NLRB roles Dartmouth players are ‘employees’
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
Can employees be forced to be students also?
ETA: Or maybe you'll say, they have to be students in order to play athletics, but once they play athletics they are employees. So you can be a student or you can be a student-athlete-employee, but you can't be just a student-athlete.
ETA: Or maybe you'll say, they have to be students in order to play athletics, but once they play athletics they are employees. So you can be a student or you can be a student-athlete-employee, but you can't be just a student-athlete.
Dartmouth isn't the type of program where the players should be going down this path. Small school programs should just eliminate their sports programs if this ends up becoming law of the land.
I've never thought paying players was a good idea at all. They already get so much more than a full scholarship student gets. Im not familiar with Penn St. But at Auburn, the top academic scholarship is a Presidential Scholarship, which is full tuition covered. No room and board, meals- none of that. Athletes have always been compensated with free room and board, free GOURMET food, free tutoring, no utility bills, free class material, free world class healthcare, state of the art facilities to help prepare them for the next level on top of free tuition.
It's kind of been my position for years, that they should be given an option of getting paid, not even being a student at all, and paying all their own living expenses. If they want a degree, let them pay for it. OR, being a student athlete where the benefits of normal full scholarship apply.
These court rulings stating they are employees may leave room for this kind of option. The other thing is, will Title 9. Will universities have to offer women's programs that lose the university millions of dollars OR other men's sports that lose $$??
I agree. Compensate them but in whatever form they want, be that as full time students are part time students or not students at all.
And I thought the exact same thing about Title 9. As soon as you start paying people on their merits, you open things up to paying more for some and less for others. Male and female college athletes get the same amount of scholarships but male and female pro players sure don't get the same amount of money. Paying based on merit and Title 9 are diametrically opposed to one another.
Well, they will be classified as employees. Being a student may not be a requirement once all this is said and done with. Basically, this stuff can go in one of many directions. IMO, that could end up with universities basically having minor league football teams. Some may be compensated with $$, some may be compensated with an education.
They can be both, right? I worked for my college while I went to school
I haven't seen any additional details of this ruling, but I don't understand this at all from a legal standpoint. At the extreme end of FBS football and P4 basketball, I can see this sentiment and tertiary reasoning, but it seems to fall apart as you look at the breadth of college sports.
Historically, sports were considered extra-curricular activities and secondary to education. If we take a single high revenue school - let's say PSU, we can say that FB and mens BB are employees. But how could you deem field hockey or tennis or swimming - sports that generate at or near $0 - to be employees? What about FB walk-ons? They received $0 in scholarship money, they actually pay the university. In what world does an employee pay an organization to be called an employee?
Then take Dartmouth? Not a single kid joined the Dartmouth MBB team expecting to earn in a living with their athletic talents. Then we take the next jump to FCS schools like Lehigh. What about DII?
From a legal perspective, how do you delineate employee from non-employee athletes? If they are all employees, how does collective bargaining work? Is every team negotiating independently? Certainly a university isn't paying a Heisman contender the same rate as a walk-in or male gymnast or tennis player. And then things get sticky. The PSU AD has a budget. Football (and I assume BB to a small extent) fund the other sports. If the same union is representing all athletes, then fighting for more comp for football players would directly take resources from other union members. What could go wrong?
Whatever the scenario, I don't see an outcome that doesn't include a significant reduction in the number of non-revenue sports.
Yep. But my point is the players, students, can also be employees
There are so many scenarios and directions this thing could go. But, if this spreads, and they unionize, and the universities are on the hook for paying them salaries, its gonna be a huge burden on AD budgets paying for an 85 man football roster, baseball, basketball, etc- on top of coach and staff salaries, AD employees and the AD, along with all the other normal expenditures. All I can say is if you are a season ticket holder, better grease up your bottom and prepare to get dilated. Those prices that we've paid will make inflation look like a pay raise....
Yep. It will take some time to figure out. I am hopeful they’ll make some good money. But in the end they’ll negotiate a collective bargaining agreement everyone can live with.
Seems like they are paid very well.
Average cost before aid
$83,802
$62,658
Tuition
$21,144
Other costs (books and on-campus room & board)
Source: US Dept of Education (IPEDS) · Learn more
I wonder if the average grad makes $83,000
Cancel the sport. Let their lawyers pay them.
PS Bring equality if they are unionized. Only 13% of players would be black. Racist I know, but no more ridiculous that making players employees. This is what you get by making everyone in your party a victim. America is not a victim.
Last edited:
And, i just cant get over the fact that without being athletically gifted and getting an athletic scholarship, a large majority of athletes would have never gained admittance to these universities because their GPA's and ACT/SAT scores were too low to get accepted. It's only because of their ability to play a sport that they were even given an opportunity to get a degree. Then they are handed out financial benefits that no other student on campus gets. Then, they want even more?
Be interesting to see how this affects transfer rules. IIRC, the recent case of the WVU hooper being eligible to play was based on him not being an employee thus a non-compete clause could not be attached. However, if now considered an employee could non-compete clauses be included in the scholarship which would restrict transferring or put limitations on where a player could transfer and how soon they’d be eligible to compete.
Still not sure what this means in the big picture. Do they fall under wage and hour laws? Salary vs. Hourly? Benefit? Holidays? It opens a whole pandora's box.
all of that. Sea change. They will no longer be considered "students" by the law. As such, they'll be covered by all kinds of employee protections and guidelines. It is also much easier for them to unionize which I think is good news because the industry has to get to an agreed upon Collective Bargaining Agreement. I don't think the current environment is healthy for players or universities right now.
I made this comment over on my home board. If a kid has an attitude or isnt performing, he may end up having to ride the pine, and because of his contract, wont be able to transfer. Good luck getting to the league with no stats....
Noncompete contracts are easily defeated but you need an attorney and $5 to $10k. This is especially true if you work in a "right to work" state or anything close. In addition, if you gained your industry knowledge before hiring on. I've broken three of them. the last one, I simply wrote them a letter basically telling them to F off and if they sued me I would counter sue them for damages. I never heard back.
depends on their employment contracts. with this ruling, they'll have to have employment contracts but as of now, I am guessing, they don't exist.
New Hampshire is an employment-at-will state. Either party may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice.
True....unless the employee has a contract beyond the standard. For example, executives can negotiate terms like golden parachutes, minimum terms, ongoing benefits, severance packages, etc. For example, if the head coach has a three year deal, you can fire him/her after one year but you'll pay the full three or jointly negotiate a severance.
Also, does this mean that their "job" now is to play basketball and thus do not have to go through the charade of pretending to be students?
Last edited:
this might simplify both NIL and portal with a standard set employment rules, contracts and possibly a CBA regulating employment.
TBD.
My guess is that the universities will make some kind of full time student standard that players will need to qualify. But it will all have to be negotiated as part of a CBA.
At this point, we are starting college athletics up all over again.
Make them all club sports. But in the end I only see revenue sports staying, Men’s football and basketball. Women’s basketball and maybe softball to make it even. All other sports will be dropped due to the financial burden. Sad ruling that was made.
yep. so many things to consider. for example, if you don' t give 'ships away and just pay the kids enough to pay their college costs, is title IX toast? I am thinking of the current requirement to give equal ships out to men and women.
That’s why most of these nonprofit sports are history. The universities won’t be able to pay all of these athletes (employees) and stay afloat. This ruling makes no sense. If these are club sports will they be considered employees and would the athletes be untitled to pay?? Will they be able to afford road games as club members? The only sports that can survive is the ones making money (football and basketball).
yep. how do you pay an obscure OL versus a QB? how do you pay a kid playing for Temple or Georgia? How do you sustain non-rev sports? What makes a player an employee and not just a kid playing a glorified pickup game? How many kids will lose 'ships in non-rev sports?
Of course, this is all on a backdrop of kids making nothing while their schools make $100m or more. And kids working really hard so a woman can get a 'ship on the rowing team doing next to nothing.
A lot to learn and a lot to do.
To me, it is not clear whether it was an administrative law judge decision which can be appealed to the national labor relations board, or whether was a decision of the national Labor relations board. In any event, a decision of the national Labor relations board can be appealed to a federal appeals court and can go from there to the US supreme Court. So it is a little premature to accept this decision as binding on college sports.
In any event, the decision is ridiculous. Workers' compensation, unemployment, anti-discrimination laws, and maternity leave laws apply to employees. These obviously don't work well with football teams. I would bet that the decision maker or decision makers have extremely strong advocacy backgrounds and don't like major college sports.
In any event, the decision is ridiculous. Workers' compensation, unemployment, anti-discrimination laws, and maternity leave laws apply to employees. These obviously don't work well with football teams. I would bet that the decision maker or decision makers have extremely strong advocacy backgrounds and don't like major college sports.
$5000 to $10,000.00. That might get you through the first stage of discovery. The reason a lot of noncompete agreements wither and die is because of the prospect of the lawyers being the real winners. But you take a large business with resources, and they will surely pound any employee with your attitude into submission to enforce the noncompete. I have seen it and it's not pretty.
And then you counter sue, which scares them to death. The longer they fight, the more they lose. A well placed note from a friend on Glassdoor and LinkedIn works great too
Agreed this won't turn out well for the athletes. Dartmouth doesn't give out scholarships and their athletic department loses money so they can easily just shut the doors and tell them to go somewhere else.
Don't forget about the Fair Labor and Standards Act. It regulates when overtime pay is required and what is considered hours worked. For example, mandatory training hours must be compensated, so does this include practice time and workout hours? There are rules for when travel time must be compensated (I forget the details there).
In short, it does not even remotely fit the relationship between a college and an athlete.
The direction that college sports is rushing towards is away from my interest and ethics. Soon, it will no longer be a good expense of my time. At 79 years old, there are a lot more holsome things being revealed. Everything lawyers touch turns to dog poop.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting Levenson's Takeaways: Star power on display at Rivals Camp Series in Dallas- Latest: Marshall Levenson
-
-
-