EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 26, 2014 18:35:20 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 26, 2014 19:05:38 GMT -5
If you thought Title IX was an issue for college sports, how about pay equality between a D 1 quarterback and a field hockey player?
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 26, 2014 19:06:27 GMT -5
It seems like an overall disaster for all college athletic programs, outside maybe a handful that would realistically be able to support every single student athlete. Because it's not just the Football and basketball players that will have to be paid if it comes to that, it's going to be every single athlete on every team, male or female.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Mar 26, 2014 19:11:28 GMT -5
It will be the end of college football and basketball as they have existed for decades. It will be a much bigger problem for football.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,432
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Mar 26, 2014 19:28:52 GMT -5
Golden goose and pandora's box are terms that come to mind. Maybe all sports will have to follow the Div III model.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Mar 26, 2014 19:44:43 GMT -5
Golden goose and pandora's box are terms that come to mind. Maybe all sports will have to follow the Div III model. What is the Div III model?
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,326
|
Post by vv83 on Mar 26, 2014 20:44:40 GMT -5
The harsh reality is that it probably makes no sense for students to receive academic scholarships for their athletic performance. Does any other country in the world have athletic scholarships for their institutions of higher education? If the Northwestern decision plays out to the most union-friendly conclusion, there may be a chance that athletic scholarships would be eliminated completely in all sports at all private institutions. I have not read anything yet about what this kind of lawsuit might mean for a public institution. I would guess that labor law applies quite differently to public schools.
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Mar 26, 2014 20:56:32 GMT -5
I actually think this decision if upheld will have a dramatic effect on university programs with large numbers of players and that are financially lucrative. Moreover sports where there is a significant risk of career ending injury or even permanently disabling injury will likely also be dramatically affected by this law. I would foresee the most major effect on football with minor effects on sports who's teams have a small number of players such as basketball. At non competitive non money programs, I see very little effects other than relegating players who are not reasonable to losing school sanctioned sports and being faced with playing a club sport.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,432
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Mar 26, 2014 23:33:57 GMT -5
Golden goose and pandora's box are terms that come to mind. Maybe all sports will have to follow the Div III model. What is the Div III model? Div III does not give out athletic scholarships.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,603
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Mar 27, 2014 6:30:41 GMT -5
If you thought Title IX was an issue for college sports, how about pay equality between a D 1 quarterback and a field hockey player? IANAL but my immediate sense is that full implementation of an "athlete as employee" model invalidates Title IX. Title IX does not apply to employees - there is no requirement than men's and women's coaches get paid the same, or that Ted Leonsis pay Wizards and Mystics players the same. The harsh reality is that it probably makes no sense for students to receive academic scholarships for their athletic performance. Does any other country in the world have athletic scholarships for their institutions of higher education? If the Northwestern decision plays out to the most union-friendly conclusion, there may be a chance that athletic scholarships would be eliminated completely in all sports at all private institutions. I have not read anything yet about what this kind of lawsuit might mean for a public institution. I would guess that labor law applies quite differently to public schools. Systems are quite different the world over. While not tied to higher ed as we conceive it, many European countries do have sports gymansia where talented young athletes attend for free and devote all their time to training and studying about the sport, exercise science, kinesiology, coaching, etc. Something akin to the United States Sports Academy (which I bet no one here knew existed haha), only it frequently admits students much younger than 18. What is the Div III model? Div III does not give out athletic scholarships. I'm not sure how scholarships are relevant to the issue at hand. That's part of what makes this such a Pandora's Box. If we hold that college athletes are university employees, then it does not matter whether the university has been giving out scholarships in the past to some, all, or none of them. You have to pay your employees, period. D-I, D-III, NAIA, JUCO, whatever. Only a completely self-organized club sport would be excluded from this logic, it would appear. One could also then ask whether this logic applies to cheerleaders and the pep band, high school and middle school athletes, etc. etc. Personally, I don't predict too much in the way of dramatic changes, just because there is far too much money tied up in the status quo. I also do not see any way to create a workable compensation system that would be agreed to by a preponderance of athletes. Most college athletes' free market value is, effectively, negative. The vast majority of men's teams, and all women's teams except for UConn basketball, lose money. Even within a team you have giant disparities: DSR could be worth a lot, while David Allen could be replaced by one of the practice players and no one would notice. How you create a unionized compensation structure under that kind of a dynamic is beyond me.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 27, 2014 6:51:32 GMT -5
Whether Title IX continues in the face of this ruling, how will a University be able to pay a male QB one sum and not have to pay the field hockey player the same?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 27, 2014 7:10:26 GMT -5
If you thought Title IX was an issue for college sports, how about pay equality between a D 1 quarterback and a field hockey player? IANAL but my immediate sense is that full implementation of an "athlete as employee" model invalidates Title IX. Title IX does not apply to employees - there is no requirement than men's and women's coaches get paid the same, or that Ted Leonsis pay Wizards and Mystics players the same. The harsh reality is that it probably makes no sense for students to receive academic scholarships for their athletic performance. Does any other country in the world have athletic scholarships for their institutions of higher education? If the Northwestern decision plays out to the most union-friendly conclusion, there may be a chance that athletic scholarships would be eliminated completely in all sports at all private institutions. I have not read anything yet about what this kind of lawsuit might mean for a public institution. I would guess that labor law applies quite differently to public schools. Systems are quite different the world over. While not tied to higher ed as we conceive it, many European countries do have sports gymansia where talented young athletes attend for free and devote all their time to training and studying about the sport, exercise science, kinesiology, coaching, etc. Something akin to the United States Sports Academy (which I bet no one here knew existed haha), only it frequently admits students much younger than 18. Div III does not give out athletic scholarships. I'm not sure how scholarships are relevant to the issue at hand. That's part of what makes this such a Pandora's Box. If we hold that college athletes are university employees, then it does not matter whether the university has been giving out scholarships in the past to some, all, or none of them. You have to pay your employees, period. D-I, D-III, NAIA, JUCO, whatever. Only a completely self-organized club sport would be excluded from this logic, it would appear. One could also then ask whether this logic applies to cheerleaders and the pep band, high school and middle school athletes, etc. etc. Personally, I don't predict too much in the way of dramatic changes, just because there is far too much money tied up in the status quo. I also do not see any way to create a workable compensation system that would be agreed to by a preponderance of athletes. Most college athletes' free market value is, effectively, negative. The vast majority of men's teams, and all women's teams except for UConn basketball, lose money. Even within a team you have giant disparities: DSR could be worth a lot, while David Allen could be replaced by one of the practice players and no one would notice. How you create a unionized compensation structure under that kind of a dynamic is beyond me. Title IX absolutely would remain relevant: it requires equal access by gender to opportunities at educational institutions that receive federal funds (which is all of them). So, by its terms, it doesn't apply to professional sports. But there is no reason it wouldn't apply just because schools are deemed employers and students employees. If only football (or them and men's basketball) players are unionized and end up getting paid somehow, you can be sure there'd be a Title IX challenge and the courts would have to resolve a conflict among statutory regimes. This decision does nothing to affect a school's Title IX obligations. Now how would a court rule? Who knows! You can be sure the schools (and the football union, which would be aligned with the schools on this issue) would forcefully argue that any benefits they've obtained through collective bargaining should be exempt from Title IX review. Scholarships are completely and inextricably relevant to the issue at hand. The NLRB decision determines that student-athletes are employees because the university compensates them (through a scholarship) and because the univesity exerts control over them (partially through the risk of losing a scholarship). Indeed, the decision exempts from the union any walk-ons, for just that reason. So, DIII universities (or pep bands or club teams, or probably sports at Georgetown and other schools that don't have scholarships like sailing or crew or what have you) would not be affected and would not be permitted by this decision to unionize. That sets up potentially huge variances among students, but of course, there are such variances now anyway. As for public schools, the NLRB has no authority over state institutions (like state universities) and many (a majority?) of states do not permit their public employees to unionize. So, at the University of Texas for example, the players would be barred by state law from having a union, no matter the outcome of the NLRB case. That obviously complicates things, but maybe not as much as we'd think. Because if private schools end up providing more in "compensation" to their players, you can bet that public schools will match whatever is offered. The free market at work. All that said, you're absolutely right that predicting what will actually happen is darned near impossible. To the extent it is a true "labor market," it is an incredibly complicated one (each sport has different scholarship rules; each school deals with scholarships for many sports in differing ways; the true economic value of a scholarship at one school is different from that at another; and many more). Also, as you note, there are conflicts among athletes in any sport (although the same is true in many labor markets). In short, just as with any union, this one would face a long road in convincing its potential members to join, a long road in determining what the collective interest is, and then another long road in taking collective action to force change. Those are problems for any union just starting-up and they always make advances in fits and starts. One thing working in their favor, though, is that schools would not want to be seen as bargaining hard with their own students; unlike with the pros, sentiment for now is clearly on the side of the students. This may be overturned on appeal and be moot, but it is a very dynamic situation -- particularly when combined with the other systemic changes potentially facing the NCAA due to pressure from schools and other law suits.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,352
|
Post by calhoya on Mar 27, 2014 7:22:21 GMT -5
All this was brought on by the arrogance and lack of vision of the NCAA and the University Presidents. Greed has been destroying college athletics for the past decade as football schools chase dollars thrown at them by networks. It was only a matter of time before the players wanted in on the feeding frenzy. This will eventually shake out with some significant but less than earth-shattering consequences. For a few future professional atheletes it may be signficant, but for most college atheletes it will mean some more money and perhaps more security in terms of rights and protections against the loss of scholarships and the impacts of long term injuries. It could mean changes to rules on transfers and eligibility.
No one enjoys college sports more than I, and the thought of walkouts or "strikes" by college teams is disturbing, but it is time for change. It is time for kids to gain at least some of the same consideration as the coaches and universities who can walk away from a contract or a scholarship at the end of any school year. This notion that these athletes are rewarded with free education is a great sound bite, but it is so far removed from reality. While your non-revenue sports may be comprised of kids seeking an education first and sports is merely a vehicle to get there, there are many kids playing football, basketball and even soccer who are placing education as a distant second or third in the list of priorities. These goals--however unrealistic-- are encouraged by coaching staffs and athletic programs throughout the country with little regard to the kid's real prospects for a professional career.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 27, 2014 7:22:21 GMT -5
Whether Title IX continues in the face of this ruling, how will a University be able to pay a male QB one sum and not have to pay the field hockey player the same? It's all about Title IX. If you start with the premise, as this ruling does, that an athletic scholarship is "pay," then plenty of schools (Georgetown included) already pay some athletes one sum and other athletes nothing. That's not gender specific: we "pay" Jabril Trawick a heck of a lot more than we pay the University's second baseman (or its field hockey players, swimmers, etc.). So, schools do that all the time with no repercussions and this doesn't necessarily change that. But Title IX requires that the overall opportunities (with scholarships included as part of the analysis) be even by gender. So if a group of men all of a sudden are getting more "opportunity," Title IX would require that the same opportunity be given to women. I'll raise another issue and unintended consequence. If athletes are employees because scholarships are deemed compensation for work, then it would not be difficult for the IRS to conclude that the value of the scholarship is taxable income. They wouldn't have to, but they certainly could and it would be perfectly reasonable to do. Needless to say there are huge ramifications to that. If a student-athlete without two dimes to rub together is adjudged to have $50,000 in income and, thus, owes the IRS $10K+ per year, how would he pay it? Schools would have to provide money directly to athletes just to pay their tax bill.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Mar 27, 2014 8:50:57 GMT -5
I don't know why it would benefit a college football player to unionize with every other athletic team at a school.
But if it ends up killing college football, then I'm all for it.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,603
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Mar 27, 2014 9:02:13 GMT -5
Title IX absolutely would remain relevant: it requires equal access by gender to opportunities at educational institutions that receive federal funds (which is all of them). So, by its terms, it doesn't apply to professional sports. Yea, sorry, the Wizards/Mystics example was lumping in Lily Ledbetter and other stipulations against gender discrimination in compensation. Anyway, I think you do a good job addressing the conflict between Title IX as it has been applied and the idea of a unionized student athlete 'workforce.' Title IX doesn't require equal compensation for coaches and other University employees strictly according to gender, so that is absolutely an argument that could be made that Title IX no longer applies to a unionized athlete cohort, as you said. But there is no reason it wouldn't apply just because schools are deemed employers and students employees. If only football (or them and men's basketball) players are unionized and end up getting paid somehow, you can be sure there'd be a Title IX challenge and the courts would have to resolve a conflict among statutory regimes. This decision does nothing to affect a school's Title IX obligations. Now how would a court rule? Who knows! You can be sure the schools (and the football union, which would be aligned with the schools on this issue) would forcefully argue that any benefits they've obtained through collective bargaining should be exempt from Title IX review. Scholarships are completely and inextricably relevant to the issue at hand. The NLRB decision determines that student-athletes are employees because the university compensates them (through a scholarship) and because the univesity exerts control over them (partially through the risk of losing a scholarship). Indeed, the decision exempts from the union any walk-ons, for just that reason. So, DIII universities (or pep bands or club teams, or probably sports at Georgetown and other schools that don't have scholarships like sailing or crew or what have you) would not be affected and would not be permitted by this decision to unionize. That sets up potentially huge variances among students, but of course, there are such variances now anyway. I haven't read through the ruling and won't be able to until the weekend, but if the criteria are "compensation" and "control by threat of taking away a scholarship," then wouldn't that logic lead to any student receiving a scholarship from the university being considered an employee? Or a merit-based scholarship, anyway? As for public schools, the NLRB has no authority over state institutions (like state universities) and many (a majority?) of states do not permit their public employees to unionize. So, at the University of Texas for example, the players would be barred by state law from having a union, no matter the outcome of the NLRB case. That obviously complicates things, but maybe not as much as we'd think. Because if private schools end up providing more in "compensation" to their players, you can bet that public schools will match whatever is offered. The free market at work. Insofar as federal law trumps state, if non-compensated players successfully argue that paying the revenue sports players violates Title IX, then wouldn't state universities have to provide equal compensation to the non-revenue athletes as well, if they did start paying players to compete with private schools? They wouldn't have to actually belong to a union. All that said, you're absolutely right that predicting what will actually happen is darned near impossible. To the extent it is a true "labor market," it is an incredibly complicated one (each sport has different scholarship rules; each school deals with scholarships for many sports in differing ways; the true economic value of a scholarship at one school is different from that at another; and many more). Also, as you note, there are conflicts among athletes in any sport (although the same is true in many labor markets). In short, just as with any union, this one would face a long road in convincing its potential members to join, a long road in determining what the collective interest is, and then another long road in taking collective action to force change. Those are problems for any union just starting-up and they always make advances in fits and starts. One thing working in their favor, though, is that schools would not want to be seen as bargaining hard with their own students; unlike with the pros, sentiment for now is clearly on the side of the students. This may be overturned on appeal and be moot, but it is a very dynamic situation -- particularly when combined with the other systemic changes potentially facing the NCAA due to pressure from schools and other law suits. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 27, 2014 9:16:15 GMT -5
Scholarships are completely and inextricably relevant to the issue at hand. The NLRB decision determines that student-athletes are employees because the university compensates them (through a scholarship) and because the univesity exerts control over them (partially through the risk of losing a scholarship). Indeed, the decision exempts from the union any walk-ons, for just that reason. So, DIII universities (or pep bands or club teams, or probably sports at Georgetown and other schools that don't have scholarships like sailing or crew or what have you) would not be affected and would not be permitted by this decision to unionize. That sets up potentially huge variances among students, but of course, there are such variances now anyway. I haven't read through the ruling and won't be able to until the weekend, but if the criteria are "compensation" and "control by threat of taking away a scholarship," then wouldn't that logic lead to any student receiving a scholarship from the university being considered an employee? Or a merit-based scholarship, anyway? It's a good question; I was simplifying a bit. The decision makes much of the amount of time kids spend on their sports and equates it to the amount of time a normal person spends on his or her job. In a horrible bit of PR for the NCAA, the opinion expressly says that football players are not primarily students because they spend more time on athletics than they do on academics (and they are bing paid for the former and not the latter). In so doing, the opinion expressly distinguished football players from graduate students (who receive stipends from many schools in exchange for doing a lot of work). The opinion's reasoning is that graduate students are still doing thigs primarily related to being students. That may be questionable -- there's an argument that to the extent athletics is part of the academic mission of a university (as schools claim), then the fact that more time is spent on it than on "pure" academics should be irrelevant. But it's not a crazy conclusion. In any event, though, there is no argument that merit-based scholarships create employees (at least based on this opinion). As for public schools, the NLRB has no authority over state institutions (like state universities) and many (a majority?) of states do not permit their public employees to unionize. So, at the University of Texas for example, the players would be barred by state law from having a union, no matter the outcome of the NLRB case. That obviously complicates things, but maybe not as much as we'd think. Because if private schools end up providing more in "compensation" to their players, you can bet that public schools will match whatever is offered. The free market at work. Insofar as federal law trumps state, if non-compensated players successfully argue that paying the revenue sports players violates Title IX, then wouldn't state universities have to provide equal compensation to the non-revenue athletes as well, if they did start paying players to compete with private schools? They wouldn't have to actually belong to a union.[/quote] Yes. That's exactly what a Title IX lawsuit would look like.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Mar 27, 2014 9:26:42 GMT -5
Why on earth do people presume that a revenue losing sport will take the profits from the revenue generating sports and split it equally? That's actually the NCAA's CURRENT model. The whole damn point of ending the student athlete charade at BIG time fb and bball schools is to de-couple the current form of socialism and replace it with a far more American eat what you kill system. It astounds me that free market conservatives could be against this. It just means they are being reactionary and haven't thought about it at all. This moronic sports talk argument..."Are you going to pay the jv field hockey players too? " NO!!!!!!!!!!! Why the hell would you? The fact that they are NOT MAKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in TV and ticket revenue isn't exactly a subtle difference in a debate about fair compensation. I am sure Gtown might suffer WHEN (Not if) the NCAA cartel crumbles, but first things first. What's right is right. And the NCAA needs to be smashed into smithereens. We need to stop pretending that the University of Alabama isn't a college with a pro football team attached to it. Players who can command a salary should get one. If they want to attend classes for free as a benefit or working for the university that should be their choice but not tied at all to their professional career. Just like a pro musician or actor or web designer who attends some classes still has a right to earn and learn. There could be no more pro-academia argument than this: no more basket weaving. No more tutors. No more pass/fail art history. Schools can become schools again and pro sports teams can remain as they are but stop lying to us about it. Tell me again....What is Nick Saban earning to coach that "amateur" team again? Enough to cover 5 classes a semester at a state school? A bit more? By the way REAL student athletes will continue to exist. They will use their option to learn and be able to complete degrees when and if an NFL or NBA opportunity comes to an end. This will be a free market benefit. And those who do will be the real deal, not the fake student-athlete of SEC football and ACC bball that we talk about today. And oh by the way, 98% of current NCAA teams will not be affected by this AT ALL.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Mar 27, 2014 9:44:15 GMT -5
Golden goose and pandora's box are terms that come to mind. Maybe all sports will have to follow the Div III model. You mean the real student athletes playing actual amateur sports? We can't have that. That's just the lie we tell ourselves about the football and bball minor leagues like the SEC, ACC, Big10, etc.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Mar 27, 2014 9:55:49 GMT -5
I think the scholarship question is a critical byproduct that has not been discussed in detail, but must have been considered by the union that approached the Northwestern players. If the players are employees, then I believe the value of their scholarships would absolutely be considered income by the IRS and State tax agencies, and therefore taxable. How is a third-string offensive guard at Stanford going to pay the income taxes on $60,000 of income a year? Even if one result of all this is some financial stipend for players at D-1 football and bball schools, could it be enough to cover that type of burden? And if, as some have suggested, this should be the impetus for doing away with the "farce" of the scholar-athlete, how many schools would be willing to have a "professional" football or basketball team associated with the school? How do public schools justify it? How do educational institutions like Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt - Georgetown - juxtapose football and/or basketball with their academic reputations? Are they essentially forced to downsize their programs to what amounts to a D-II or D-III level?
|
|