NLRB Rules College Athletes are EMPLOYEES

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

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.

I'll totally agree that the scholarship losses from all this will be much worse than the gains. No argument at all.

I've advocated that the huge revenue schools, including TN, should get out of the huge revenue business, not sign the huge media contracts, make me get my butt in the seat for games.... not my recliner, and get back to the school's mission which is education.

Obviously, ETSU isn't the problem that's creating this mess. Huge revenue schools like UT are creating this demand, this extreme valuation of players that resulted in illegal payments..... now legal payments of players. It's nowhere NEAR the mission of UT to be the owner of a multi-million dollar sports business, even if it graciously funds other sports at the school. UT should be in the education business, not the sports business.

The major schools lack the leadership and guts to say, "Wait, we screwed this up. We're definitely on the wrong path with this business." Fans would also crucify them for not providing us with great Saturdays.

It's gone over the edge but it's about loving money more than education.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

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.

That fair market goes both ways. THE PLAYERS DIDN'T MAKE THE SCHOOLS START PAYING THEM.

it really angers me that people want to blame the players because the schools have for DECADES offered money to players. How is that the fault of the person being offered money? Are they bad for having developed their talent to the elite level?

Why is it the fault of the players that the schools offered money? Why?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

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.

Funny how Justice Kavanaugh said that the NCAA attempts to regulate NIL are illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Law in his concurring Alston vs NCAA opinion.

 

[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.

The schools and the NIL collectives are two distinctly separate entity types with different charters and business models.

Again, pay for play is a different animal than pay for endorsements. It's pretty basic and simple.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Funny how Justice Kavanaugh said that the NCAA attempts to regulate NIL are illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Law in his concurring Alston vs NCAA opinion.

Negative. Or show me in his opinion. Kavanaugh went further than NIL and suggested the entire "student athlete" amateur model is the violation.

Kavanaugh, and I'll argue the entire Court since none of the others pushed back on his opinion, argued the SCHOOLS should pay the players, not that they had the right to earn NIL, and they were employees who deserved payment.

He cited examples of chefs not being paid market value because all the restaurants got together to insist that patrons prefer food cooked by people who "do it for the love of cooking." That's paraphrasing his idea, not a direct quote.

Kavanaugh wasn't talking about NIL. He's talking about WAGES.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Negative. Or show me in his opinion. Kavanaugh went further than NIL and suggested the entire "student athlete" amateur model is the violation.

Kavanaugh, and I'll argue the entire Court since none of the others pushed back on his opinion, argued the SCHOOLS should pay the players, not that they had the right to earn NIL, and they were employees who deserved payment.

He cited examples of chefs not being paid market value because all the restaurants got together to insist that patrons prefer food cooked by people who "do it for the love of cooking." That's paraphrasing his idea, not a direct quote.

Kavanaugh wasn't talking about NIL. He's talking about WAGES.

NIL is wages. It's wages in return for endorsements.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

NIL is wages. It's wages in return for endorsements.

Not paid by the primary employer, commonly.

NIL is Mahomes hawking Subway. He's not getting that money from KC.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Negative. Or show me in his opinion. Kavanaugh went further than NIL and suggested the entire "student athlete" amateur model is the violation.

Kavanaugh, and I'll argue the entire Court since none of the others pushed back on his opinion, argued the SCHOOLS should pay the players, not that they had the right to earn NIL, and they were employees who deserved payment.

He cited examples of chefs not being paid market value because all the restaurants got together to insist that patrons prefer food cooked by people who "do it for the love of cooking." That's paraphrasing his idea, not a direct quote.

Kavanaugh wasn't talking about NIL. He's talking about WAGES.

Here's a synopsis of the NCAA vs Alston decision and Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.

That's also the basis of the Tennessee and Virginia lawsuits against the NCAA, as well as the UT fiking for the PRO against the NCAA.

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[lawgator1]

I am mulling right now what our respective universities can do with the extra space when they pave over where the football stadiums used to be. Additional parking? Maybe a nice park area for dog walking?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Here's a synopsis of the NCAA vs Alston decision and Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.

That's also the basis of the Tennessee and Virginia lawsuits against the NCAA, as well as the UT fiking for the PRO against the NCAA.

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I'm aware. The NCAA could see the NIL lawsuits were losers after Alston and moved to change their policy on it.

Kavanaugh, however, went well beyond NIL compensation. He was definitely talking about the lack of direct wages for players so they actually earned market value at their primary job.

There's a difference between what a player's market value for playing the game is and their value via NIL.

For instance, no one would pay the fat guys Shaq or Barkley to play as the NBA level anymore. Their "market value" at NBA players is extremely low or zero........ their NIL value is still very high.

Kavanaugh, in his opinion, was clearly talking about WAGES FOR PLAYING. That's a much more serious problem for the schools, players, and NCAA than NIL.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I am mulling right now what our respective universities can do with the extra space when they pave over where the football stadiums used to be. Additional parking? Maybe a nice park area for dog walking?

I was sad Joni didn't do "Big Yellow Taxi" at the Grammys too.

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

 

[WallyBalls]

I just hope these supposed scabs and their vehicles are treated appropriately by the players they replace...

 

[Dadof2Vols]

I'm aware. The NCAA could see the NIL lawsuits were losers after Alston and moved to change their policy on it.

Kavanaugh, however, went well beyond NIL compensation. He was definitely talking about the lack of direct wages for players so they actually earned market value at their primary job.

There's a difference between what a player's market value for playing the game is and their value via NIL.

For instance, no one would pay the fat guys Shaq or Barkley to play as the NBA level anymore. Their "market value" at NBA players is extremely low or zero........ their NIL value is still very high.

Kavanaugh, in his opinion, was clearly talking about WAGES FOR PLAYING. That's a much more serious problem for the schools, players, and NCAA than NIL.

But the real devil is in the detail….if you force market wages the true nil market for most of these are NONE and currently NIL is being used as wage inducement.

So you will be taking money out of right NIL pocket and moving it to left wages pocket. For a lot of the players at best it will be a wash, a lot will lose and very few will make more.

There really is a limited amount of money to support the program before fans walk.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

But the real devil is in the detail….if you force market wages the true nil market for most of these are NONE and currently NIL is being used as wage inducement.

So you will be taking money out of right NIL pocket and moving it to left wages pocket. For a lot of the players at best it will be a wash, a lot will lose and very few will make more.

There really is a limited amount of money to support the program before fans walk.

Why do people still conflate NIL with salaries?
Those are two VERY different things.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

But the real devil is in the detail….if you force market wages the true nil market for most of these are NONE and currently NIL is being used as wage inducement.

So you will be taking money out of right NIL pocket and moving it to left wages pocket. For a lot of the players at best it will be a wash, a lot will lose and very few will make more.

There really is a limited amount of money to support the program before fans walk.

Many, many, many more athletes will lose out if players become employees. Smaller schools can't afford to pay players.

Those programs will have do something or depend on the courts to "rightly divide" which programs are revenue, ie., pro programs and which are academic, ie., amateur college programs. I don't think that's a likely job for the courts to want to undertake.

That leaves a REAL sad situation for non-elite athletes who provided a good college experience for students, enjoyed a good college athletic experience for themselves, and provided a sense of pride for fans of that college.

I don't have a good solution to "who is who" when small schools like Gonzaga have great bball programs and SEC schools like Vandy are obviously not really putting the emphasis on football....... but their baseball is often great.

It's a mess. I fear the courts will say, as they appear to be saying, the whole dang amateur college athletics model is broken.

 

[Voltopia]

I am mulling right now what our respective universities can do with the extra space when they pave over where the football stadiums used to be. Additional parking? Maybe a nice park area for dog walking?

Here's a thought. Don't pave over them. Once they jettison the professional teams, they can try maybe having tryouts for actual students at the school to make the school teams, and then organize games between themselves and other regional schools underneath a banner of shared collegiate interests. It'll be expensive of course, but the schools can address that by soliciting donations from the alumni to operate the facilities and pay the staff. You know, like how they used to do it. They won't spend more than they have, and they won't have nearly as much to spend - but it'll be theirs and it'll be a hell of a lot cleaner. And they won't go without; if this NIL nonsense has showed us anything, it's that there's plenty of money to rake in from fans who have money to burn.

And when the fans start following this new college league - because it's the college brands that matter in all this - and the fox and the mouse come back waving those big checks at them, the schools can say "thanks but no thanks." And if any of the schools get uppity and try to take that TV money, the remaining schools can fire them down into the yard. And by fire them down into the yard, I mean boot them out, and let them go play with the other professional college teams.

"It won't be the same!" No kidding. But not even the actual sport is the same either, so what's the difference? It might not be as glamorous, but it will be watchable and more connected to local communities and colleges again.

 

[mudhen]

Dartmouth may just get rid of basketball.

 

[BigALWiLson]

Unlike pro, the jersey's sold by the university doesn't have the name of the player on them. Using number 8 as an example - there have been many UT players wearing that number and unless Nico does something at the Manning level, many more will after he has moved on. Using the argument above they would have to give a "cut" to any player that has ever worn that number.

And then you have the issue where there have been two players on the team, one on offense and one on defense, that have the same number.

Now, if the university sold jerseys with the name of the player on them - that would be different - but they don't.

No they sell the printed #8 Iamaleava shirts instead. Among others.

 

[tango]

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.

This is all well said.

 

[tango]

I'll totally agree that the scholarship losses from all this will be much worse than the gains. No argument at all.

I've advocated that the huge revenue schools, including TN, should get out of the huge revenue business, not sign the huge media contracts, make me get my butt in the seat for games.... not my recliner, and get back to the school's mission which is education.

Obviously, ETSU isn't the problem that's creating this mess. Huge revenue schools like UT are creating this demand, this extreme valuation of players that resulted in illegal payments..... now legal payments of players. It's nowhere NEAR the mission of UT to be the owner of a multi-million dollar sports business, even if it graciously funds other sports at the school. UT should be in the education business, not the sports business.

The major schools lack the leadership and guts to say, "Wait, we screwed this up. We're definitely on the wrong path with this business." Fans would also crucify them for not providing us with great Saturdays.

It's gone over the edge but it's about loving money more than education.

Schools who want a good football/basketball product can't afford to get out of the media contracts....If the school is never going to be on tv, my thinking is that no kid with real big time talent would go to such a school because they won't get the exposure they want in order to get on the NFL/NBA radars... So the great athletes stop coming to Tennessee, the quality of the team goes down, seats stop getting filled because fans get sick of the sub-par product and the losing...

And it won't matter how much money you offer those kids to come play at Tennessee... the exposure and increased opportunity to go pro and make the really REALLY big bucks is a higher draw. They'll take lesser money to go play for Penn State or Texas on TV ....

Again, just my thinking.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Schools who want a good football/basketball product can't afford to get out of the media contracts....If the school is never going to be on tv, my thinking is that no kid with real big time talent would go to such a school because they won't get the exposure they want in order to get on the NFL/NBA radars... So the great athletes stop coming to Tennessee, the quality of the team goes down, seats stop getting filled because fans get sick of the sub-par product and the losing...

And it won't matter how much money you offer those kids to come play at Tennessee... the exposure and increased opportunity to go pro and make the really REALLY big bucks is a higher draw. They'll take lesser money to go play for Penn State or Texas on TV ....

Again, just my thinking.

No offense, but it's the thinking of football and basketball AS a product that I'd like to see disappear.

UT is an educational institution, not a sports company. Enhancing that "product" is what has led us to the point where college athletics may become so enhanced that it's pro sports.

It's obvious with guys rightly becoming millionaires before ever hitting the field that the school and fans place an enormous amount of value on the "product" UT produces. The value of some players exceeds what pro players make.

Does this SOUND like amateur college athletics?

It doesn't. And it won't be amateur college athletics for much longer.

 

[MinisterofDef#92]

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!

So, explain why the NLRB certified the NFL player's union if it's definition of "work" doesn't fit sports. I see grown men playing football for fun all the time without any form of material compensation.

Bottom line, the NLRB enforces US labor law which includes addressing unfair labor practices which, clearly exist per the Alston case. And, whether or not college athletes would continue playing basketball on their own is immaterial so define it however you like. The overarching issue is that the NCAA and colleges have a huge monopoly which makes them tons of $$$ all while suppressing the benefit to the workers, the supposed student-athletes (which, in and of itself, is a contrived and tortured term).

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

I'm aware. The NCAA could see the NIL lawsuits were losers after Alston and moved to change their policy on it.

Kavanaugh, however, went well beyond NIL compensation. He was definitely talking about the lack of direct wages for players so they actually earned market value at their primary job.

There's a difference between what a player's market value for playing the game is and their value via NIL.

For instance, no one would pay the fat guys Shaq or Barkley to play as the NBA level anymore. Their "market value" at NBA players is extremely low or zero........ their NIL value is still very high.

Kavanaugh, in his opinion, was clearly talking about WAGES FOR PLAYING. That's a much more serious problem for the schools, players, and NCAA than NIL.

The NCAA vs Alston decision was clearly about pay for NIL, not pay for play.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The NCAA vs Alston decision was clearly about pay for NIL, not pay for play.

O'Bannon was about NIL. Alston was about educational benefits.

 

[Mccage]

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)

You see a lot more Bama and Tennessee T shirts than Vanderbilt T shirts. Winning makes the Brands. Good players cause the winning.