NLRB: college football players are employees

[Clocker]

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that college football players "fall squarely" within the broad definition of employee, and can unionize.

Story here.

[JustRalph]

This is going to be fun to watch. NCAA is probably going apeshit

[Clocker]

I wonder if that means that a couple of guys on football scholarships aren't going to have to actually play. They will be union reps, handling grievances and other union business.

[PhantomOnTour]

New meaning to the word Teamsters

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

New meaning to the word Teamsters

That's good

[MutuelClerk]

Anything that's a speed bump and rivals the NCAA I support. College sports is just too money grabbing these days. All these conference changes. I used to be dead set against college kids getting paid. Now, give them some cash. Not a lot, but enough to get by. If it's against the rules to work while their sport is in season. Pay them.

[cj]

All this will do is give athletes money and raise tuition for non-athletes.

[OTM Al]

There are many nuances that people are not talking about and instead going to the standard knee-jerk reactions. First off, this ruling I believe will only affect the private institutions. Second, the stated purpose of these players is not about getting paid but rather the requirements that have been pushed on them by the schools that makes them unable to do things that any other student can do, for example, have a regular job.

I know a little more how this is going down as the university I work at faced and is still facing such an issue with our granduate students. Our administration argued that the work they were doing, primarily undergrad teaching, was a component of the training needed for their careers. That argument was not accepted and the NLRB ruled they had the right to organize. I don't think the argument for the athletes is remotely that strong and was sure the school was going to lose the case as soon as it started. The administration fought long and hard and lost. Interestingly a few years later the NLRB reversed its decision in a similar case involving Brown, so the initial contract was allowed to run its course and then was not renewed. Then another case came up to the NLRB and it reversed again and now we have the union potentially coming back. This time the administration did not fight and that is probably a good thing as the previous approach caused quite a bit of animosity. Who knows what the future will hold here but a guarantee you this one is going to go on for a long time and if I had to bet, in the end the union will stand.

[cj]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

There are many nuances that people are not talking about and instead going to the standard knee-jerk reactions. First off, this ruling I believe will only affect the private institutions. Second, the stated purpose of these players is not about getting paid but rather the requirements that have been pushed on them by the schools that makes them unable to do things that any other student can do, for example, have a regular job.

While the ruling will only affect private schools, public schools will pretty much be forced to follow along for competitive reasons.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by cj

While the ruling will only affect private schools, public schools will pretty much be forced to follow along for competitive reasons.

Perhaps they will. Perhaps they should. It is clear that college athletics are out of control so if anything, this may cause those in power to rethink some of their positions.

[cj]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Perhaps they will. Perhaps they should. It is clear that college athletics are out of control so if anything, this may cause those in power to rethink some of their positions.

Yeah, but we all know how this will play out as I said before. Regular guys with kids will be forced to pay more to subsidize football, whether you care about football or not. Trust me, I'm no fan of the NCAA, not even close. But I also know added expenses are passed on to consumers, not deducted from profits, if it is at all possible.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by cj

Yeah, but we all know how this will play out as I said before. Regular guys with kids will be forced to pay more to subsidize football, whether you care about football or not. Trust me, I'm no fan of the NCAA, not even close. But I also know added expenses are passed on to consumers, not deducted from profits, if it is at all possible.

It's possible, especially if whatever resulting system is set up with the wrong incentives/regulations. I always thought it was a joke when colleges would say how much money the sports bring in to the university but then see how much of that was being spent on new practice facilities, etc. Kind of makes me glad my school doesn't have major college sports because god knows the tuition here is already ridiculously high.

[Robert Goren]

The non revenue producing sports are going to take the hit.

[MutuelClerk]

The impact is unknown. Private schools, state schools, health insurance for these athletes, conferences that share revenues, sports that produce revenue( football). It may impact title 9. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up before the Supreme Court. Which will be interesting. Like I stated earlier anything that throws a wrench at the money grubbing whores the NCAA has become. I support. Pass the popcorn.

[stillwater]

Originally Posted by MutuelClerk

The impact is unknown. Private schools, state schools, health insurance for these athletes, conferences that share revenues, sports that produce revenue( football). It may impact title 9. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up before the Supreme Court. Which will be interesting. Like I stated earlier anything that throws a wrench at the money grubbing whores the NCAA has become. I support. Pass the popcorn.

Top grade stuff,but they are not alone.Big time college sports and pro sports ,for the most part lost me some time ago.I wish most other fans would do the same.It's always what the market bears and who wants to bear that mess?