NLRB Rules College Athletes are EMPLOYEES

[S.C. OrangeMan]

No, you put words in my mouth. I think professional sports like the NFL definitely are jobs. Because pro players would not go to work if the front office stopped paying them. It's a job. They work in exchange for compensation, to use the NLRB's phrase.

College players would play without any material gain. They do it all the time, at universities all around the world, including in the money sports of football and basketball.

Inherently a different animal than the pros. I hope you can see that.

Go Vols!

It is not inherently different. College sports and pro sports are both based on making money for the teams and their governing bodies. To paraphrase Justice Kavanaugh in his NCAA vs Alston, college sports are the only ones where the people who do the work and that provide the entertainment value who are denied to be fairly compensated for their work.

Also Justice Kavanaugh "The NCAA is not above the law".

Also Justice Kavanaugh "The NCAA's entire sports model is illegal".

 

[Snapper58]

If I remeber correctly, didn't the NLRB do the same with Northwestern a few years ago and it was either struck down or nothing became of it?

Sorry, just looked it up and they ruled that they were not employees and couldn't unionize in 2015.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Roger Staubach, Pete Dawkins, David Robinson and Napoleon McCallum send their regards.

You just named 4. And one of those is wrong--Pete Dawkins never played pro football, I don't think.

But if you try really hard, you might come up with one or two more. Over a 60-year span.

There are roughly 4,000 cadets and 4,000 midshipmen. Together, 8,000 young men and women at the academies at any given time. Over a 60-year period, that's roughly 120,000 cadets and mids.

And you could think of 4 (really, 3). That's, what, a third of one one-hundredth of one percent? 0.00003.

I think you're making my point for me, friend.

 

[tango]

The NCAA really just speaks for the schools and the Board of Governors of the NCAA is almost entirely made up of various schools admins.

Yes, the syllabus spelled it out in several places, notably:

The NCAA maintains the courts below should have analyzed its compensation restrictions under an extremely deferential standard because it is a joint venture among members who must collaborate to offer consumers the unique product of intercollegiate athletic competition. Even assuming the NCAA is a joint venture, though, it is a joint venture with monopoly power in the relevant market.

If players are playing football for a school AND the scholarship isn't covering the "market value," but you refuse to pay them because you say the fans expect your product to be amateur (the NCAA argued that in court) and it's tradition that you not pay "market value" (the NCAA argued that also) then you're essentially saying: We know all the schools are not compensating the players fairly, but our business is built on not compensating them fairly.

It's not just that the NCAA wouldn't let players earn NIL but it's also that they flatly refuse to compensate players directly beyond the scholarship even though they KNOW the players are under compensated. I'm unsure if you've read Kavanaugh's opinion but it's pretty vicious toward the NCAA's arguments in the case.

I don't disagree. But it's important to note that players don't play for the NCAA, per se. The monopolistic power of the NCAA (and/or the 'business model' of the NCAA) is what, in effect, allowed schools to collude to limit compensation.

... but now that makes me wonder (without the aid of coffee this morning) about the whole 'what is work?' and 'are they employees?' question...
Presume for a minute that the NCAA stays put and the whole landscape just stays as is... If somebody wants to classify playing football as 'work' (which I disagree with), then with whom are they employed to do this work ---- the school or the NCAA?

... and now I'll be getting back to doing *real* work myself....

 

[woodpusher]

I think you miss the topic of this thread, which is not about whether the NCAA should exist. It is about the NLRB's ruling, what it means, and whether it was valid and will stand.

The NLRB ruled that the players at Dartmouth perform "work in exchange for compensation," and therefore are employees of the university and must be allowed to unionize if they wish.

The problem there is with the NLRB's definition of "work" (think work as in a job, not work as in effort, that's how the NLRB views it).

My position is, it's not a job. It's a sport. Something most college athletes would continue without any form of material compensation. A factory worker won't go to work without pay. An office worker, either. Nor a policeman. Nor a truck driver. Those are jobs. Those fit the NLRB's definition of "work." Sport doesn't fit, because the players usually/almost always play motivated in a variety of ways other than material compensation. The money/scholarships don't hurt, but that's not why they're doing it, as proven by the fact that they'd usually play anyway.

Go Vols!

It should be no problem finding scabs then.

 

[tango]

How you arbitrarily assess the degree of "work" vs. "fun" is not the standard so it doesn't matter. The gauge is whether the players would otherwise earn more money if the NCAA didn't exist and, the clear answer to that is, yes they would.

If Tennessee ripped out Neyland stadium and provided no seats or anything, and every college followed suit (including right down to the bball arenas and stands at swimming pools), and they decided not to charge any money for tickets for any sporting event ---- i.e., the schools made zero money on any sport ----

Would athletes still play football and basketball if these schools gave them free tuition/room/board/etc.?

 

[Snapper58]

If Tennessee ripped out Neyland stadium and provided no seats or anything, and every college followed suit (including right down to the bball arenas and stands at swimming pools), and they decided not to charge any money for tickets for any sporting event ---- i.e., the schools made zero money on any sport ----

Would athletes still play football and basketball if these schools gave them free tuition/room/board/etc.?

in most sports yes. In football you are not able to apply to the draft unilt three years after your High school graduation. In baseball and basketball you can go to the draft straight from High school. The ones not drafted would either have to play at a college or find a semi-pro team to play to develop for future draft possibilities. In football they would either have to play at a college or a semi-pro team for three years.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Not what I said. I think professional sports like the NFL are jobs. Because pro players would not go to work if the front office stopped paying them. It's a job. They work in exchange for compensation, to use the NLRB's phrase.

In contrast, the vast majority of college athletes would play their sports without any material gain. They do it all the time, at universities all around the world, including in the money sports of football and basketball.

Inherently a different animal than the pros. I hope you can see that.


Precisely. And using their own definition, college sports are demonstrably not a job, not "work in exchange for compensation." The NLRB over-reached.

Go Vols!

No, they didn't. Justice Kavanaugh blistered tte NCAA's entire sports model in the NCAA vs Alston decision. It doesn't matter if some athletes would play college sports without fair compensation. What matters is that it's illegal to make them be under compensated in return for their work.

The NCAA is going to lose on all fronts. NIL, transfers, and paying athletes' salaries and benefits. That may very well cause schools to drop some - or all - of their unprofitable sports.

Title IX would then come into play. Would I be willing to see UT drop most of the Olympic sports as varsity sports in return for keeping football, basketball, baseball/softball, and adding women's football? I absolutely would. Think of what having women's football home games when the men's team was away or on a bye week could be.

The other sports could become club sports like Georgia and FSU hockey are.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

in most sports yes. In football you are not able to apply to the draft unilt three years after your High school graduation. In baseball and basketball you can go to the draft straight from High school. The ones not drafted would either have to play at a college or find a semi-pro team to play to develop for future draft possibilities. In football they would either have to play at a college or a semi-pro team for three years.

That would make the UFL and CFL de facto NFL minor leagues, and deny .millions if dollars of revenue to colleges and universities. That's not going to happen.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

You just named 4. And one of those is wrong--Pete Dawkins never played pro football, I don't think.

But if you try really hard, you might come up with one or two more. Over a 60-year span.

There are roughly 4,000 cadets and 4,000 midshipmen. Together, 8,000 young men and women at the academies at any given time. Over a 60-year period, that's roughly 120,000 cadets and mids.

And you could think of 4 (really, 3). That's, what, a third of one one-hundredth of one percent? 0.00003.

I think you're making my point for me, friend.

No, I'm not. There are others. I named a few off the top of my head.

In addition, there are others that could have gone pro, but didn't because they chose to spend their careers in the military. Good for them!

However, you can't legitimately claim that no military college athletes go pro, then dismiss the ones that did. Your claim is a false dilemma.

 

[Dadof2Vols]

So you think that MLB, NHL, NFL, and other sports the NBA and other sports leagues are not "jobs". That's a non starter. Obviously those sports are employment. Their athletes are paid fair market compensation. College athletes are not.




It's not fair market value, especially given the NCAA's limits on the athletes not being able to accept a free cheeseburger. The NCAA and the schools have made billions of dollars in the athletes' backs for decades. It's past time for the athletes to be fairly compensated. The NLRB decision is the first step toward that.

I agree they should get NIL. Their pay is the things they get mentioned above.

Show me one athletic department than in any 10 year span has made a billion of profit? Bet you can’t. The athletic departments are non profit. They don’t put money into school budgets and most have to get money from school. Yes football makes money to support the school‘s other sports.

 

[secking]

If you move men’s football into a separate business not part of athletic program that licensing UT name for games then Title IX no longer uses football in the equation and a crap load of women lose Ability to play college athletics and get a scholarshi.

So sad.

Correct but both men and women are going to lose scholarships regardless. If football separates, there is no money coming in to support the other programs. Most men’s bball teams either break even or are in the red. The few that do make money, will no longer do so bc paying the players so still no money left over for other sports.

If football doesn’t seperate, more mens will have to be cut bc once they start cutting the women sports, then have to equal it out.

Other than football players/parents, this is a sad time for every other college sport and college sports fans,

 

[JohnWardForever]

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

OK then. Not pay for play? Then what is it? So these NIL donations from Fans & Alumni are not Related to the Schools? Instead of donations to UT, people are donating to the NIL? Seems compatible to me.

 

[secking]

So you think that MLB, NHL, NFL, and other sports the NBA and other sports leagues are not "jobs". That's a non starter. Obviously those sports are employment. Their athletes are paid fair market compensation. College athletes are not.




It's not fair market value, especially given the NCAA's limits on the athletes not being able to accept a free cheeseburger. The NCAA and the schools have made billions of dollars in the athletes' backs for decades. It's past time for the athletes to be fairly compensated. The NLRB decision is the first step toward that.

To be fair, they have always been compensated. Free education isn’t free, nor cheap. Ask any parent today. One of my former co-workers was an older gentleman, roommate of Bernard King. In King’s day, a college diploma meant you made 5x the average American who only graduated HS (on average). 5x for 40 years. Today, that number is still 2,5-3x over 40 years isn’t a bad ‘payday’. Plus you get to pick the job you want to do. Even pros careers are short lived (90%). They have to have a career.

Now, how much are they being compensated in school. Cash flow is avg 25k (above board) thru stipulations. Avg is 2k a month, that’s more than the avg social security check.

Let’s talk room/board/tuition. Then let’s talk free food, 3x a day. Then nutrition and nutritionist. “Free” tutors who now can make 75-100$ an hour. Free gym and free professional trainers. On avg, the college football player is 75k-125k a year worth of perks, education, etc. 125k avg on the SEC side.

So, avg it to 100k a year then an additional 60k-unlimited $ amount yearly for 40 years isn’t a bad gig. Not to mention, what’s the #1 thing in business? Networking. Being an athlete opens you up to millions of opportunities across the nation (or world) thru the University of Tennessee.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Yes, the syllabus spelled it out in several places, notably:






I don't disagree. But it's important to note that players don't play for the NCAA, per se. The monopolistic power of the NCAA (and/or the 'business model' of the NCAA) is what, in effect, allowed schools to collude to limit compensation.

... but now that makes me wonder (without the aid of coffee this morning) about the whole 'what is work?' and 'are they employees?' question...
Presume for a minute that the NCAA stays put and the whole landscape just stays as is... If somebody wants to classify playing football as 'work' (which I disagree with), then with whom are they employed to do this work ---- the school or the NCAA?

... and now I'll be getting back to doing *real* work myself....

The NCAA effectively pulls the strings in college athletics. The schools don't make the rules. They couldn't start using their school's NIL (officially, anyway) until the NCAA changed the rules. As an example, I think it was Manziel who got aTm in trouble selling merch pre-NIL. The portal, for example, was entirely an NCAA invention thrust upon the schools whether they wanted it or not.

While players might not directly "work" for the NCAA day to day, the NCAA sets the "terms of employment" for the industry and, in that as you highlighted, has a monopoly over the schools and players. In the past, with TV rights, the schools sued the NCAA because of that monopoly and won. Players are winning now.

My take on "players are employees" is that the Federal Courts will say yes or nay and that will be how it is until the Courts revisit the issue and possibly reverse themselves.

It doesn't matter who the actual employer is as long as the NCAA maintains the "terms of employment" they'll be the ones getting sued.

That's why I am not positive that a "new and improved we're not the NCAA" can be created which still uses the "student athlete" idea to maintain control if players are employees.

Being an employee paid to play sports and a student athlete in sports aren't REALLY compatible.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

To be fair, they have always been compensated. Free education isn’t free, nor cheap. Ask any parent today. One of my former co-workers was an older gentleman, roommate of Bernard King. In King’s day, a college diploma meant you made 5x the average American who only graduated HS (on average). 5x for 40 years. Today, that number is still 2,5-3x over 40 years isn’t a bad ‘payday’. Plus you get to pick the job you want to do. Even pros careers are short lived (90%). They have to have a career.

Now, how much are they being compensated in school. Cash flow is avg 25k (above board) thru stipulations. Avg is 2k a month, that’s more than the avg social security check.

Let’s talk room/board/tuition. Then let’s talk free food, 3x a day. Then nutrition and nutritionist. “Free” tutors who now can make 75-100$ an hour. Free gym and free professional trainers. On avg, the college football player is 75k-125k a year worth of perks, education, etc. 125k avg on the SEC side.

So, avg it to 100k a year then an additional 60k-unlimited $ amount yearly for 40 years isn’t a bad gig. Not to mention, what’s the #1 thing in business? Networking. Being an athlete opens you up to millions of opportunities across the nation (or world) thru the University of Tennessee.

To be fair, yes....... the scholarship is a great thing BUT we both know players have been slipped money, cars, etc for decades BEYOND that scholarship.

People keep saying "the scholarship is valuable" and it is but why is so hard to see the obvious truth that the players have had more value to the schools than just the scholarship?

It's obvious. Why were boosters arranged to pay them? Why were various situations arranged where cars, money, sex, etc were made available to players?

You can get off "the scholarship is valuable enough" train because it's not going anywhere.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

I agree they should get NIL. Their pay is the things they get mentioned above.

Show me one athletic department than in any 10 year span has made a billion of profit? Bet you can’t. The athletic departments are non profit. They don’t put money into school budgets and most have to get money from school. Yes football makes money to support the school‘s other sports.

That's a Strawman. I said nothing about a single school profiting billions. I said that the NCAA and the schools have done so.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

The NCAA effectively pulls the strings in college athletics. The schools don't make the rules. They couldn't start using their school's NIL (officially, anyway) until the NCAA changed the rules. As an example, I think it was Manziel who got aTm in trouble selling merch pre-NIL. The portal, for example, was entirely an NCAA invention thrust upon the schools whether they wanted it or not.

While players might not directly "work" for the NCAA day to day, the NCAA sets the "terms of employment" for the industry and, in that as you highlighted, has a monopoly over the schools and players. In the past, with TV rights, the schools sued the NCAA because of that monopoly and won. Players are winning now.

My take on "players are employees" is that the Federal Courts will say yes or nay and that will be how it is until the Courts revisit the issue and possibly reverse themselves.

It doesn't matter who the actual employer is as long as the NCAA maintains the "terms of employment" they'll be the ones getting sued.

That's why I am not positive that a "new and improved we're not the NCAA" can be created which still uses the "student athlete" idea to maintain control if players are employees.

Being an employee paid to play sports and a student athlete in sports aren't REALLY compatible.

The NCAA didn't change the rules. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the NCAA's prohibition on athletes profiting from their NIL was illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

To be fair, they have always been compensated. Free education isn’t free, nor cheap. Ask any parent today. One of my former co-workers was an older gentleman, roommate of Bernard King. In King’s day, a college diploma meant you made 5x the average American who only graduated HS (on average). 5x for 40 years. Today, that number is still 2,5-3x over 40 years isn’t a bad ‘payday’. Plus you get to pick the job you want to do. Even pros careers are short lived (90%). They have to have a career.

Now, how much are they being compensated in school. Cash flow is avg 25k (above board) thru stipulations. Avg is 2k a month, that’s more than the avg social security check.

Let’s talk room/board/tuition. Then let’s talk free food, 3x a day. Then nutrition and nutritionist. “Free” tutors who now can make 75-100$ an hour. Free gym and free professional trainers. On avg, the college football player is 75k-125k a year worth of perks, education, etc. 125k avg on the SEC side.

So, avg it to 100k a year then an additional 60k-unlimited $ amount yearly for 40 years isn’t a bad gig. Not to mention, what’s the #1 thing in business? Networking. Being an athlete opens you up to millions of opportunities across the nation (or world) thru the University of Tennessee.

Regardless, that's not fair market value, especially for football players.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

OK then. Not pay for play? Then what is it? So these NIL donations from Fans & Alumni are not Related to the Schools? Instead of donations to UT, people are donating to the NIL? Seems compatible to me.

Pay for play is when the school does it.
That's not happening - yet.

NIL is pay for endorsements.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The NCAA didn't change the rules. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the NCAA's prohibition on athletes profiting from their NIL was illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The NCAA DID change the rules BECAUSE the SCOTUS ruled on a different matter, educational benefits....... NOT NIL, in Alston.

The NCAA could see it coming and changed the NIL position.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

How you arbitrarily assess the degree of "work" vs. "fun" is not the standard so it doesn't matter. The gauge is whether the players would otherwise earn more money if the NCAA didn't exist and, the clear answer to that is, yes they would.

^^^^^ We have a winner. Succinct. ^^^^^^

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

If Tennessee ripped out Neyland stadium and provided no seats or anything, and every college followed suit (including right down to the bball arenas and stands at swimming pools), and they decided not to charge any money for tickets for any sporting event ---- i.e., the schools made zero money on any sport ----

Would athletes still play football and basketball if these schools gave them free tuition/room/board/etc.?

It's my feeling that because of the age/college restrictions of the pro leagues and the market for good football, the NFL and NBA would really put some effort and money into developmental ball, essentially minor league like baseball OR they'd establish new eligibility rules.

There's a market PRIMARILY for college ball because of "rah rah for the old school" currently but if the quality of sports is Southern Conference, don't expect $50M / yr / team to be the media deal because I'm not going to be glued to mediocre sports. The market isn't there for the lesser conferences because the quality isn't there.

If a league appears, pro or not, with major college level sports, the media will feel pressure to televise it and make ad money from it.

 

[secking]

To be fair, yes....... the scholarship is a great thing BUT we both know players have been slipped money, cars, etc for decades BEYOND that scholarship.

People keep saying "the scholarship is valuable" and it is but why is so hard to see the obvious truth that the players have had more value to the schools than just the scholarship?

It's obvious. Why were boosters arranged to pay them? Why were various situations arranged where cars, money, sex, etc were made available to players?

You can get off "the scholarship is valuable enough" train because it's not going anywhere.

I can introduce you to 100+ former athletes who will disagree with you. Not being able to afford college and they are doing well right now because of ‘that train’. They knew it was a great deal. It still is a great deal. Unfortunately, now that deal will be cut from hundreds of future Volunteers bc of greed from a few.

 

[secking]

Regardless, that's not fair market value, especially for football players.

It’s not fair market according to who? Fair market is set by your competitors. If a certain player does not like the deal, he is free to pass it up, and thousands would love to have that deal.

247 just put out a piece where 4/5 stars were asked what their NIL deal is worth. For the top talent, 200k was around the norm. On the players side of this, my fear is the 1099 that is in the mail bc some of these collectives did not educate these young men that the tax man cometh.

Also, as to the NLRB, this actually doesn’t mean much. They ruled the same in 2014 only to resend that ruling. Also, since majority are going to public school, that would make them state mandated employees so NLRB wouldn’t have a say anyway.