NLRB Rules College Athletes are EMPLOYEES

[LakeMaryFLVol]

Temporary employment

Contract Labor-Collectives and labor negotiate services for name Likeness compensation.

 

[aaronvol]

Well, if employees, then signing non competes will hinder transfer portal...so......

 

[kcvols1]

It's a completely idiotic ruling by the NLRB. It sounds like a laughably activist decision by an activist agency. I think we've seen this crazy notion that athletes are somehow exploited take hold in this social-justice era and spin out of control. We especially see it with this insane decision--and all the rest that is going on.

First, I doubt Dartmouth basketball makes any money. If it does, it's not much--as like every school the team has to travel and there are administrative costs and an Ivy League BB program is not drawing huge crowds. I'm sure there is a radio--but it's probably no more than local--and Dartmouth is in a rural area. Any tiny revenue that it might make would get put back into the athletic department to cover costs---and to finance all other Dartmouth sports. And they are all, except football, money losers. Yet somehow Dartmouth BB players have come to believe that they should be paid.

It's nonsense. If it were obvious that student-athletes were "employees," why hasn't this ever come up in the past 100 years of college athletics? Are high-school players employees too? There's very little difference. I'm quite sure that nobody is getting rich off of Dartmouth BB---or any sport at any college. This is the crazy myth that seems to have taken hold. Athletics at Ivy League or any schools that are small(ish) and not so insane about winning as the majors are nothing but a cost center.

I would love to see Darthmouth respond by, for starters, denying any financial aid requests from men's BB players. And then cancel the BB program altogether. And, of course, if the BB players are allowed to unionize and demand to be paid, then all the other student-athletes will do the same, and then what have you got?

After-school sports has been around practically since schools were started--150, 200 years. They were started--required at many schools--because they are considered a healthy way to build strong bodies and minds, to learn fair play in life, to foster teamwork. It's rather sad to see all of this self-indulgent nonsense.

Did you read the decision?

 

[turbovol]

If you’re told where to go, what to do, when to show up, AND make money for said whoever is telling you these things, then you are an employee

Are high-school students who run track "employees"?

Football players are getting a free college education in exchange for playing football. That's always been the deal, and for 100 years that's always been deemed a very good and fair deal. The only REAL beneficiary of college football is the athletic department as a whole--and the athletic department as a whole comprises 20 sports with hundreds of student-athletes. It's not a private business--it's a public college.

Now a few players seem to think that they're doing the schools a favor. It's all part and parcel of the nonsense of today's youth who want to fancy themselves as "brands"--see YouTube "influencers and all the rest. If student-athletes end up be legally considered employees, then schools should not be shy about ending scholarships and treating them truly as real employees would be treated in the private world.

The best thing the players have going for them, with respect to football, is that there is too much money in the sport and the fans are stupid-crazy. And so my bet is that the majors, instead of fighting some of this nonsense as they should, will cave on some or a lot of the changes. The football schools will indulge football and do whatever is necessary to keep their place. That's why whenever one school stupidly started offering NIL deals to high-schoolers, everybody else HAD to do the same. I'm quite sure they all didn't WANT top do it.

It's all the non-revenue sports and their players who could be hurt by all of this in the end.

 

[kcvols1]

What happens when the students get together and decide they want 0.2%?

If they reach an impasse, I think they’d go back to the Board. Either side may have a claim under the NLRA.

Fillable Forms | National Labor Relations Board

To view these NLRB forms you will need the free Adobe Reader, which you can download here. When you click on any of these forms, you first will find instructions on how to fill out and file the form, followed by the form itself.

www.nlrb.gov

 

[VFL-82-JP]

What happens when the students get together and decide they want 0.2%?

Fair question.

One that would have to be sorted out if we ever got to that point.

There are other fair questions, too, like, "do analysts and support staff get included in the booty system, or do they get a flat salary instead as university employees?" Same could be asked of the coaching staff, for that matter.

We could shrink-wrap this down to just the players on the roster. Make the head coach and all the other coaches and support staff employees with an agreed salary (as it is today).

Then of course, the pot of money left over as net profit would be smaller, since the salaries of all those people pulled out of the booty system would have to come off the top.

So let's follow this logic: HC and assistant coaches and QAs/analysts are all now on salary. Their combined salaries ($52.5m in the example provided in the other thread) is now taken out as an expense before the "loot is divvied up." What remains, in that example, is $10m to be split among the players.

Now it doesn't matter whether they want a one-tenth share or a two-tenths share or a full share, or three full shares. Since they're all getting the same number of shares, it's always going to come out as $80,000 per player (as long as we assume 125 players on the roster).

That's one way to solve the collective bargaining conundrum. Leave them as the only bargaining unit in the mix, and so their split of the profits as beyond negotiation.

And if they said, "well, we want more than just the profits left after covering all the expenses," the university can just shrug and ask, "from where?"

Anyway, that's one approach to your question. I'm sure there are others.

Go Vols!

 

[Swiftybaby]

You mean I'm employed by the Mrs?

Exactly

 

[WallyBalls]

Are high-school students who run track "employees"?

Football players are getting a free college education in exchange for playing football. That's always been the deal, and for 100 years that's always been deemed a very good and fair deal. The only REAL beneficiary of college football is the athletic department as a whole--and the athletic department as a whole comprises 20 sports with hundreds of student-athletes. It's not a private business--it's a public college.

Now a few players seem to think that they're doing the schools a favor. It's all part and parcel of the nonsense of today's youth who want to fancy themselves as "brands"--see YouTube "influencers and all the rest. If student-athletes end up be legally considered employees, then schools should not be shy about ending scholarships and treating them truly as real employees would be treated in the private world.

The best thing the players have going for them, with respect to football, is that there is too much money in the sport and the fans are stupid-crazy. And so my bet is that the majors, instead of fighting some of this nonsense as they should, will cave on some or a lot of the changes. The football schools will indulge football and do whatever is necessary to keep their place. That's why whenever one school stupidly started offering NIL deals to high-schoolers, everybody else HAD to do the same. I'm quite sure they all didn't WANT top do it.

It's all the non-revenue sports and their players who could be hurt by all of this in the end.

If the bold is truly what you believe...it might be time to get off twitter/facebook/VN and touch some grass.

 

[turbovol]

Fair question.

One that would have to be sorted out if we ever got to that point.

There are other fair questions, too, like, "do analysts and support staff get included in the booty system, or do they get a flat salary instead as university employees?" Same could be asked of the coaching staff, for that matter.

We could shrink-wrap this down to just the players on the roster. Make the head coach and all the other coaches and support staff employees with an agreed salary (as it is today).

Then of course, the pot of money left over as net profit would be smaller, since the salaries of all those people pulled out of the booty system would have to come off the top.

So let's follow this logic: HC and assistant coaches and QAs/analysts are all now on salary. Their combined salaries ($52.5m in the example provided in the other thread) is now taken out as an expense before the "loot is divvied up." What remains, in that example, is $10m to be split among the players.

Now it doesn't matter whether they want a one-tenth share or a two-tenths share or a full share, or three full shares. Since they're all getting the same number of shares, it's always going to come out as $80,000 per player (as long as we assume 125 players on the roster).

That's one way to solve the collective bargaining conundrum. Leave them as the only bargaining unit in the mix, and so their split of the profits as beyond negotiation.

And if they said, "well, we want more than just the profits left after covering all the expenses," the university can just shrug and ask, "from where?"

Anyway, that's one approach to your question. I'm sure there are others.

Go Vols!

Don't forget the band and the cheerleaders--as they are part of the show.

In the case of Dartmouth, if it really wanted to take a stand down the road when the case is finally resolved, it should just end its basketball program. The program is a SERVICE to the snot-nosed players who filed this lawsuit. The program loses money; the Dartmouth athletic department loses money and only exists as a service to students who wish to play basketball and the other sports. It is by no means obligated to sponsor any teams, especially given that they all lose money. That might be a needed shot across the bow for all these apparently entitled young people. Then these lawsuit plaintiffs can take dubious credit for killing basketball at Dartmouth.

 

[turbovol]

If the bold is truly what you believe...it might be time to get off twitter/facebook/VN and touch some grass.

It's not "what I believe." Those are facts. If you dispute what I said as factual, let's hear your counter.

 

[Swiftybaby]

Are high-school students who run track "employees"?

Football players are getting a free college education in exchange for playing football. That's always been the deal, and for 100 years that's always been deemed a very good and fair deal. The only REAL beneficiary of college football is the athletic department as a whole--and the athletic department as a whole comprises 20 sports with hundreds of student-athletes. It's not a private business--it's a public college.

Now a few players seem to think that they're doing the schools a favor. It's all part and parcel of the nonsense of today's youth who want to fancy themselves as "brands"--see YouTube "influencers and all the rest. If student-athletes end up be legally considered employees, then schools should not be shy about ending scholarships and treating them truly as real employees would be treated in the private world.

The best thing the players have going for them, with respect to football, is that there is too much money in the sport and the fans are stupid-crazy. And so my bet is that the majors, instead of fighting some of this nonsense as they should, will cave on some or a lot of the changes. The football schools will indulge football and do whatever is necessary to keep their place. That's why whenever one school stupidly started offering NIL deals to high-schoolers, everybody else HAD to do the same. I'm quite sure they all didn't WANT top do it.

It's all the non-revenue sports and their players who could be hurt by all of this in the end.

Talking about college “adults” not the long jumper from red boiling springs high

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Fair question.

One that would have to be sorted out if we ever got to that point.

There are other fair questions, too, like, "do analysts and support staff get included in the booty system, or do they get a flat salary instead as university employees?" Same could be asked of the coaching staff, for that matter.

We could shrink-wrap this down to just the players on the roster. Make the head coach and all the other coaches and support staff employees with an agreed salary (as it is today).

Then of course, the pot of money left over as net profit would be smaller, since the salaries of all those people pulled out of the booty system would have to come off the top.

So let's follow this logic: HC and assistant coaches and QAs/analysts are all now on salary. Their combined salaries ($52.5m in the example provided in the other thread) is now taken out as an expense before the "loot is divvied up." What remains, in that example, is $10m to be split among the players.

Now it doesn't matter whether they want a one-tenth share or a two-tenths share or a full share, or three full shares. Since they're all getting the same number of shares, it's always going to come out as $80,000 per player (as long as we assume 125 players on the roster).

That's one way to solve the collective bargaining conundrum. Leave them as the only bargaining unit in the mix, and so their split of the profits as beyond negotiation.

And if they said, "well, we want more than just the profits left after covering all the expenses," the university can just shrug and ask, "from where?"

Anyway, that's one approach to your question. I'm sure there are others.

Go Vols!

I think coaches salaries usually already have a bunch of incentives related to performance so I'm less inclined to make them part of the deal.

I think training staff (I have family in the field) are an underappreciated piece of the puzzle.

Dealing with collective bargaining is going to be "a thing" when players are compensated directly. Like academic budgets, every area wants to plead their case for more funding. Colleges can handle negotiating money.

 

[JohnWardForever]

I don't think a bunch of players unionizing and revolting against a coach and/or school is a good thing.

They better be careful, or this thing could backfire on the players. We might eventually get back to "Student Athletes" at College, and an NBA/NFL Farm system for the NIL Paid players. Without the Major Universities, who would support them? We already have "Farm Leagues" . There's obviously not enough enough thought into all of this.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

They better be careful, or this thing could backfire on the players. We might eventually get back to "Student Athletes" at College, and an NBA/NFL Farm system for the NIL Paid players. Without the Major Universities, who would support them? We already have "Farm Leagues" . There's obviously not enough enough thought into all of this.

Not gonna happen. NIL isn't pay for play.
The schools don't fund it.

 

[sigmundoooz]

What about academic scholarships? Is anyone receiving an academic scholarship an employee of the university/entity awarding the scholarship? "Classwork" is as much work as "work" or sports practice isn't it?

 

[Volfan1000]

Flatlander hogwash.

I can think of a couple tyrannical coaches that shoulda been served a turd sammich but never was…View attachment 617980

CKON was a very solid recruiter.

 

[VOLINVONORE]

If the bold is truly what you believe...it might be time to get off twitter/facebook/VN and touch some grass.

In this case, it is what the U. S. Supreme Court ruled. Absent that decision, we would be back in that old boat where Alabama would buy all the players they want and everyone else would be charged by the NCAA for cheating.

 

[Voltopia]

They better be careful, or this thing could backfire on the players. We might eventually get back to "Student Athletes" at College, and an NBA/NFL Farm system for the NIL Paid players. Without the Major Universities, who would support them? We already have "Farm Leagues" . There's obviously not enough enough thought into all of this.

If they want to be a NBA/NFL farm system, then be one -- and separate them from the colleges, who have no business operating professional sports companies in a for-profit environment. If they're so damned determined to make more and more money, then by all means go make it happen, and leave student-athletes to college competition.

(of course, the dirty secret there is that the interest is almost completely because of the college brands, which is why they would never dare walk away as the brands are how they access that money ... but hey, let's not let facts get in the way of chasing the bag)

 

[tango]

Your statement about “work” is not accurate. Do you have anyone close to you that was a college athlete? I do. My daughter was a Division 1 college track athlete and she trained and “worked” like crazy 12 months out of the year with an indoor and outdoor season. For major college athletes, the games are secondary in terms of time compared to the practice and training schedule. Games are certainly fun. The training is anything but. It sure looked like work to me.

I think your understanding of 'work' in the legal sense is flawed.

For example, "My daughter was a Division 1 college track athlete and the trained and 'worked' like crazy'" ....

Yeah, she trained. Adding the word 'work' to supplant or support 'training' is superfluous, and you're just doing what the NLRB is doing --- assigning meaning to a word that, in context, is simply specious.

Did your daughter get a paycheck every week, or bi-weekly, or monthly while she was 'working'?
Did she have defined vacation benefits?
Did she have defined sick days or defined long-term sick benefits?
Did she pay social security taxes while receiving a pay check for this 'work'?
FICA?
Medical/dental/vision insurance through her employer, with withholdings on each pay check?
For any athletes kicked off a team for any reason, were any of those players entitled to unemployment benefits? and did any of those players apply for unemployment benefits?

Going further down that path leads to an absurd result. Every single student, athlete or not, who is on scholarship of any size, value, or worth, could claim to be an employee of the university. Simply absurd.

 

[WallyBalls]

It's not "what I believe." Those are facts. If you dispute what I said as factual, let's hear your counter.

You believe "It's all part and parcel of the nonsense of today's youth who want to fancy themselves as "brands"--see YouTube "influencers and all the rest" is a fact?

As in, that is the reason (or at least a major reason) this is all happening? That is just 'kids these days'?

I don't believe that. I believe its intellectually dishonest to act as if major college athletics is what it was 40-50 years ago. Hell, Plowman said that. Its a business producing billions of dollars based off of extremely cheap borderline free labor. It was never going to last that way, and frankly, it shouldn't.

I don't know how it sorts out, and if its going to turn out great or a disaster...but I don't for a second believe its just because of some of the reasons I'm seeing in this thread.

 

[tango]

Shop stewards determine who plays and who doesn't? Lineups decided by seniority instead of by talent or merit? Sit down strikes, grievances and collective bargaining when practice gets too hard? NIL pay by seniority? Sit down strike just before a big game with a stadium full of paying fans?

Sounds like a good plan to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GREAT POST!

 

[BruisedOrange]

Dang! Does this mean they're gonna have to start paying adjunct professors?

 

[tango]

Regarding the definition of work, can most of us agree that the result of college sports is a product that is sold? It generates revenue for the company (school/league). In that respect, the enjoyment of it doesn't matter and someone is profiting from your effort. I'm not saying that athletes don't get any benefit, because they get room, board, and scholarships.

Just want to point out that in my opinion it definitely is work. Most of them are hoping to continue the same work into the professional arena, where the effort results in a marketable product.

This also differentiates it from high school/ elementary sports, which don't generate revenue (generally)

If I offer you a free education, room and board, uniforms, training facilities, etc., in exchange for you providing me a product, then what does it matter how much I make off the product you agreed to provide in exchange for the things I agreed to give you in exchange?

 

[FLVOL_79]

I don't think a bunch of players unionizing and revolting against a coach and/or school is a good thing.

Let them unionize. Lots of non scholly players at the school(s) who will be more than happy to be "scabs" and supplant them.

 

[Pride85]

College sports are officially dead.