NLRB Ruling: Private School Athletes Can Unionize

[brianstl]

You obviously do not know the old saying about legal experts or expert testimony in general: "For every PhD (read economist) there is an equal and opposite PhD" There are generally no major problems finding experts to testify in front of a court, under oath, supporting both sides of an argument.

You really have know clue what me Kshoe were talking about do you?

Kshoe was saying the economist was trying to make the profits seem as small as possible for the school. I was pointing out the economist was actually testifying for the players. If he had any motivation to pad the numbers it would be in the players favor.

[OkieBilliken]

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/03/whistleblower-says-this-148-word-paper-earned-a-unc-athlete-an-a-minus/

Anyone think if we have a players union, that this garbage like whats happening at UNC would get better. I wish I had a few courses at SLU where I didnt have to attend class, I could write a 150 word paper, or have my 12 year old cousin write it and get an A-.

[Old guy]

And I am saying that whatever the economist said in front of the board, you can certainly find someone else with fine credentials and qualifications that will testify something else. There is no end to testimony by experts,what you have in front of you is just the way the process starts, this is not the final testimony or the final ruling in this matter.

Have you considered the amount of money this is likely to cost? Maybe Northwestern, which is not a financially poor institution, will be willing to go through this and continue their football program. It seems likely that other schools may not continue theirs as they watch whatever develops.

[Deutschkind]

Not to make generalizations, but I "agree" with what the Northwestern players are asking right now. Football and basketball players make billions of dollars for universities around the country, they are most definitely athletes first at all major programs, and they are woefully underrepresented. This isn't about pay-for-play. It's about cost of attendance, use of image, protection from medical issues like being cut or having to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. Like the article I posted earlier stated, when you go down the list of the NW players' demands, how many do you actually disagree with? 2? 3?

[brianstl]

Not to make generalizations, but I "agree" with what the Northwestern players are asking right now. Football and basketball players make billions of dollars for universities around the country, they are most definitely athletes first at all major programs, and they are woefully underrepresented. This isn't about pay-for-play. It's about cost of attendance, use of image, protection from medical issues like being cut or having to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. Like the article I posted earlier stated, when you go down the list of the NW players' demands, how many do you actually disagree with? 2? 3?

I agree. I am a pretty pro union guy. I just think they are opening up themselves to some risk from the IRS by claiming in front of the NLRB that the scholarship is actually compensation no different than a salary.

[slufan13]

Not to make generalizations, but I "agree" with what the Northwestern players are asking right now. Football and basketball players make billions of dollars for universities around the country, they are most definitely athletes first at all major programs, and they are woefully underrepresented. This isn't about pay-for-play. It's about cost of attendance, use of image, protection from medical issues like being cut or having to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. Like the article I posted earlier stated, when you go down the list of the NW players' demands, how many do you actually disagree with? 2? 3?

I agree with pretty much all of them but it's just the tip of the iceberg on pay for play. It's naive to think otherwise. Being paid for their services is the end goal for a lot of players. Not saying that's the case with Northwestern here, but I wouldn't read too much into one article on the subject.

The players deserve more than they get. But if this all plays out with the unions, it's going to end up hurting them more than helping them.

[slubilliken09]

-BINGO, scholarships are in the tax code as being tax free for the recipient, this would appear to change that, so if you are on scholarship to SLU according to slu.edu undergrad tuition is $37,350, times 2 semesters that is $74,700 in taxable wages per year, now these kids are having to pay federal income tax, state tax in MO, social security and medicare (and so would SLU on the last two) on these wages, I wonder if they thought of that

That $37,350 mark is the yearly tuition, not per semester.

[Bills By 40]

Just did a current event assignment on this topic, and it is very interesting. I'm thankful for everyone who contributed to this thread because I probably wouldn't have heard of it had it not been for you all.

[slu72]

Well, here's another way to look at this issue. Since the ruling applies to only private schools they're the only schools that would be able to offer players salaries, pensions, medical plans, etc. Wouldn't that put the big state schools at a disadvantage when it comes to recruiting? Like, we can pay you to play and Big State U can't, plus if you get hurt, we'll cover your medicals for life. Be kind of nice to see a final 4 of all private institutions instead of CT, UW, UK, and UF which are all Big State U's.

[Billiken Rich]

Well, here's another way to look at this issue. Since the ruling applies to only private schools they're the only schools that would be able to offer players salaries, pensions, medical plans, etc. Wouldn't that put the big state schools at a disadvantage when it comes to recruiting? Like, we can pay you to play and Big State U can't, plus if you get hurt, we'll cover your medicals for life. Be kind of nice to see a final 4 of all private institutions instead of CT, UW, UK, and UF which are all Big State U's.

yeah because big state universities always do great things for their private counterparts.......

[MB73]

Well, the Northwestern event will be the catalyst for big change, but not towards the goals sought by the student athletes involved.

It will take awhile, but when more lawyers, judges, unions and absolutely, yes, THE GOVERNMENT get involved, it will be a complete mess. Unintended consequences galore.

The government... wait until they get involved, especially with the direction it is going and in all probability will continue to go as our country "changes".

EXAMPE: Title IX, great idea (I agree with it in principal), but a misbegotten formula, with unintended consequences, but legislators cannot suggest to change/adjust it or they would be labeled a sexist.

This new movement to reform NCAA sports and scholarships will make Title IX look like a drop in a bucket. Fine student athletes will suffer the consequences as the whole system is eventually turned upside down. It will happen at some point....

[Bills By 40]

Well, here's another way to look at this issue. Since the ruling applies to only private schools they're the only schools that would be able to offer players salaries, pensions, medical plans, etc. Wouldn't that put the big state schools at a disadvantage when it comes to recruiting? Like, we can pay you to play and Big State U can't, plus if you get hurt, we'll cover your medicals for life. Be kind of nice to see a final 4 of all private institutions instead of CT, UW, UK, and UF which are all Big State U's.

NOT AT ALL THE IDEA. Read this article:

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/1/28/5354718/college-football-players-union-pay-for-play

[JMM28]

MB -I think you are spot on. The unintended consequences will be far reaching. If this ruling is held and athletes do buy into the union mentality, the available number of scholarships will dry up substantially. Many D2 schools will drop down to non-scholarship D3. Many of the fringe D1 schools might do the same. That not only will hurt the basketball and football athletes, but the baseball, soccer, volleyball, softball, and other sports.

An argument could be made that donations to schools will fall because sports are a big driver of those donations. When that happens, will we see an even larger spike in tuition rates across the country?

How many high school kids won't be able to go to college because they can't afford it, but could have been on a cross country or softball scholarship? Then for an extra conspiracy, the unions benefit by increasing their pool of non-college educated people for their non skilled jobs in factories and the like.

[Bills By 40]

Increase in scholarships isn't asking for that much money, nor money to directly pay athletes. It's asking for money to pay for living expenses BECAUSE certain students can't afford it. And by living expenses, it's for things such as traveling fees and cost of living when they're on the road. Another issue they're fighting for is the right for an athlete to have a job, because to my understanding athletes aren't allowed to have a job during school, even in the off-season. If they can't earn their money, and they aren't granted enough to afford their frequent traveling, and they are unable to have financial support from their parents, how are they supposed to live? If you all read that article it really makes light of the whole situation.

In theory, I agree with absolutely every part of the proposed changes.

[Dwayne's_World]

Well, the Northwestern event will be the catalyst for big change, but not towards the goals sought by the student athletes involved.

It will take awhile, but when more lawyers, judges, unions and absolutely, yes, THE GOVERNMENT get involved, it will be a complete mess. Unintended consequences galore.

The government... wait until they get involved, especially with the direction it is going and in all probability will continue to go as our country "changes".

EXAMPE: Title IX, great idea (I agree with it in principal), but a misbegotten formula, with unintended consequences, but legislators cannot suggest to change/adjust it or they would be labeled a sexist.

This new movement to reform NCAA sports and scholarships will make Title IX look like a drop in a bucket. Fine student athletes will suffer the consequences as the whole system is eventually turned upside down. It will happen at some point....

Hit the nail on the head, especially the parts about unintended/indirect consequences.

[milwaukeebill]

I don't find the completely vague argument that "this will have unintended consequences" enough to convince me right now that northwestern shouldn't have done this. The problem wasn't being addressed And they're forcing the hand of the Ncaa to address some of the problems all athletes face. May not have been the best way to do it but at least they're doing something.

[MB73]

I don't find the completely vague argument that "this will have unintended consequences" enough to convince me right now that northwestern shouldn't have done this. The problem wasn't being addressed And they're forcing the hand of the Ncaa to address some of the problems all athletes face. May not have been the best way to do it but at least they're doing something.

It is not a vague argument. Think.

[Clock_Tower]

What is the deal with student loans and D-1 scholarship athletes. Aren't they prohibited from taking out student loans?

[slu72 fan]

What is the deal with student loans and D-1 scholarship athletes. Aren't they prohibited from taking out student loans? [/quo

No

[Clock_Tower]

What is the deal with student loans and D-1 scholarship athletes. Aren't they prohibited from taking out student loans? [/quo

No

Are you sure? For some reason I thought loans were prohibited. Possibly b/c their tuition room & board is all paid, they don't qualify for loans -- no need??

You know more about this than me. But if loans are available, then why don't all these poverty kids who will soon be future NBA, NFL , etc. stars not simply take out a small loan(s) to cover their meals, clothing and spending money - the same need that would be covered by a stipend? Then they simply repay the same upon receipt of their first professional monies.

[thetorch]

Are you sure? For some reason I thought loans were prohibited. Possibly b/c their tuition room & board is all paid, they don't qualify for loans -- no need??

You know more about this than me. But if loans are available, then why don't all these poverty kids who will soon be future NBA, NFL , etc. stars not simply take out a small loan(s) to cover their meals, clothing and spending money - the same need that would be covered by a stipend? Then they simply repay the same upon receipt of their first professional monies.

That scenario is highly illegal under NCAA rules.

[Clock_Tower]

That scenario is highly illegal under NCAA rules.

So loans are, in fact, illegal for kids on D1 athletic scholarships. If so, I would rather ease the restrictions on loans than pay kids money.

[thetorch]

So loans are, in fact, illegal for kids on D1 athletic scholarships. If so, I would rather ease the restrictions on loans than pay kids money.

Hard to do.

Any loan opens up the possibility of agents getting involved and also other nefarious characters, ie gambling.

Add into it, predatory lending. You think there wouldn't have been a line outside of Willie Reed's dorm room waiting to loan him money at exhorbitant rates based on the possibility of him making the NBA. There would be thousands of kids who would be suckered into scams like that.

[kshoe]

Hard to do.

Any loan opens up the possibility of agents getting involved and also other nefarious characters, ie gambling.

Add into it, predatory lending. You think there wouldn't have been a line outside of Willie Reed's dorm room waiting to loan him money at exhorbitant rates based on the possibility of him making the NBA. There would be thousands of kids who would be suckered into scams like that.

Agreed. And on the opposite end of the spectrum I could see the Boone Pickens of the world setting up sham loan companies and offering top players or prospects zero interest loans and not even worry if they pay them off. It would be a different version of the 100 handshake.

[Billiken Rich]

Thanks Royal Banks!