NLRB Rules College Athletes are EMPLOYEES

[Mccage]

Will the future Commitment announcements air before Jeopardy or after?

 

[tango]

As long as we share the goals of (1) getting the athletes appropriate compensation for the value they bring, and (2) preventing the college athletics system from falling to pieces or devolving into an unsatisfying marriage of professional and academic.

Go Vols!

If the university (or even a 3rd party vendor working at Neyland? [I honestly don't know how that all works]) wants to sell Bru McCoy jerseys at the stadium, then Bru McCoy ought to get some cut off of that. If the UC wants to sell Bru jerseys, Bru gets a cut. If McMillan's on the strip (maybe they're not there anymore) want to sell Bru jerseys, then Bru gets a cut.

Seems doing it that way maybe would fall into the category of an NIL deal (Bru has a deal with Nike or Reebok or whoever makes the jerseys), but that would also seem to steer clear of the 'employee' angle.

Look ... Is the university allowed to make money off its football team? I don't see why not. But why is any athlete entitled to a cut of what the university makes?

The university can offer free education to an athlete to be on that team. The athlete doesn't have to accept that scholarship, but if he does, then what does it matter how much the university makes off the TOTAL product that is the team? The two parties have agreed to a quid pro quo --- you get free housing and education and food, and an increased shot at getting to the NFL, and in exchange I get a product on which I can make money. So we both benefit. .... but now, you seem to think that YOUR skill accounts for some percentage of the total intake of money I make off selling tickets and beer and tshirts and cups and padded seats and socks and pennants, etc... and now you want to change the terms of the quid pro quo.

Why should the university be obligated to comply with such a thing?
Why should any government or judicial authority have the right to compel me to make athletes my employees?
What if some entity was able to quantify your direct value to the team('s cash intake), and this entity determined that yes, you ARE being "fairly compensated" for the product you put on the field. Should such an athlete then be prevented from entering the portal?

Because if I'm the university and I'm compelled to make my athlete and employee, then that needs to work both ways --- if you're an employee, then NO, you don't get to go to the portal unless I agree. How about THAT?

If I decide not to offer ANY football scholarships, and we'll just field the team with walk-ons..... I should have to make these walk-ons employees, after they agree to play voluntarily?
That's like saying "There's a good-natured homeless guy who voluntarily likes to pick up trash around campus.... and now the courts rule that I have to hire this man as an employee of the university!"? Absurd.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

If I offer you a free education, room and board, uniforms, training facilities, etc., in exchange for you providing me a product, then what does it matter how much I make off the product you agreed to provide in exchange for the things I agreed to give you in exchange?

The problem is that players have been paid more for decades and decades because the school's knew the scholarship and perks were not covering their value to the program.

If the scholarship WAS enough, why was their massive cheating, $100 handshakes, etc going on?

The fact is: the scholarship wasn't covering the "market value" of players and boosters were making up the difference under the table.

The Supreme Court looked at this and said: It's not really legal to have a business where all the companies agree to not pay the employees market value. That kind of collusion is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. If we see a case challenging this, we doubt the NCAA business model of "student athlete" can pass the test determining Antitrust violations.

When a Supreme Court Justice says: I think you're in violation of Antitrust Law and nobody else on the Court disagrees, you're probably in violation of Antitrust Law.

So yeah, it matters that the scholarship isn't covering the "market value" of college players AND the NCAA refuses to allow players to paid to reach that "market value."

The NIL "fix" is just a bandaid, backdoor attempt by the NCAA to maintain their business and not get sued out of existence. It's not working.

 

[ArmchairQB]

As Lane Kiffin sees it:

"You have a f---ing head coach. This is a job. Guess what? If I have mental issues — and I’m not diminishing them — I can’t not see my f---ing boss, when you were told again and again the head coach needs to see you. It wasn’t to make you practice. It wasn’t to make a position you don’t f---ing want to, okay. It was to talk to you and explain to you in the real world, okay, because I don’t give a f--- what your mom says, okay, or what you think. In the real f---ing world, you show up to work."

 

[BruisedOrange]

College sports are officially dead.

I think that was the goal. The financial needs of college athletes could have easily been addressed in a way that promoted all sorts of positive values and educational experiences for them, while improving the quality of competition.

When the NCAA took no initiative but instead waited for the courts to rule, that was the tell that this was not about college sports, or the athletes, but something larger about our national traditions and social fabric.

 

[tango]

I think that's semantics about "work." I can see your definition and my knees started hurting when you shared about the stupid, crazy amount of time spent doing sports simply for the fun of it and the love of competing.

Kavanaugh addressed that directly when going after the NCAA in Alston. You can't create a business model to exploit that youthful love of sports and make millions doing it. Had your hockey been televised and sold, eventually I'll wager you'd have felt "I'm putting a lot into this and they're making all the coin. That's not fair."

And seriously, dude, water polo? Legalized and barely controlled attempts at drowning people.

Let's be fair....
What Kavanaugh rightfully pointed out was that the NCAA effectively held a monopoly in controlling how much players could be compensated (or not be compensated, as the case may be).
That is the proper context of the entire ruling.
If the NCAA didn't exist, then every conference would be its own master, set its own rules... if all the athletes go to the Big10 because players think they're 'more fairly compensated in the Big10," then the other conferences need to ante up to compete for better athletes.

Had that already been in play, then there never would have been a lawsuit to begin with.

 

[volstudent26]

While Tennessee and Virginia aren't granted TRO, the Judge notes: "Considering the evidence currently before the Court, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Sherman Act."

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Let's be fair....
What Kavanaugh rightfully pointed out was that the NCAA effectively held a monopoly in controlling how much players could be compensated (or not be compensated, as the case may be).
That is the proper context of the entire ruling.
If the NCAA didn't exist, then every conference would be its own master, set its own rules... if all the athletes go to the Big10 because players think they're 'more fairly compensated in the Big10," then the other conferences need to ante up to compete for better athletes.

Had that already been in play, then there never would have been a lawsuit to begin with.

Alston was about "educational benefits," things like computers, being part of scholarships for athletes. The NCAA said they couldn't receive those things even though normal students could via scholarship.

Kavanaugh went much further. He, and I'm not an attorney, went through the steps that Antitrust Law requires as a "test" to be legally enforced and both he and Justice Gorsuch hinted strongly that the "student athlete" idea that the NCAA bases its "amateur athletics" isn't legal. Kavanaugh's exact wording was: "The NCAA is not above the law."

Without the NCAA, each conference STILL would face lawsuits if they stick to the "unpaid amateur student athlete" model.

The NCAA has sat on its hands until now it's stuck.

If it allows schools to pay players, it'll find itself running a pro league and many schools can't afford to do that.

If it doesn't pay players, they're going to win multiple lawsuits AND prior players are likely to sue because the courts will rule they played under illegal price fixing terms.

The NCAA is screwed.

 

[tango]

The problem is that players have been paid more for decades and decades because the school's knew the scholarship and perks were not covering their value to the program.

If the scholarship WAS enough, why was their massive cheating, $100 handshakes, etc going on?

Cmon... I'm not ignoring that kids weren't, in effect, bribed under the table.
When the common academic scholarship (and I realize it varies) could get free room and board, free education, free whatever, AND be able to earn money on the side, while the athletic scholarship gets the same free stuff but can't earn money on the side, then that's a problem.

The fact is: the scholarship wasn't covering the "market value" of players and boosters were making up the difference under the table.

Again, though, you speak as if somehow the school is obligated, as in legally obligated, to pay players.
I'm not arguing that certain players dont have a market value, or that they don't contribute to the overall intake of money to the college.
What I'm arguing is that if you're the player, and you think you're not being compensated your full market value, then why are you here? Why don't you go to the portal? I'm not forcing you to play for my school ... you're want to negotiate with me how much I should pay you to play for my school. Do you have leverage? Sure you do. Your skills are your leverage. How your skills translate to money in my pocket is your leverage.
... but your leverage doesn't, and shouldn't, obligate me to pay you what you think you're worth. Even if I agree that your skills translate to 1 zillion dollars in my pocket, you're saying that I'm obligated NOT to offer you LESS than that?

The Supreme Court looked at this and said: It's not really legal to have a business where all the companies agree to not pay the employees market value.

Right. That's collusion. That's anti-trust.
But again, you don't have "a lot of companies" in that case. You have ONE company -- the NCAA.
In effect, the NCAA was running a monopoly.
.... which is why you had the booster and under-the-table deals going on, because the monopoly itself was preventing students from getting anything.
Selling a product called "a football team" is, at least to my way of thinking, WAAAAY different from making up a bunch of Nico jerseys, selling them, and then Nico gets none of that money but the university does.... not only that, but Nico can't even sign a jersey and get money off that. That's the ********, but that was the effect of having an effective monopoly by the NCAA.

That kind of collusion is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. If we see a case challenging this, we doubt the NCAA business model of "student athlete" can pass the test determining Antitrust violations.

When a Supreme Court Justice says: I think you're in violation of Antitrust Law and nobody else on the Court disagrees, you're probably in violation of Antitrust Law.

So yeah, it matters that the scholarship isn't covering the "market value" of college players AND the NCAA refuses to allow players to paid to reach that "market value."

It wasn't *really* about the idea that the scholarship wasn't equitable... it was that the NCAA disallowed them from making money.
That ruling made NIL possible. It didn't obligate universities to put these guys on the payroll.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

The Dartmouth case is going to be appealed.
If the NLRB ruling is upheld, it has HUGE implications.

The NLRB rulings don't directly affect public institutions, as they regulate private entities.

The ripple effects...

Private college's sports programs, especially football. That includes Vandy, Northwestern, Stanford, SMU, USC, BYU, Boston College, and Miami, to name a few.

Are the public universities going to have to play private schools in their conference, schools whose athletes are professionals? Too soon to tell. The elephant in that room? Notre Dame...a private university.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

It wasn't *really* about the idea that the scholarship wasn't equitable... it was that the NCAA disallowed them from making money.
That ruling made NIL possible. It didn't obligate universities to put these guys on the payroll.

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.

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.

IMO, that's what hangs the NCAA. They won't agree to let players be directly paid even when the Court essentially tells them their business model is illegal.

 

[tennesseeduke]

Health insurance for injuries is already part of college and I'm unsure if they'll be 1099 employees or not.

I recall reading that for tennis, players were considered 1099 because it's primarily an individual support but for pro football they were salaried employees.

NIL lawsuits, unless the schools start their own NIL, will be directed as contract disputes for their individual contracts, as they are now I suppose.

It's definitely a mess but the biggest mess is that most schools simply can't afford the payroll increase.

Even in your response is an HR nightmare in the making!

 

[tennesseeduke]

Cmon... I'm not ignoring that kids weren't, in effect, bribed under the table.
When the common academic scholarship (and I realize it varies) could get free room and board, free education, free whatever, AND be able to earn money on the side, while the athletic scholarship gets the same free stuff but can't earn money on the side, then that's a problem.



Again, though, you speak as if somehow the school is obligated, as in legally obligated, to pay players.
I'm not arguing that certain players dont have a market value, or that they don't contribute to the overall intake of money to the college.
What I'm arguing is that if you're the player, and you think you're not being compensated your full market value, then why are you here? Why don't you go to the portal? I'm not forcing you to play for my school ... you're want to negotiate with me how much I should pay you to play for my school. Do you have leverage? Sure you do. Your skills are your leverage. How your skills translate to money in my pocket is your leverage.
... but your leverage doesn't, and shouldn't, obligate me to pay you what you think you're worth. Even if I agree that your skills translate to 1 zillion dollars in my pocket, you're saying that I'm obligated NOT to offer you LESS than that?




Right. That's collusion. That's anti-trust.
But again, you don't have "a lot of companies" in that case. You have ONE company -- the NCAA.
In effect, the NCAA was running a monopoly.
.... which is why you had the booster and under-the-table deals going on, because the monopoly itself was preventing students from getting anything.
Selling a product called "a football team" is, at least to my way of thinking, WAAAAY different from making up a bunch of Nico jerseys, selling them, and then Nico gets none of that money but the university does.... not only that, but Nico can't even sign a jersey and get money off that. That's the ********, but that was the effect of having an effective monopoly by the NCAA.




It wasn't *really* about the idea that the scholarship wasn't equitable... it was that the NCAA disallowed them from making money.
That ruling made NIL possible. It didn't obligate universities to put these guys on the payroll.

Yet it was just revealed that GA QB Carson Beck demanded $4million or he was walking. Guess who just purchased a $300,000 Lambo Uris? The NCAA is screwed!

 

[The Original Fade]

I don't think a bunch of players unionizing and revolting against a coach and/or school is a good thing.

Wait til the unions are demanding playing time and rotations for players

 

[secking]

Players as employees, I think, is a way to get a handle and throttle back on NIL and Transfer Portal issues.
BUT, having them unionized I think presents a whole new can of worms to eat though.

That’s the eventual outcome. Then the consequences hit for the ‘employee’ and the employer. Which programs get cut? In most universities, only one sport provides a product in the black, football. A few have mens basketball.Will those teams make money now? Depends on the % shared. Overwhelming, most athletic departments run in the red NOW.

UT has 698 student athletes, most of which will lose their scholly. Title IX will figure into the equation thus eliminating more men sports than womens. Not only programs getting cuts, but all those departments that help those athletes. The only way to not have Title IX not include football is break off and form it’s own entity but then you are left without a profit for the rest of the sports. I would hate being an AD in the next few years.

 

[IndianaVol]

That’s the eventual outcome. Then the consequences hit for the ‘employee’ and the employer. Which programs get cut? In most universities, only one sport provides a product in the black, football. A few have mens basketball.Will those teams make money now? Depends on the % shared. Overwhelming, most athletic departments run in the red NOW.

UT has 698 student athletes, most of which will lose their scholly. Title IX will figure into the equation thus eliminating more men sports than womens. Not only programs getting cuts, but all those departments that help those athletes. The only way to not have Title IX not include football is break off and form it’s own entity but then you are left without a profit for the rest of the sports. I would hate being an AD in the next few years.

Wow...I had not even thought about the Title IX implications.

 

[Delmar]

My roommate was the starting middle linebacker for Army back when we were students. Another close friend was captain of the hockey team. Another friend was captain of the baseball team. Another friend was QB on the 150s football team. My best friend and I were both on the water polo team (I sucked, but that's beside the point).

So yeah, I'm a bit familiar with college athletes. Just a bit.

Let me tell you how decisively this was not work: on Sunday mornings, this group of friends would all get up at 6 am (this is the one day of the week we could sleep in), run up the hill to the ice rink, sneak in, borrow the pads of the hockey team members, and play the sport together for an hour or so. Just for fun. Including the captain of the hockey team (in fact, it was his idea). This included the linebacker. The 150s QB. The water polo players. Point is, we did even MORE sport, just for fun, on the day we could've been sleeping in.

It's not "work" in the NLRB's terms. It is sport. A hobby. A pastime. A hugely demanding one, a challenging one, sometimes a painful one, often a tedious one, but it's not the NLRB's version of "work."

I'm not denying that there are some (a small number, I think) of college athletes who would have nothing to do with their chosen sport if it weren't for the paycheck (or the future paycheck). I'm sure small numbers of those exist. They are vastly out-numbered by the mass of college student-athletes, but there are probably a few. For those, you could accurately call it "work." But just those few.

If kids will do it for free--and they will, in droves--it's play. Or sport. Or hobby. Not work. Not as the NLRB uses the term.


p.s. Ever heard this aphorism? "If you do something you love, you'll never WORK a day in your life."

I couldn’t care less about the NLRB’s definition of “work”. I know work when I see it and don’t need anybody to define it for me. College athletes work hard. End of discussion.

 

[volfan102455]

If the university (or even a 3rd party vendor working at Neyland? [I honestly don't know how that all works]) wants to sell Bru McCoy jerseys at the stadium, then Bru McCoy ought to get some cut off of that. If the UC wants to sell Bru jerseys, Bru gets a cut. If McMillan's on the strip (maybe they're not there anymore) want to sell Bru jerseys, then Bru gets a cut.

Seems doing it that way maybe would fall into the category of an NIL deal (Bru has a deal with Nike or Reebok or whoever makes the jerseys), but that would also seem to steer clear of the 'employee' angle.

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.

 

[goldvol]

If I offer you a free education, room and board, uniforms, training facilities, etc., in exchange for you providing me a product, then what does it matter how much I make off the product you agreed to provide in exchange for the things I agreed to give you in exchange?

I mentioned those items.

The next logical step is that the pay has to be fair market rate. The Supreme Court has clearly hinted they aren't being paid fairly.

From the NIL ruling:
"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different."

 

[kyvol98]

Just because the athletes might enjoy the sport they play and love it, that doesn't necessarily make it fun. There are a lot of people who love what they do, but certainly don't consider it fun. And if there is compensation involved, it can surely be considered work. Forget about NIL, many of these athletes---basketball in the case of Dartmouth---are on full ride scholarships. I can only imagine the cost of tuition and board and other perks at an Ivy League school. I would definitely consider that compensation for services rendered.

So, based on this, is the academic student on scholarship to be considered an employee as well?

 

[joevol33]

I can just imagine players at Dartmouth striking at half time while you went to get popcorn. And Colgate wins by default ?

Doesn't matter, I have Crest and Aqua Fresh in the championship anyway

 

[Vol737]

College sports are officially dead.

I’ve been reading all these threads and trying to digest all of this. I’m not ready to say that yet, but it does seem college sports is cannibalizing itself at the moment. The end product when this all shakes out will be interesting. I just hope UT athletics isn’t an ash pile as a result of these lawsuits when it’s all said and done.

 

[turbovol]

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.

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.

IMO, that's what hangs the NCAA. They won't agree to let players be directly paid even when the Court essentially tells them their business model is illegal.

Who says the NCAA knows the players are under-compensated? You? I'm quite sure the NCAA doesn't know that and has never known it. I read that non-profits and academic institutions are not generally exempt from Sherman anti-trust laws--though it's all rather complicated and some non-profits/academic institutions are exempt, I think. Major-college football programs are commercial money-making enterprises--but they don't use their revenues in the same way that private companies do. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out--and how it all shakes out for all the student-athletes in non-revenue sports--where we can still see quite a lot of the amateur spirit.

As for Dartmouth, if I was the school I'd view the lawsuit initiated by two of their basketball players as a complete slap in the face. After the idiotic NLRB ruling (which will be appealed), two of the snot-nosed players (I don't know if they were the ones who filed the lawsuit), said they hoped the ruling would "create more opportunities for student-athletes." Nonsense. Those two ungrateful punks wouldn't even be playing college basketball at all were it not for the generosity of the college. The Dartmouth athletic department is all cost and very little revenue. The BB program loses money--all its sports programs do--and only exists to provide an athletic service to the student players. Nobody is clamoring to watch Dartmouth basketball or see their players, so it will be interesting to see what the school does in response.

The NLRB says the players have a right to unionize because they're effectively paid by the school via the financial aid some or all of the players receive. They aren't on athletic scholarships. So, what, do the players think that a money-losing athletic department should give them financial aid for playing AND pay them as well? Apparently, if it all ends in the players favor, they'd vote on whether or not to join a service-employee union of which some Dartmoutth employees--I assume cooks and maintenance people and the like--are members. They are all real employees---not full-time students. I'd like to see Dartmouth yank the financial aid the players are receiving--at the least--or kill the basketball program. I very much doubt any Ivy would do the latter, and maybe not the former, as they are generally kind-hearted institutions.

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

They are basically asking for pay commensurate to that of a lower tier university employee. I see no problem with this.

 

[woodpusher]

So, based on this, is the academic student on scholarship to be considered an employee as well?

Could be...a fellowship could be full tuition waiver plus earnings.