funded by the states, you are actually asking the states to run a sports business. Why would Tennessee do that when there are already "pro sports" business run by private folks in the state? I do NOT want my taxes going to support this!

It probably will not happen day one but overtime we will see a reduction is sports offered by most colleges / universities. This leads to less opportunities for student athletes. And the less universities involved, the less dollars to be made by anyone. This will eventually make its way to football and folks will be 'what the heck happened'?

None of this has been thought out at all.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Completely right.

Not only are they not a business, but even the vaunted "athletics programs" have not been operated as for-profit businesses - that is, not until the networks crammed billions of dollars into their collective educational g-strings.

Many college programs operate at a loss. And even in the vaunted SEC, the majority of the money is reinvested directly back into the program, in the form of facilities, athletic support, coaching salaries, travel, debt servicing where new facilitie are being built, etc. The amount of actual profit generated by college programs has been, at best, negligible. When a program is very good, yes, the school that runs it get to bank some small degree of money, but that's it. Which is why I chuckle whenever people go on about how "they've made themselves rich at the expense of the players." Aside from the bloated salaries for football and basketball staff, and the ADs at the major programs who pay them, which I'll granted have been Jimmy Sexton'd into the stratosphere, ain't nobody getting rich. All that money was sunk back into the programs, to create opportunities for current and future athletes - because the mission wasn't profit, it was to sustain and grow athletic opportunities for students at the school. A trhiving ecosystem of student-athletes competing at major P5 schools.

Well. At least, it was. Not anymore.

One can argue, and the Supreme Court did, that an enterprise generating the kind of revenue the NCAA and schools have for decades should compensate the workers, ie. players, at a reasonable rate and have less revenue to plow back into the business.

So yes, the facilities are magnificent, the recruiting budgets are high, the nutritional staff, physical therapy staff and rehab facilities are top notch, the dressing rooms are palatial, and the school isn't getting rich.

It still doesn't mean the players were compensated at market value.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Many will opt out of sports and considering most of these universities are funded by the states, you are actually asking the states to run a sports business. Why would Tennessee do that when there are already "pro sports" business run by private folks in the state? I do NOT want my taxes going to support this!

It probably will not happen day one but overtime we will see a reduction is sports offered by most colleges / universities. This leads to less opportunities for student athletes. And the less universities involved, the less dollars to be made by anyone. This will eventually make its way to football and folks will be 'what the heck happened'?

None of this has been thought out at all.

Absolutely. Which is why I've suggested the major revenue schools separate from the universities and go on as a business.

Let college athletics be college athletics without the huge media contracts and paid (over or under the table) players.

My beef has been the tendency to blame the players for the issues when some schools have been ramping up athletics into a major Saturday sports extravaganza for many decades and paying talent to attend for decades so their school could achieve a national sports profile.

That was NEVER the Idea when college sports was envisioned.

 

[volfan102455]

Completely right.

Not only are they not a business, but even the vaunted "athletics programs" have not been operated as for-profit businesses - that is, not until the networks crammed billions of dollars into their collective educational g-strings.

Many college programs operate at a loss. And even in the vaunted SEC, the majority of the money is reinvested directly back into the program, in the form of facilities, athletic support, coaching salaries, travel, debt servicing where new facilitie are being built, etc. The amount of actual profit generated by college programs has been, at best, negligible. When a program is very good, yes, the school that runs it get to bank some small degree of money, but that's it. Which is why I chuckle whenever people go on about how "they've made themselves rich at the expense of the players." Aside from the bloated salaries for football and basketball staff, and the ADs at the major programs who pay them, which I'll granted have been Jimmy Sexton'd into the stratosphere, ain't nobody getting rich. All that money was sunk back into the programs, to create opportunities for current and future athletes - because the mission wasn't profit, it was to sustain and grow athletic opportunities for students at the school. A trhiving ecosystem of student-athletes competing at major P5 schools.

Well. At least, it was. Not anymore.

The above is the reality! But all some see is the numbers around what a coach is paid, what media rights are worth etc. They want to ignore the fact that the excess, what little there is, is feeding dollars back into the system allowing us to enjoy NCAA Baseball, NCAA Softball, NCAA Gymnastics, NCAA Woman's Basketball, etc.

You can easily do the math on what UT had extra from 2023 and see that there is not enough to pay all the athletes WHAT they seem to think they are worth. You may pay a couple of them, but that is it.

 

[volfan102455]

Absolutely. Which is why I've suggested the major revenue schools separate from the universities and go on as a business.

Let college athletics be college athletics without the huge media contracts and paid (over or under the table) players.

My beef has been the tendency to blame the players for the issues when some schools have been ramping up athletics into a major Saturday sports extravaganza for many decades and paying talent to attend for decades so their school could achieve a national sports profile.

That was NEVER the Idea when college sports was envisioned.

And honestly if that happens, then it would be the smaller universities that choose not to play this crazy game, that will start to get the marquee players and draw the crowds just because the local stars stay closer to home.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

And honestly if that happens, then it would be the smaller universities that choose not to play this crazy game, that will start to get the marquee players and draw the crowds just because the local stars stay closer to home.

Doubtful. It's in the interest of a true blue chip player to play with similar talent to get attention. The payoff is the next level IF a player is truly an elite talent.

Few would've wanted to see Joe Burrow throwing to D-III receivers and facing D-III defenses. Burrow isn't foolish. He knew his big career was at the next level and his national profile mattered.

The college level will never rival the NBA, NFL, and MLB. It's always a stepping stone. Elite players go where they have the best prospect to reach that next level.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Hehehehehe. Long term sustainability isn't an issue for a University. The state funds them as a service to the people.

They continue to exist at the whim of state govt which does occasionally, though frankly more rarely than they should, shutter a university.

They aren't businesses. They don't turn a profit. They aren't designed to turn a profit.

Strawman. I said nothing about profit.
Every penny UT makes from the athletic program goes back into improving the school and facilities.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

The above is the reality! But all some see is the numbers around what a coach is paid, what media rights are worth etc. They want to ignore the fact that the excess, what little there is, is feeding dollars back into the system allowing us to enjoy NCAA Baseball, NCAA Softball, NCAA Gymnastics, NCAA Woman's Basketball, etc.

You can easily do the math on what UT had extra from 2023 and see that there is not enough to pay all the athletes WHAT they seem to think they are worth. You may pay a couple of them, but that is it.

That's conflating pay from the University with private NIL. Those are two very different things.