College football players get to unionize!

[BEAR]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize&ex_cid=sportscenter

Northwestern players get union voteUpdated: March 26, 2014, 3:31 PM ET
By Brian Bennett (http://search.espn.go.com/brian-bennett/) | ESPN.com


Recommend (https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2f%2fespn.go.com%2fcollege%2d football%2fstory%2f_%2fid%2f10677763%2fnorthwester n%2dwildcats%2dfootball%2dplayers%2dwin%2dbid%2dun ionize&t=Northwestern+football+players+win+bid+to+unioniz e)1K (https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2f%2fespn.go.com%2fcollege%2d football%2fstory%2f_%2fid%2f10677763%2fnorthwester n%2dwildcats%2dfootball%2dplayers%2dwin%2dbid%2dun ionize&t=Northwestern+football+players+win+bid+to+unioniz e)
Tweet (http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2f%2fespn.go.com%2fcollege%2dfoo tball%2fstory%2f_%2fid%2f10677763%2fnorthwestern%2 dwildcats%2dfootball%2dplayers%2dwin%2dbid%2dunion ize&text=Northwestern+football+players+win+bid+to+unio nize&via=espncfb)904 (http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2f%2fespn.go.com%2fcollege%2dfoo tball%2fstory%2f_%2fid%2f10677763%2fnorthwestern%2 dwildcats%2dfootball%2dplayers%2dwin%2dbid%2dunion ize&text=Northwestern+football+players+win+bid+to+unio nize&via=espncfb)
Comments (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize#comments)306 (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize#comments)
Email (http://sendtofriend.espn.go.com/sendtofriend/SendToFriend?URL=http%3A%2f%2fespn.go.com%2fcolleg e%2dfootball%2fstory%2f_%2fid%2f10677763%2fnorthwe stern%2dwildcats%2dfootball%2dplayers%2dwin%2dbid% 2dunionize&title=Northwestern+football+players+win+bid+to+uni onize&id=10677763)
Print (http://espn.go.com/espn/print?id=10677763&type=story)


In a potentially game-changing moment for college athletics, the Chicago district of the National Labor Relations Board ruled on Wednesday that Northwestern football players qualify as employees and can unionize.
NLRB regional director Peter Sung Ohr cited the players' time commitment to their sport and that their scholarships were tied directly to their performance as reasons for granting them union rights.

[McNeese72]

I think this is potentially bad for most FCS schools. How many smaller universities can afford to pay athletes? I know McNeese is already, as it is, squeezing lemons trying to make lemonade.

The big dogs will be the only one that can afford to pay athletes, imo.

Doc

[Go Green]

All of sudden, those Illinois senators who say that Illinois State or Southern Illinois should get a spot in the Big 10 look like they knew exactly what they were doing. xeekx

The ruling will only apply to private colleges. Northwestern's president has said that he could see Northwestern dropping football if they have to pay their players.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/us/northwestern-football-players-union/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

[walliver]

What will happen if northwestern has to pay players and the NCAA won't allow it.

This ruling, if it stands, will end affecting ALL scholarship programs, since the Big Publics will have to keep up with the Big Privates (Notre Dame, Southern Cal, Miami, etc).

[tribe_pride]

Before this thread goes too far, Northwestern will appeal this decision all the way to the Supreme Court. The players may or may not too if they lose on the way. This is only round 1 of a fight that could last years.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Before this thread goes too far, Northwestern will appeal this decision all the way to the Supreme Court. The players may or may not too if they lose on the way. This is only round 1 of a fight that could last years.

+1. The NLRB I think was going to be the lowest hurdle that they needed to clear.

[walliver]

In an ideal world, our elected legislators in Washington would sit down and craft appropriate laws protecting the athletes, institutions and tax-paying fans. I'm not holding my breath.

This should not be decided by boards and courts trying to implement laws which were not designed for this purpose.

I suspect this effort is going nowhere, but a few lawyers will make a bunch or money.

[Nova09]

All of sudden, those Illinois senators who say that Illinois State or Southern Illinois should get a spot in the Big 10 look like they knew exactly what they were doing. xeekx

The ruling will only apply to private colleges. Northwestern's president has said that he could see Northwestern dropping football if they have to pay their players.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/us/northwestern-football-players-union/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

Not saying you're wrong, but what makes you think this would only apply to private schools? I haven't seen that even theorized anywhere and don't see how it could be argued that playing football is employment one place but not somewhere else. Incidentally, this reasoning is a huge problem for the athletes who have tried to restrict this to scholarship football and basketball--if being told when to show up and what to wear means you are an employee, then that applies to all sports, not just those that produce a net positive bottom line. In fact, revenue generation has never in the history of labor been a basis for what is and is not employment, if it were then companies operating in the red could simply stop paying their employees and still make them work.

[Go Green]

Not saying you're wrong, but what makes you think this would only apply to private schools?

I'm no expert in this area, but a few articles have said that the NLRB only has jurisdiction over private institutions. Here's one of them (about 3/4ths the way down in the article).

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/03/26/college-football-players-can-unionize-federal-agency-says/

[Model Citizen]

Let's say the union holds out for a nice package of benefits--which happens to be against NCAA rules. Which is more likely?

1. Duke, Vandy, Stanford, and others break away from the NCAA.
2. We get a new conference (or several new conferences) following the Ivy model.

[Bisonator]

Wait until the players have to start filing tax returns on sholarships, medical expenses, room, board, travel expenses, etc.etc. Because I can see schools starting to distribute W2's with all of those in the wages and benefits box. I think they may get more then they bargained for in this deal.

[citdog]

The Cotton States are Right to Work States. SEC exempt?

[frozennorth]

this really isn't a big deal imo. I'm not a lawyer, but my thoughts goes like this. The ncaa has it's rules for participation and anything the union and northwestern agree to will have to conform to those rules. The players could make some sort of restraint of trade, but the ncaa allows for ever increasing numbers of participating schools as those schools find it to be a worthwhile endeavor.

[Seawolf97]

This is headed for the State and Federal Courts. Im guessing Northwestern is about 40 to 45 K a year for the average student, add books . meal plans etc you are over 50k. Now tax the athletes at that level of 50 k a year with no deductions to speak of at 19 or 20 years old. Worst case drop scholarship sports and go D3 or drop the sport all together.

[Go Green]

Worst case drop scholarship sports and go D3 or drop the sport all together.

Northwestern, maybe.

But other private schools like USC and Notre Dame are never dropping football in a million years.

[Nova09]

I'm no expert in this area, but a few articles have said that the NLRB only has jurisdiction over private institutions. Here's one of them (about 3/4ths the way down in the article).

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/03/26/college-football-players-can-unionize-federal-agency-says/

Interesting. I have to think this is one of those where in a strict sense the ruling does not apply, but in practical terms it sets the precedent for athletes at public schools to unionize as well (assuming this holds up, which I don't think it will anyway).

[Nova09]

Northwestern, maybe.

But other private schools like USC and Notre Dame are never dropping football in a million years.

It all depends on the timing (and order) things happen. I can see a conceivable scenario where only a few schools have taken the Northwestern path, the NCAA fears many more are about to follow, so the NCAA issues a statement that it is recognizing all unions already formed, thereby making members of those unions employees in their sport which makes them ineligible for competition. If Notre Dame is in that cohort, there is no way they are putting athletes on the field who have been publicly deemed ineligible. The NCAA would be hoping that by making this statement no other school wants to take a chance at unionizing and losing their own eligibility. If the tactic works, the schools that already unionized would have no support to break away from the NCAA, so they'd be left essentially without a football team (or only playing their walk ons).

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This is a serious question - Why would the NLRB vote against the Northwestern students unionizing? I mean, allowing them to unionize only benefits them - more membership, more to manage, more funding for them.

National columnists are falling over themselves to say how "historic" this is and how the game has changed, but I don't think this passes the smell test from any American who actually has followed this issue and/or has an inkling how this works. In reality, this was the lowest hurdle cleared by the union people presenting to a body that stands to benefit by the establishment of a union.

[Sandlapper Spike]

This is headed for the State and Federal Courts. Im guessing Northwestern is about 40 to 45 K a year for the average student, add books . meal plans etc you are over 50k. Now tax the athletes at that level of 50 k a year with no deductions to speak of at 19 or 20 years old. Worst case drop scholarship sports and go D3 or drop the sport all together.

According to the school, the average "cost of attendance" for non-commuter students is north of $63K. Link (http://www.ugadm.northwestern.edu/financial-aid/tuition-fees-and-expenses.html)

[clenz]

So there's the tax issue that's already been metioned.
There's the fact this can only apply to private schools (been covered here and by Fox, ESPN, CNN, SI, etc...)

What are the implications on Title IX? Doesn't this essentially make Title IX void? You can't dictate to a company you need to have so many women for so many men employed (that I know of). Title IX will have their say in this as well.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

So there's the tax issue that's already been metioned.
There's the fact this can only apply to private schools (been covered here and by Fox, ESPN, CNN, SI, etc...)

What are the implications on Title IX? Doesn't this essentially make Title IX void? You can't dictate to a company you need to have so many women for so many men employed (that I know of). Title IX will have their say in this as well.

I wouldn't think any state laws pertaining to unions can override Title IX. And that IMO is exactly what will keep pay-for-play from happening. Paying male athletes and not female ones will never fly and a little detail like male sports generating more revenue doesn't matter. The battle to exempt revenue sports from Title IX was lost decades ago.

[Seawolf97]

According to the school, the average "cost of attendance" for non-commuter students is north of $63K. Link (http://www.ugadm.northwestern.edu/financial-aid/tuition-fees-and-expenses.html)
Simply amazing. So after 4 years their degree costs 240-250k free of charge to play a game most kids have been playing since they are 5. Add in training meals probably free medical care for injuries related to sports, books etc. So they graduate go out in the real world with all this and land an entry level job at 40k at best with all kinds of performance demands and nothing is free anymore. The players have no idea what they maybe throwing away if schools drop sports.

[MR. CHICKEN]

Simply amazing. So after 4 years their degree costs 240-250k free of charge to play a game most kids have been playing since they are 5. Add in training meals probably free medical care for injuries related to sports, books etc. So they graduate go out in the real world with all this and land an entry level job at 40k at best with all kinds of performance demands and nothing is free anymore. The players have no idea what they maybe throwing away if schools drop sports.

18900.....WAS AT UH SPRING GAME...FEW YEARS BACK.....ASKED UH PLAYERS DAD...ABOUT INJURY COVERAGE........ HE SAID......."HIS FAMILY INSURANCE PLAN COVERS FIRST.....THEN U OF D....INSURANCE PAYS....ANYTHIN' OVERAH"........CAIN'T SPEAK FO' ALL SKOOLS......BUT DIS IS SUPPOSED....WAY IT [email protected] COOP........BRAWK!

PS.....DUH PLAYER WAS UH WALK ON........MIGHT MAKE UH DIFF...VS....FREE RIDE...LADS.......AWK!

[walliver]

Considering the quality of Northwestern's football team, their players being "paid" $45K a year are overpaid.

I agree with others that Title IX is the elephant in the room. In pure economic terms, men's basketball players are worth much more than women's basketball players

At some point, Congress will stick it's nose into this (and if it involves basketball, the President will get involved). Only a handful of schools can actually support professional college sports. Some of the smaller programs in the Big 5, including some SEC schools, will not be able to compete. If it appears that court rulings are going to make football and men's basketball unsustainable, the politicians will get involved. And unfortunately, they will not be able to leave well enough alone and will screw things up

[walliver]

Simply amazing. So after 4 years their degree costs 240-250k free of charge to play a game most kids have been playing since they are 5. Add in training meals probably free medical care for injuries related to sports, books etc. So they graduate go out in the real world with all this and land an entry level job at 40k at best with all kinds of performance demands and nothing is free anymore. The players have no idea what they maybe throwing away if schools drop sports.

One of the issues raised in this case was that medical care for injuries only apply while the "employee" is in school, and the Northwestern players want lifelong coverage for football related injuries. While understandable from the player's perspective, it creates significant future liability for the schools.

[FormerPokeCenter]

Granted, it's been...ahem..."a few years"...but when I had my knee rebuilt, McNeese's coverage through the State Office of Risk Management paid for it. McNeese also graciously paid for a second procedure, after I'd graduated, to remove some metal augmentation that was keeping me from being able to pass a flight physical...My private insuror wasn't ever a consideration...

[clenz]

Granted, it's been...ahem..."a few years"...but when I had my knee rebuilt, McNeese's coverage through the State Office of Risk Management paid for it. McNeese also graciously paid for a second procedure, after I'd graduated, to remove some metal augmentation that was keeping me from being able to pass a flight physical...My private insuror wasn't ever a consideration...
The D3 I went to paid for everything I had done on my knee as well.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Interesting, isn't it, that when the CAPA guys look for kids that have never gotten additional health care from their former universities, they have a very rough time finding anyone, and nobody from the last twenty years?

[CID1990]

well it is a joke to call half the players in BCS conferences "students"

hell they might as well just be employees

college football and basketball are so divorced from what they once were theres no need to try to fix them- big time college football is really just college sponsored professional football anyway

[frozennorth]

this is not about pay for play, and that will not be changing. The union is will push things multiyear scholarships, greyshirts, and so forth.

[clenz]

this is not about pay for play, and that will not be changing. The union is will push things multiyear scholarships, greyshirts, and so forth.
Still brings into question how this affects title ix. If they are employees Title IX becomes invalid. There is no longer any reason to have women's bowling, fencing, lacrosse, rifle, tennis, swimming/diving, skiing, and to a a slighly lesser extent field hockey, soccer, and rowing for the vast majority of schools.

You can claim that those are all rather cheap to operate and that dropping them wouldn't save much money. You wouldn't be completely wrong on that. HOWEVER, the fact is that the vast majority of womens bowling, fencing, rifle, et... teams exist is because of Title IX. There are some teams that exist only because the facilities were there for the mens sport so because of Title IX the womens sport was added (soccer, swimming, lacrosse, tennis) and then the mens programs were dropped also due to title ix. We've watched that happen at UNI with mens swimming and diving and soccer. We've also watched baseball get cut due to Title IX (and some money issues). A womens sport could be hemorrhaging money to the point of not seeing a penny of potential revenue ever see the light of day for the program (see most golf, tennis, swimming programs) yet they will NEVER be in jeopardy. However, a sport that is the second in line in the conference (like baseball or wrestling both of which Iowa State dropped due to Title IX and are big things in the B12) that makes money or comes relatively close to a break even line (baseball at UNI which is the second sport for the MVC behind mens BB) will be dropped. We still have a baseball stadium but no team. We have a S/D pool that the women use but no mens team anymore. We have tennis courts but no mens team anymore. We have a great soccer complex but no mens team anymore.

What happens to these womens sports if this ruling means the end, so to speak, of Title IX. Then there is years of lawsuits and litigation over that.

Are these college kids prepared to pay income tax on 40-60+K per year? You know...taxes on money they don't actually get income for. Taxes on all of the benefits?

Can these kids be fired for not performing? "You have your scholarship BUT you are really just not what we're looking for in this position so we are going to have to let you go". Is that going to be okay?


How's this going to affect 95% of D1 football programs? Sure Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, USC, Florida, Bama, etc.. can afford something like this. What about FCS and D2s? What about the BCS/FBS schools that don't make that money - the Sun Belt, MAC, CUSAmost of the AAC, MWC? It really would force a **** or get off the pot situation.

What about athletes that aren't on scholarship? Are they not employees? Do they qualify for all of this? Are they going to be left off of the team going forward? Is scholarship limits going to increase - that would really **** a lot of schools with money.

Are people on the women's bowling team now employees?


****ing unions. Started off with a great premise and have gone completely to the ****ter

[Bisonator]

this is not about pay for play, and that will not be changing. The union is will push things multiyear scholarships, greyshirts, and so forth.

How do you know this for fact?

[frozennorth]

Still brings into question how this affects title ix. If they are employees Title IX becomes invalid. I have no idea how you come to this conclusion.


****ing unions. Started off with a great premise and have gone completely to the ****ter and that what they want you to believe.


How do you know this for fact?

public statements, having a rough understanding of the law and ncaa rules?

what I want to know is where you clowns are getting this PFP crap from, other than by pulling it out your own ass?

[CrazyCat]

****ing unions. Started off with a great premise and have gone completely to the ****ter

Exactly. I also think the players at North Western started this with good intentions but only looked at the benefits they would gain and not the consequences to college athletics overall.

[darell1976]

First its football players, next the men's basketball players will want a piece, then the women (have to due to wage discrimination), its the start of a dumpster fire and its starting to smoke right now. And how does right to work states (ND is one) come to play in this?

[clenz]

I have no idea how you come to this conclusion.

and that what they want you to believe.
If all of a sudden football players are employees then so are all athletes on scholarship. At that point Title IX is gone. There is no Title IX in employment

Unless you're wanting to tell me that only sports that make money are considered employees.

Still wouldn't matter, IMO, if only revenue sports are included. Take away those 85 scholarships from football and the balance needed for Title IX is very different than it is now.

Either they are employees or they aren't. That will have a huge impact on Title IX. There's no way it doesn't

You can't count male athletes as employees and count their scholarships as pay without doing the same for women. Work place pay inequality and all of that. You'll have women's rights group in arms like crazy.

[tribe_pride]

this is not about pay for play, and that will not be changing. The union is will push things multiyear scholarships, greyshirts, and so forth.

It may not intentionally be pay for play but to be in a union, you must be an employee (and only certain levels of employees). If you are an employee, you are required to be paid minimum wage and employees cannot consent to be paid less than minimum wage. That wage must be taxed unless otherwise exempted by the Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, even if the Northwestern players do not want to make this about pay for play, there are automatic income (and tax) ramifications to the players being able to form a union.

[WWII]

Wouldn't their scholarships be imputed taxable income? Probably some other benefits as well. I don't know the employment law, so I don't know if you would have to pay minimum wage in addition. Putting in more than 40 hrs/week would result in ot, unless they're considered exempt employees, in which case there is a minimum salary.

[clenz]

Wouldn't their scholarships be imputed taxable income? Probably some other benefits as well. I don't know the employment law, so I don't know if you would have to pay minimum wage in addition. Putting in more than 40 hrs/week would result in ot, unless they're considered exempt employees, in which case there is a minimum salary.
Depending what the minimum wage is would you have to compensate those extra for those going to an in-state school at 15-20K vs those at a private or out of state at 60K plus?

If so how do you do that?

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Wouldn't their scholarships be imputed taxable income? Probably some other benefits as well. I don't know the employment law, so I don't know if you would have to pay minimum wage in addition. Putting in more than 40 hrs/week would result in ot, unless they're considered exempt employees, in which case there is a minimum salary.

it would likely be similar to a graduate teaching assistant or some other type of work study arrangement. The tuition waiver is not subject to taxation but any additional stipend/income is.

[Bisonator]

Wait until the players have to start filing tax returns on sholarships, medical expenses, room, board, travel expenses, etc.etc. Because I can see schools starting to distribute W2's with all of those in the wages and benefits box. I think they may get more then they bargained for in this deal.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10683398/tax-implications-create-hurdle-players-union

[tribe_pride]

it would likely be similar to a graduate teaching assistant or some other type of work study arrangement. The tuition waiver is not subject to taxation but any additional stipend/income is.

Teaching assistants were considered primarily students and not employees by a 2004 NLRB ruling. Therefore, they were not allowed to form a union (and not recognized as employees). I assume the same with other work study programs. In the ruling this week, the NLRB ruled that the football players were not primarily students, "Grant-in-aid scholarship football players' athletic duties do not constitute a core element of their educational degree requirements", and that the "grant-in-aid scholarship players' compensation" is not financial aid."

That definitely shows that the NLRB is differentiating this big time from the grad students.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Teaching assistants were considered primarily students and not employees by a 2004 NLRB ruling. Therefore, they were not allowed to form a union (and not recognized as employees). I assume the same with other work study programs. In the ruling this week, the NLRB ruled that the football players were not primarily students, "Grant-in-aid scholarship football players' athletic duties do not constitute a core element of their educational degree requirements", and that the "grant-in-aid scholarship players' compensation" is not financial aid."

That definitely shows that the NLRB is differentiating this big time from the grad students.

My wife as a GTA at Ohio State the last 4 years was considered an employee with health coverage and had to contribute to the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System. We got killed in taxes because we had to pay SS taxes when OSU didn't take them out because of OPERS.

There is a ton of grey area here.

[tribe_pride]

My wife as a GTA at Ohio State the last 4 years was considered an employee with health coverage and had to contribute to the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System. We got killed in taxes because we had to pay SS taxes when OSU didn't take them out because of OPERS.

There is a ton of grey area here.

That sucks on the taxes.

Ohio State does not fall under NLRB rules (but is under IRS) since it is a public university so it was not bound by the NLRB ruling but Ohio laws regarding whether they are employees in that sense and entitled to benefits. Remember that Northwestern is a private university so it is bound by the NLRB unlike public schools. If you look at the IRS ruling and the arguments made by the football players, their arguments and the ruling, though helping them form a union takes the scholarships out of the exceptions to taxable income.

[bkrownd]

Teaching assistants were considered primarily students and not employees by a 2004 NLRB ruling. Therefore, they were not allowed to form a union (and not recognized as employees).

When I was a grad student we (teaching and research assistants) unionized, around 1998.

[citdog]

Anyone surprised that a ruling favorable to organized labor came out of CHICAGO?

[tribe_pride]

When I was a grad student we (teaching and research assistants) unionized, around 1998.

2 things. 1 is the NLRB ruling was in 2004 and there were different rulings before then. Next, as I said above, UMass like other public universities are not subject to NLRB rulings since the NLRB has no jurisdiction over public entities.

[bkrownd]

OK. Whatever happens, in the end it will have to apply to both publics and privates in pretty much the same way.

[MR. CHICKEN]

18906........FROM USA.....TA-DAY.......AWK!


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/03/31/college-football-ncpa-capa-nlrb-chicago-northwestern-labor-union/7077455/

[DFW HOYA]

OK. Whatever happens, in the end it will have to apply to both publics and privates in pretty much the same way.

But it doesn't, and that's why this is a slippery slope on so many levels.

1. The NLRB only governs private businesses, so state schools could be exempt.
2. Twenty-four states have right to work laws that complicate the ability to collectively bargain.
3. It is not clear that union membership be restricted to sports with revenue potential. The Screen Actors Guild does not strictly represent the highest priced actors.
4. What is the grievance process if a player is on the second string?
5. If a union didn't want to play, could the school play sports with non-union students? And, extending this argument, could other student groups unionize as well?

The union movement is dying and this won't change that.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Huma said that it is up to the school's "discretion" when they are in negotiations. "I don't know if there's anything that we're negotiating for that would invoke Title IX or not," he said.
Under Title IX, some provisions or resources in athletic departments are required for athletes in all sports. For example, if unionized Northwestern football players bargained for five years of medical coverage for sport-related injuries after they have graduated, then the school might need to address such coverage for all of its athletes. But other benefits — for example, a better kind of football helmet that helps prevent concussions — would not fall under Title IX.


Huma is being extremely disingenuous here.

Title IX states very clearly:


No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.


HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#cite_note-OCRletter-25)


"All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."
"Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.
"The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#cite_note-Interpretation-13)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#cite_note-26)
"Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities." Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#cite_note-OCRletter-25)



Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.



So let's say this new union collectively bargains $5,000 stipends for all the members of its represented school. Immediately Title IX kicks in - it's a benefit for the men's side that is not matched on the women's side. The only way you don't have to do it is if you can satisfy Prongs II or III, which essentially never happens.

Huma's definition of "discretion" is basically giving schools a choice of trying to satisfy a Prong II or III that will be challenged in court, with highly uncertain results, and a history of lost court cases in its wake, or give the stipends to women athletes as well. Some "discretion".

I really enjoy the use of "might" in the article, as if it wasn't a dead certainty in reality that the schools would have to match nearly all of the benefits.

[Nova09]

Re taxes: a lot of talkl goes "IF they become a union..." or something like that. But why would unionizing matter? I mean, from a practical standpoint, i get it that the IRS would not waste their time going after a relatively small amount of tax money before the courts have decided things to the point appeals are done. But whether or not the players choose to unionize seems irrelevant--the court ruling that they are employees is all that matters.

[CFBfan]

the "win" for the players would start with medical coverage that extends beyond graduation for any injury that occured while playing and scholarships beyond 1 year and renewable but instead starting with the for the 4 - 5 years a "student" will be playing ( can tighten this up with appropriate clauses ie: if you quit you loose your scholarship)

did anyone hear lou holtz spouting off last night??

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.college-sports-journal.com/index.php/ncaa-division-i-sports/fcs-football/814-for-northwestern-unionization-movement-impacts-look-to-fcs-not-fbs

The impact on FBS of Northwestern's quest for college football player unionization is likely to be extremely limited. The impact on FCS, however, could be giant.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

http://www.college-sports-journal.com/index.php/ncaa-division-i-sports/fcs-football/814-for-northwestern-unionization-movement-impacts-look-to-fcs-not-fbs

The impact on FBS of Northwestern's quest for college football player unionization is likely to be extremely limited. The impact on FCS, however, could be giant.

giant is a relative term to say the least. How many truly competitive private schools are in FCS? Without the expanded playoff system last year, there would have been maybe 3 or so teams and none working past the quarterfinals.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

giant is a relative term to say the least. How many truly competitive private schools are in FCS? Without the expanded playoff system last year, there would have been maybe 3 or so teams and none working past the quarterfinals.

Villanova and Richmond have won the national championship in the last 5 years. Fordham was a Top 10 team last season, had a good run, and could be poised for more in 2014. Lehigh, Lafayette, Holy Cross, Colgate, and Wagner have been competitive in playoff games and won some. Colgate, also, in 2003 made it all the way to the national championship game.

More importantly, though, almost 1/3 of FCS are private schools.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Villanova and Richmond have won the national championship in the last 5 years. Fordham was a Top 10 team last season, had a good run, and could be poised for more in 2014. Lehigh, Lafayette, Holy Cross, Colgate, and Wagner have been competitive in playoff games and won some. Colgate, also, in 2003 made it all the way to the national championship game.

More importantly, though, almost 1/3 of FCS are private schools.

some but 33 out of 36 championships have been won by public schools. Hit and miss just isn't terribly influential. Privates tend to be filler in most power conference. I'm talking writ large, not here and there.

[walliver]

http://www.college-sports-journal.com/index.php/ncaa-division-i-sports/fcs-football/814-for-northwestern-unionization-movement-impacts-look-to-fcs-not-fbs

The impact on FBS of Northwestern's quest for college football player unionization is likely to be extremely limited. The impact on FCS, however, could be giant.

This proposal has not yet reached the actual NLRB board, which is the next step.

I suspect few, if any, FCS programs will be affected. The Ivies and Pioneers, for example, do not give scholarships, and it would be difficult to classify their players as employees. I doubt that many of the players in the Southern schools would vote for a union. I also know of no profitable football programs in FCS, so there isn't much for a union to seek.

Even at the FBS level, there isn't much the schools can give without changes in NCAA policies. The FBS privates really can't afford to form their own league. Notre Dame and Southern Cal and maybe Baylor would do well, but a league containing Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Tulane and Vanderbilt is not going to get a big TV contract. I suspect the ongoing lawsuits against the NCAA will have a much more profound effect on college football than a Union at Northwestern.

Eventually, it is likely that multiple lawsuits will create enough uncertainty that the politicians will get involved (for the last 22 years, the White House has been occupied by FCS grads.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This proposal has not yet reached the actual NLRB board, which is the next step.

I suspect few, if any, FCS programs will be affected. The Ivies and Pioneers, for example, do not give scholarships, and it would be difficult to classify their players as employees. I doubt that many of the players in the Southern schools would vote for a union. I also know of no profitable football programs in FCS, so there isn't much for a union to seek.

I'm not so sure it's that difficult to classify them as employees as you suggest because of Ohr's ridiculously low threshold as to what an "employee" is.

For the PFL schools, the same (supposedly) onerous time commitments are required of the kids at San Diego as it is at San Diego State. For Northwestern, the benefits are a scholarship, which is "pay", but there are other potential benefits, for example, converting the need-based portion of one's financial aid to a grant.

For the Ivy schools, the entire student body is scholarshipped to some degree, but you can argue that some of the kids may not have been admitted to dear old Harvard if they couldn't throw a football 70 yards to the opposite field. Admittance is a "benefit".

I agree that for Wofford, Samford, et. al. in the "right to work" states there probably won't be an effort to unionize because they are right-to-work states and they would cost more than they are worth to the unions. But in the Northeastern states, where most of these schools are, this is not the case.

[ThompsonThe]

Just another Progressive liberal union attempt to fill their pockets with more money.
Would devastate college sports if it were to stand. Doubt it does. Look who ruled on it.

[Professor Chaos]

Dan Wetzel wrote a great article yesterday about not just unionization but about financial reform for NCAA athletics in general. It's a very good read: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-still-refusing-to-see-big-picture--all-college-sports-are-not-equal-215042288-ncaab.html

[clenz]

HC Pat Fitzgerald is urging his players to vote no on unionizing....and believes they will. Sounds like the majority don't want too but it was trying to be pushed by last years senior class

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Dan Wetzel wrote a great article yesterday about not just unionization but about financial reform for NCAA athletics in general. It's a very good read: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-still-refusing-to-see-big-picture--all-college-sports-are-not-equal-215042288-ncaab.html

So easy to write an article calling college sports a business, then completely ignoring Title IX and academic mission.

Has Dan ever asked a football player whether he's resentful that the revenue he generates effectively "props up" field hockey? Dan seems like he knows the answer.

[lucchesicourt]

Just maybe, this means the end of athletic schollies altogether.