College Athletes To Be Employees and Unionized?

[WhiteTrash]

This seems inevitable. I know fans and schools would like to have their cake and eat it to, but these are professional athletes that will be granted union status and collective bargaining rights. What do unions do besides negotiate on behalf of their members? Oh yeah, strike.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/38401080/dartmouth-basketball-players-file-petition-seeking-unionize

[Uncle Rico]

This seems inevitable. I know fans and schools would like to have their cake and eat it to, but these are professional athletes that will be granted union status and collective bargaining rights. What do unions do besides negotiate on behalf of their members? Oh yeah, strike.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/38401080/dartmouth-basketball-players-file-petition-seeking-unionize

And?

[WhiteTrash]

And?

Most strikes include employees not working/playing in games. Just what I've heard.

[Uncle Rico]

Most strikes include employees not working/playing in games. Just what I've heard.

So?

[WhiteTrash]

So?

I enjoy college basketball and really enjoy MU basketball.

If this was about women's professional soccer, I'd feel the same way you do. Don't care if they strike. Not my passion.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think the current system works too well for everyone involved for this to ever get significant traction. I don't see any way that the pros of being an employee even come close to the cons for 99% of student athletes

[Not A Serious Person]

This seems inevitable. I know fans and schools would like to have their cake and eat it to, but these are professional athletes that will be granted union status and collective bargaining rights. What do unions do besides negotiate on behalf of their members? Oh yeah, strike.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/38401080/dartmouth-basketball-players-file-petition-seeking-unionize

Been there, done that. It cannot be done. From the story ...

Northwestern University's football team made a bid to form the first union for college athletes in 2014.

It was a move that was met with almost immediate opposition by college conferences and schools that argued it would fundamentally alter a system in which hundreds of millions of dollars are distributed annually to conferences and schools.

The move ultimately ended in August 2015 with the NLRB board ruling unanimously that creating a new system of union and nonunion college teams would lead to different standards from school to school. It said a system with varied money for players and things like practice time would create competitive imbalance.

[Hards Alumni]

Been there, done that. It cannot be done. From the story ...

Northwestern University's football team made a bid to form the first union for college athletes in 2014.

It was a move that was met with almost immediate opposition by college conferences and schools that argued it would fundamentally alter a system in which hundreds of millions of dollars are distributed annually to conferences and schools.

The move ultimately ended in August 2015 with the NLRB board ruling unanimously that creating a new system of union and nonunion college teams would lead to different standards from school to school. It said a system with varied money for players and things like practice time would create competitive imbalance.

Hey look guys, someone who doesn't understand what withholding labor can do!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Hey look guys, someone who doesn't understand what withholding labor can do!

Not to be a dick, but if a non revenue sport ( or even a revenue sport at a low major) withholds labor,  what does it do?

[Skatastrophy]

Not to be a dick, but if a non revenue sport ( or even a revenue sport at a low major) withholds labor,  what does it do?

I think we should find out. These kids deserve all the money, not the schools.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I think we should find out. These kids deserve all the money, not the schools.

Look, I'm definitely pro NIL and think the players should be paid something directly from the schools.

But no....they don't deserve "all the money." The fact is that if the current Marquette basketball team was a G-League team instead, they would get nowhere near the eyeballs they are getting now. Colleges and universities bring value to the sport - their brand, their alumni base, etc.

[Hards Alumni]

Not to be a dick, but if a non revenue sport ( or even a revenue sport at a low major) withholds labor,  what does it do?

Football is a non revenue sport at Northwestern?

Either way, I'll answer the question.  It ruins the competition.  Schools have traveled to the location to play the game and both have paid a decent amount to do this.  If the players decide to not play what can the school do?  Force them?  Suspend their scholarships?  Expel the students?

None would play out well in the public eye.

[Uncle Rico]

Let it burn

[lawdog77]

I think the current system works too well for everyone involved for this to ever get significant traction. I don't see any way that the pros of being an employee even come close to the cons for 99% of student athletes

Yeah, especially since the NLRB does not want to touch public entities. These Student Athleltes are only in school 5 years max. Unions aren't really set up to help jobs that have such a schort length. Will there be a separate union for football players versus volleyball? Will there be a P5 union verson all divisions. Will each school have their own union? What percentage of the union has to vote to strike?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Either way, I'll answer the question.  It ruins the competition.  Schools have traveled to the location to play the game and both have paid a decent amount to do this.  If the players decide to not play what can the school do?  Force them?  Suspend their scholarships?  Expel the students?

None would play out well in the public eye.

I didn't say football is a non-revenue sport. I was pointing out that the vast majority of student athletes are in non-revenue sports and at low majors (and the second largest group is mid-majors). If college athletes are going to become employees, that is the population that has to benefit.

Either way, I'll answer the question.  It ruins the competition.  Schools have traveled to the location to play the game and both have paid a decent amount to do this.  If the players decide to not play what can the school do?  Force them?  Suspend their scholarships?  Expel the students?

None would play out well in the public eye.

1. In this scenario, the players are keeping their strike a secret until they are already at an away game? I mean, maybe as an opening to a strike but you can only use that bullet once. Schools would simply not travel and forfeit the match if the players were refusing to play.

2. They wouldn't need to force them, suspend their scholarships, or expel them. They could just let them not play. Vast majority of student athletes are there not because they bring any significant value to the school. They are there because the NCAA requires schools to offer a minimum number of sports, TIX requires that schools offer an equitable number of athletic opportunities for men and women, and because they recruit a few at least partial tuition paying students who wouldn't have enrolled otherwise. Whether the players play is irrelevant to fulfilling those purposes.

3. None would play out well? Well again, they wouldn't have to do anything. But are donors going to stop donating because a non-revenue sport is striking? Are prospective students going to go elsewhere? No, they won't, at least not in numbers anywhere approaching significant. Reality is that the vast majority of athletics is an extra benefit that the schools provide for student athletes. If the student athletes don't want to take advantage of that extra benefit, the only ones they hurt are themselves.

[forgetful]

Been there, done that. It cannot be done. From the story ...

Northwestern University's football team made a bid to form the first union for college athletes in 2014.

It was a move that was met with almost immediate opposition by college conferences and schools that argued it would fundamentally alter a system in which hundreds of millions of dollars are distributed annually to conferences and schools.

The move ultimately ended in August 2015 with the NLRB board ruling unanimously that creating a new system of union and nonunion college teams would lead to different standards from school to school. It said a system with varied money for players and things like practice time would create competitive imbalance.

All that was before NIL, which has created many of the different standards from school to school already.

[Hards Alumni]

I didn't say football is a non-revenue sport. I was pointing out that the vast majority of student athletes are in non-revenue sports and at low majors (and the second largest group is mid-majors). If college athletes are going to become employees, that is the population that has to benefit.

1. In this scenario, the players are keeping their strike a secret until they are already at an away game? I mean, maybe as an opening to a strike but you can only use that bullet once. Schools would simply not travel and forfeit the match if the players were refusing to play.

2. They wouldn't need to force them, suspend their scholarships, or expel them. They could just let them not play. Vast majority of student athletes are there not because they bring any significant value to the school. They are there because the NCAA requires schools to offer a minimum number of sports, TIX requires that schools offer an equitable number of athletic opportunities for men and women, and because they recruit a few at least partial tuition paying students who wouldn't have enrolled otherwise. Whether the players play is irrelevant to fulfilling those purposes.

3. None would play out well? Well again, they wouldn't have to do anything. But are donors going to stop donating because a non-revenue sport is striking? Are prospective students going to go elsewhere? No, they won't, at least not in numbers anywhere approaching significant. Reality is that the vast majority of athletics is an extra benefit that the schools provide for student athletes. If the student athletes don't want to take advantage of that extra benefit, the only ones they hurt are themselves.

You didn't suggest football was a non revenue sport, but my original comment was directed at Heisey who mentioned football.  Which of course would have an impact whereas non-revenue sports would have little or no impact.  We obviously agree.

I was only playing along with your hypothetical.

1. Yes.  Likely the students would make demands and if they're not met they refuse to play on game day.  The aim being to cause the most disruption possible and garner the most attention.

2. I don't disagree.

3.  Maybe.  There is still significant financials expended to facilitate the non-revenue sports.  Setting up travel, etc for these is still a tangible waste that administrators would want to fix.

Again, we are just discussing an unrealistic hypothetical/

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think we should find out. These kids deserve all the money, not the schools.

1. No they don't. There is no sports league on the planet where the athletes make anything approaching "all the money"

2. 99% of the "kids" are already overcompensated for the value that they bring to the school (which is next to nothing)

3. The 1% that are undercompensated (some of the high major football and men's basketball players and maybe a few others from other sports) are now for the most part being supplemented by NIL, in most case to the point that they are now overcompensated.


I am very pro-NIL and very pro-college athlete. At the highest levels of football and men's basketball, there is a symbiotic relationship between the players and the schools. The players and the schools both need each other and both deserve to be fairly compensated. Once you get beyond that tiny population (relative to the size of the entire population of student athletes), the players need the schools a lot more than the schools need them. Those trying to champion student-athletes as employees are actually championing the loss of hundreds of thousands of athletic opportunities. Life MIGHT get better for top 1% of college athletes if they become employees, it will get unquestionably worse for the bottom 99%.

[Herman Cain]

1. No they don't. There is no sports league on the planet where the athletes make anything approaching "all the money"

2. 99% of the "kids" are already overcompensated for the value that they bring to the school (which is next to nothing)

3. The 1% that are undercompensated (some of the high major football and men's basketball players and maybe a few others from other sports) are now for the most part being supplemented by NIL, in most case to the point that they are now overcompensated.


I am very pro-NIL and very pro-college athlete. At the highest levels of football and men's basketball, there is a symbiotic relationship between the players and the schools. The players and the schools both need each other and both deserve to be fairly compensated. Once you get beyond that tiny population (relative to the size of the entire population of student athletes), the players need the schools a lot more than the schools need them. Those trying to champion student-athletes as employees are actually championing the loss of hundreds of thousands of athletic opportunities. Life MIGHT get better for top 1% of college athletes if they become employees, it will get unquestionably worse for the bottom 99%.

I agree with this analysis

[WhiteTrash]

1. No they don't. There is no sports league on the planet where the athletes make anything approaching "all the money"

2. 99% of the "kids" are already overcompensated for the value that they bring to the school (which is next to nothing)

3. The 1% that are undercompensated (some of the high major football and men's basketball players and maybe a few others from other sports) are now for the most part being supplemented by NIL, in most case to the point that they are now overcompensated.


I am very pro-NIL and very pro-college athlete. At the highest levels of football and men's basketball, there is a symbiotic relationship between the players and the schools. The players and the schools both need each other and both deserve to be fairly compensated. Once you get beyond that tiny population (relative to the size of the entire population of student athletes), the players need the schools a lot more than the schools need them. Those trying to champion student-athletes as employees are actually championing the loss of hundreds of thousands of athletic opportunities. Life MIGHT get better for top 1% of college athletes if they become employees, it will get unquestionably worse for the bottom 99%.

I agree also with this.

99% of fans of college sports are buying tickets and watching games because of the school, not the players. Here in Colorado, CU sold out their season tickets and almost everyone who purchased tickets could not name one player. Most of the "stars" were not even CU students when they bought tickets, so it safe to say the players are not driving the revenue.

[Jockey]

TAMU, you are one of the few guys here (very few), that actually makes me feel smarter or more informed for reading your posts.

Whether that is enough to offset Roqqet and Ziggy is up for debate. 

[lawdog77]

1. No they don't. There is no sports league on the planet where the athletes make anything approaching "all the money"

2. 99% of the "kids" are already overcompensated for the value that they bring to the school (which is next to nothing)

3. The 1% that are undercompensated (some of the high major football and men's basketball players and maybe a few others from other sports) are now for the most part being supplemented by NIL, in most case to the point that they are now overcompensated.


I am very pro-NIL and very pro-college athlete. At the highest levels of football and men's basketball, there is a symbiotic relationship between the players and the schools. The players and the schools both need each other and both deserve to be fairly compensated. Once you get beyond that tiny population (relative to the size of the entire population of student athletes), the players need the schools a lot more than the schools need them. Those trying to champion student-athletes as employees are actually championing the loss of hundreds of thousands of athletic opportunities. Life MIGHT get better for top 1% of college athletes if they become employees, it will get unquestionably worse for the bottom 99%.

Don't mind me plagiarizing this answer for future use.

[Boozemon Barro]

Non-revenue sports should be club sports and play in regional conferences to cut down on expenses. Men's football and basketball probably at the P5/P6 level should make the players employees, and I'm guessing those players would unionize like all the other pro leagues. None of that will actually happen though.

[#UnleashSean]

I think we should find out. These kids deserve all the money, not the schools.

So now we're asking universities to build stadiums, recruit, broadcast, pay for travel, board, pay players, feed players, pay coaches....

And they should receive nothing?

[Boozemon Barro]

So now we're asking universities to build stadiums, recruit, broadcast, pay for travel, board, pay players, feed players, pay coaches....

And they should receive nothing?

They should pay market rates for their players.