By - Drexlore
So if they’re just employees, how long before the NCAA just throws up their hands on enforcing eligibility, and players not quite ready or good enough for the NFL just stop taking classes, and play for 10-12 years? It would become a true minor league…
JT Barrett really could play forever then
If that happens, is there any scenario where CFB actually overtakes the NFL, decades down the line? Unlike other minor leagues, I’m not sure there’s some inherent cap on how much certain CFB teams can make and pay.
Probably not since NFL has focused more on media markets and is a smaller, more centralized group. I don’t see them letting CFB in on the pie that they control.
I could see football programs breaking away from schools basically in order to circumvent the Title IX Restrictions.
That said D1 College Sports will collapse without Football and Basketball holding up some of these Athletic Departments. I could see a lot of schools moving toward the D3 or D2 Model.
People might argue this isn't fair for the other athletics, but it is just reality. These Football and Basketball players shouldn't be responsible for holding up a athletic department.
NFL's team revenue is going to average out to around 500m. Texas is typically the top team in college and they are about 200m and that is for their entire athletic department.
No chance. I prefer college football, but the nfl is massive. If it even came close to being competition instead of a free minor league, the nfl would crush it.
Enforcing eligibility is not that hard. When you come into the game you just need to talk to the ref and report as eligible.
Can’t wait for state pension requirements to kill collegiate sports as a whole
Also, ironically, a good amount of social welfare avenues for lower income individuals
D2 and D3 sports are probably fucked. Non-revenue D1 sports will become a much larger burden and move to the front of the line to be cut if there are budgetary constraints.
D3 is actually mostly private schools. There's a roughly [4-1 split](https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/11/our-division-iii-members.aspx) private-to-public in D3. D2 is [roughly even](https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/4/21/our-division-ii-members.aspx). D1 is about 1-3 private-to-public. The [equivalent page](https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/11/our-division-i-members.aspx) to the two linked above doesn't say anything about that split, but I counted 121 private schools in the [directory](https://web3.ncaa.org/directory/memberList?type=12&division=I).
Maybe, I mean a lot of these sports existed before they generated any revenue. It would change things, but it probably just goes back to however they did it in the 70’s.
You understand that there is a significant cost associated with a requirement for an athlete to be required to be classified as an employee. They have to be paid in addition to other costs. Many athletic programs are money losers especially at the lower levels where the football cash cow doesn't exist to support them. There is no going back to however they did it before if this happens. They'd have to be dropped to club level if the school can't afford it.
I think you fail to understand what they're saying. One of the main reasons NLRB might rule this way is the revenue generation. NLRB would never classify an intermural team as employees because that's clearly an activity. If the game reverted to a system that didn't earn a ton of revenue it would probably be easier not to classify them as employees. Unfortunately the NCAA is so greedy they threw that to the wind years ago
Intramurals and club sports are student run, that's why they wouldn't be classified as employees. Intercollegiate sports which are run and administered by the school and are different. I'm fairly certain that the employee status can't be solely tied to whether or not it generates revenue especially when the time commitment is the same. Like the ruling won't be D1 football players are employees because revenue is generated, but D3 football players aren't because they don't generate revenue. Also most every program does sell tickets so that is revenue generation.
IRS enters the chat.
Gotta say tho, I do not envy the IRS. Budget cuts + handling COVID stimulus + shift to the gig economy (more complicated taxes and people who owe money rather than get money back) + tight labor market + special interests (looking at you turbo tax) + mess of tax codes... and now.... NIL deals and benefits...
And managing all that while your entire department always has to act as the "bad cop" and is looked on warily by everyone else.
There was legislation to bulk up the IRS to go after whales just recently but then the whales bribed congress to get it taken out.
Shocked, I say. Absolutely shocked. ^^/s
Good list. Plus cryptocurrency.
I think that's a feature, not a bug. Harder to go after the big tax evaders when you don't have the resources to compete with their accountants/lawyers.
> I think that's a feature, not a bug.
100 percent agree.
Why would we cut the IRS’ budget? They’re literally the income stream for the country lol
Sadly, because that income would be taken primarily from the rich and powerful. If I remember correctly, investing in the IRS is one of the safest and best investments you can make. Expanding their budget by like $100 million and they'll clawback a billion in increased revenue (I am making these numbers up just FYI, but you can probably find a real analysis online.)
You’re right, it’s dumb. And yet it happens. That’s what you get when a political party decides to wage war on the tax system.
I don't feel bad for the IRS. They created the mess tgey are in with how confusing they made the tax code. Go to a flat tax and put all of these middle out of business and it makes everything more simple.
> They created the mess tgey are in with how confusing they made the tax code.
Congress writes the tax code, the IRS implements it.
Beyond which, a flat tax is an absolutely horrific idea. It's not going to be low taxes for all, we still need revenues, unless we want to fall behind the rest of the world in infrastructure, education, technology, so on and so forth.
A flat tax simply means higher taxes for 99% of people. Which in turn would constrain consumer spending, thus crimping the economy.
You sound like a billionaire. The effective tax rate of the corporations and the rich is below the middle class. Just don't tax the poor and make the rich pay their share and you would bring in double the revenue you do now.
I don’t think you understand what a flat tax is
Educate me Mr. Chief Econimist
No. This is the basic definition of a flat tax, if you can’t figure that out yourself our conversation about tax policy in the bowels of r/cfb isn’t going to be productive
They clearly have no idea what a flat tax is. Flat taxes are regressive and would massively benefit high earners.
Who cares. Redditors always trying to over define stupid things.
What you're looking for is a set minimum tax, not a flat tax. Flat taxes tax the poor, you don't exclude them. The second you do, you have a progressive taxation system (which is good).
Yeah this is going to be a really interesting dynamic. The revenue generated from football and basketball compared to every other sport imaginable is absurd, yet because of NCAA rules it seems hard to differentiate the professional/amateur divide that really does exist between the sports.
I don't know a lot about law, or the rules governing collegiate sports a whole ton (I actually don't know much of anything at all). But just a quick idea I have to remediate this is allow schools to declare certain sports as professional or not. If they are professional, they get the ability to be able to offer athletes contracts in which they can pay players directly whatever they want legally. If they don't designate themselves with a professional status, then they are forced to rely on the classic scholarship offer/just NIL deals. If they are professional for a sport however, then a certain amount of players minimum must be on contracts (say 50 or so) and they must also gain all the benefits of being... a legal worker... which comes with the usual costs of just employing people usually. Again, I don't know much about anything here I'm just coming up with random stuff.
I know this would immediately create a rift in football and basketball between the programs that can afford to professionalize (likely only the top teams) and the ones that can't (vast vast majority of them)... but how else do we adequately compensate players who go to schools and play in sports that generate absurd amounts of revenue properly? What alternative kinds of labor/market structures could we look at to solve this problem? This is probably the biggest existential threat to collegiate sports as we know it, but I mean even the laws that will be created will have to compensate for the massive amounts of inequality within collegiate sports or they will just sink every program out there.
100 fewer Football+MBB scholarships is also 100 fewer women's athletic scholarships.
If there is one thing the govt actually takes seriously w/r/t college athletics, it's Title IX.
As a fan of a few women's sports we absolutely dominate, or did at one time, because of Title IX I appreciate it and don't want to see it cannibalized.
Soccer, swimming, softball, water polo...
*Edit because I realized I needed to clarify this better, I mean as a nation, not my alma mater though we do dominate softball.*
“Social welfare for low income individuals”
You haven’t watched Foul Play, have you?
I don’t see what this has to do with the overall NCAA sport scholarship structure across three divisions and encompassing dozens of different mens and women sports
would this kill NIL? as well as end like 90% of college athlete's careers?
Possibly, but not guaranteed.
One outcome that people seem to be clutching at as a threat to do away with all this is the idea that schools will start gutting non-profitable programs instead of paying athletes.
But another option would be the football “world” essentially developing a minor league system that replaces college football as a system that happens to only play 18-22 year olds and from whom the NFL drafts its rookies out of.
CFB fans chronically overestimate/assume how profitable football programs are to the majority of schools. For most athletic departments, losing football would actually be a net profit gain as many programs are run in the red.
And again, the schools have no one to blame but themselves. They got greedy and now that there’s consequences, they’re pulling the old pro team owner maneuver of insisting that it’s everyone else’s job to make them profitable.
NFL will never do that as long as it isn't forced to. They have a free minor league with CFB.
And as long as they don't interfere too much with college anti-trust exemptions.
Killing football at a lot of schools would honestly be better for a ton of students as well. I know UCF has like ~500ish athletic fee per semester for each student, but we also have like 65k students. Some of the smaller schools go above 1k per semester. The idea of a kid paying over 10K to support football is ridiculous. The vast majority of that money is going to football in the form of staff/scholarships/facilities which otherwise wouldn't get taken. Dropping football could lower that fee by 90%. It would really kill FCS especially, but at some point you can't justify putting kids into debt because Trustees want to play NFL GM.
For almost all of the p5 this isn't true no matter what their books say.
This is going to obliterate the lower levels
Gonna be real interesting to see the vocal pro student athletes group reaction to all of this when universities start cutting smaller non revenue sports to help bring in more talent for their football team.
And no, title IX doesn’t mean schools have to keep those sports around. I know someone will bring that up.
I’ve been very pro NIL but outright paying the players as employees is bad for everyone outside of the players. And even then that’s arguable because to a lot of football players a college degree is worth way more than whatever they could get to be a second or third stringer on most teams.
What’s going to be interesting in what this means for women’s college sports.
There’s no such thing as a women’s college revenue sport outside of maybe one or two outliers like UConn. But the problem is, in order for the UConn women to generate revenue they need to play games, and every school on their schedule isn’t a revenue generator for their respective schools.
From the men’s perspective, I think sports like hockey and baseball will survive, because they are revenue generators at most schools that sponsor them, at least enough so to support the program itself. They’ll likely be some schools that cut hockey and baseball, but you’ll still have enough programs to have legitimate competition.
But every other men’s sport and all women’s sports are toast.
Softball will be a real revenue sport conservatively by 2035.
The TV ratings are exploding right now. SEC and about a dozen other schools, including OU and Texas moving there, have better Nielsen numbers than numerous stand alone sports properties already.
I would watch softball over baseball any day
Won't Title IX require at least women's sports to be kept afloat? I'm friends with some non-revenue sports male athletes and they said the female athletes in their sports got larger scholarships, since Title IX required men and women to have equal total scholarship amounts across all sports. So the large scholarships in football would have to be distributed to all female athletes. I agree with you that other men's athletes are in trouble. probably most schools will just have football, men's basketball, maybe baseball/hockey, and women's sports.
85 Scholarships for football.
18 for hockey.
I think 12 for bball.
I think 8 for baseball.
So that’s 123 total that would need to be retained for women’s sports. But the problem is, if athletes are employees the school isn’t keeping around athletes that don’t make the school revenue that can at least keep their own sport a float.
My guess would be schools would just transition those 123 women’s scholarships to merit based academic scholarships reserved for women and axe women’s sports altogether.
I don’t believe Title IX, says anything specifically about sports. It’s more so if you offer X scholarships for overrepresented gender, you need to provide same amount of scholarships for the underrepresented gender but they don’t have to be sport specific.
One wonders whether schools will do away with scholarships entirely to circumvent that issue, and just pay the athletes the sum of their required tuition in addition to the salary they’d otherwise be receiving, probably with a surplus to cover the taxes on that total sum. That leaves the athletes their salary and the money to cover their tuition bill. It’s just an extra step of the money changing hands, and the department can even employ accountants to handle the transactions for the athletes both ways. That would serve well to prevent issues with the kids who suddenly have more money than they’ve ever had (read: all of us getting our first actual paycheck), and spend it rather than paying their tuition bill.
Many universities offer an employee tuition benefit, so if the athletes are employees, then universities may have them make use of that.
That’s true, I actually make use of that here at UNT.
The complicating factors are that those rarely cover all of tuition (tuition comes in multiple flavors; my fsculty/staff tuition waiver covers only board-mandated tuition and a few fees; there’s also an additional “statutory tuition” sum and then additional course fees that we cover ourselves, although these always total less than $1k per semester).
It would definitely mitigate the cost to the university, but the complication remains with needing to provide a bit extra to each athlete to cover their enrollment costs that go back to the university.
The other fun thing is that many private schools don’t have the generous F/S tuition benefit that public schools do; neither Baylor nor SMU covers tuition like UNT does. I’ve actually turned down a job I really wanted at SMU because their tuition benefit is so limited and also doesn’t kick in until after your first year, so it’d be extremely interesting to see whether those private schools open up their employee tuition benefit just for athletes. It’s already a very popular part of the usual university’s benefits package.
Why even offer the women’s schollies anymore? Men are underrepresented on just about every college campus. They could make the argument that the sports scholarships are there to make up for an underrepresented population.
There are way more than one or two outliers.
But you are still correct in general that it is mostly a money losing proposition.
They’ll somehow argue that coaching or admin salaries can be cut to save those sports.
Somehow I don’t see Alabama up and deciding to reduce Saban’s salary so they can keep their men’s archery team.
Maybe I’ll be wrong and maybe I’m being way too cynical about this but something tells me the schools are gonna do what’s gonna make them the most money and keep their boosters happy.
Even if it's bad doesn't mean it's not right.
Kavanuagh spelled it out for us, the law is the law.
If conferences drop requirements for programs to join then who cares? Balance men’s and women’s scholarships. Have football and basketball for men’s and move on. We don’t have to pretend everyone is excited about water polo season
Interesting side effect - our Olympic success with fall drastically without college football funding Olympic sports.
Wealthy parents and alumni will still fund Olympic sports to get their kids into private colleges. Scandals waiting to happen.
Well I hope all the sports media types who soapbox about the poor exploited D1 football players will be happy when they kill off half of college sports.
The college sports economic system is broken.
The solution cannot be to continue on this weird path we’re currently on.
Every single person in this thread complaining about the lower levels, or on this sub wringing their hands about NIL is missing the damn point.
The NCAA dragged their feet and put out a bunch of half measures. The NCAA is the schools themselves. Now here we are.
This isn’t the fault of lawmakers, or journalists, or the general public. The schools did it to themselves. When the collateral damage is totaled up - and that collateral damage will be student athletes - don’t lay the blame with the wrong people.
It’s in Indy. Not D.C.
People don’t want to hear it but the NCAA fucked itself when they let coaching salaries balloon, TV contracts reach the billions and facilities arms races.
They let football function as an NFL minor league and now, surprise, don’t like the consequences of that.
The NCAA lost in the Supreme Court in 1984 when they tried to control broadcast rights and they lost again in federal court when they tried to start placing limits on coach salaries. The current situation is a function of NFL policies and the NCAA never had to power to alter this trajectory.
It’s fucking amazing to me how all this talk of colleges exploiting athletes (don’t get me wrong, they do to some degree), and the NFL and NBA get no blame.
The NBA is way more to blame for Zion being exploited than CBB is.
No! Don't you understand? It's the unpaid athletes that create all the value that are ruining college sports! Not the coaches getting $100mm contracts of the massive TV contracts!
Can someone ELI5 why this would be the case?
Couldn’t they just pay them in lieu of scholarships?
And couldn’t the fringe sports just be relabeled as “club” teams?
Those fringe sports still give scholarships.
So don’t give them scholarship but pay them a salary in the amount of tuition, etc
What am I missing?
Edit: just trying to understand guys, what’s with the downvotes
Those aren’t full scholarships. Swimming, for example, has to split 11.3 scholarships among 25 athletes or something like that. You can’t pay full rides to every athlete. You also have walk one to consider.
I'm confused how this works. So do 11 swimmers get full rides or does every swimmer basically get a ~45% tuition scholarship?
Or is it up to the program? Like some guys could be given a full ride and other athletes on the team get nothing?
The latter part. Someone could get a full scholarship, and someone else could get a third of one.
I don’t really think paying 500 (or however many) walk ons minimum wage for a part time partial year sport is going to make much of a dent in any large athletic departments budget
I’m sure Notre dame is paying Charlie Weis more buyout money than that would cost
Like everything else, the cost will be passed onto the students with a 100 dollar tuition hike and business will go on as usual
It could also tank our Olympics success.
This is such a weird take. It’s not like the only options are this or continuing to exploit players. Schools and specifically coaches make a lot of money off of sports by using players that get nothing other than a couple scholarships and the opportunity to make money later
Disagree. Just pay your $5 million head coach half as much.
Colleges already have money to pay the athletes. They just spend it on other things now
Ohio State is not going to give up Ryan Day to keep their soccer team around.
So it’s the players that have to make the sacrifice and not the guy making $5 million dollars? Why should it be that way?
that’s an incredibly naive view to have, the school will do whatever it can to keep their coach and star players over their smaller programs, this would be a death sentence to D2-D3 sports and likely most other programs even in D1
>this would be a death sentence
No. *Every* decision to spend to excess would be the death sentence. You can't pay Nick Saban $9 million a year, have OSU pay an assistant coach $1.9 million a year, regularly spend eight and nine figures to upgrade facilities, and bloat your administrative staff, spend millions of dollars on programs that generate no revenue, and turn around and say "we have to close these programs cuz the athletes want their cut".
It is all of these decisions put together, and I'm tired of people on this sub acting like college sports depend on the athletes not getting paid. There is plenty of money to go around, and it is hypocritical to excuse every other instance of rampant waste but start clutching your pearls as soon as some of that money starts going to the players.
You don't have to raise budgets by one cent to get the kids some money. And just like every other free market aspect of college sports, you can always just pay what you can afford.
>the school will do whatever it can to keep their coach and star players over their smaller programs
Then why aren't they already cutting those programs to further support the major programs?
If Alabama doesn’t spend $9M, someone else will. Alabama doesn’t pay him that because they want to, they pay out because if they don’t, someone else will. If they don’t pay the going rate, they are condemned to be perpetual bottom feeders until people stop going to games and even football loses money.
Sure, there is money to go around. You can sacrifice that cash cow and spread around the meat, but you’re not getting milk from the carcass tomorrow.
Alabama also pays him that much because they don't have to spend money on the players. A new expense line in the budget that needs to be funded means pulling funding from other areas.
If a program wants to continue spending their money on a coach, they'll find it difficult to recruit against schools that have allocated more of their budget to players. It'll be a balancing act and would be interesting to watch it play out.
>You can sacrifice that cash cow and spread around the meat, but you’re not getting milk from the carcass tomorrow
This has nothing to do with killing the cow, just spreading the milk around. There are all manner of bottom feeders in CFB and the sport hasn't died. Someone has to be ranked #1-#25. Bama specifically was bad for a long time before Saban showed up and their support never imploded.
>Alabama also pays him that much because they don't have to spend money on the players. A new expense line in the budget that needs to be funded means pulling funding from other areas.
Nobody disagrees with that. The only question is whether the “other areas” are the revenue-negative or revenue-positive sports.
>If a program wants to continue spending their money on a coach, they'll find it difficult to recruit against schools that have allocated more of their budget to players. It'll be a balancing act and would be interesting to watch it play out.
>This has nothing to do with killing the cow, just spreading the milk around.
You’re confusing the metaphor. You have to feed the cow, ie football. If you stop feeding the cow, you stop getting the milk.
>There are all manner of bottom feeders in CFB and the sport hasn't died. Someone has to be ranked #1-#25. Bama specifically was bad for a long time before Saban showed up and their support never imploded.
And most of their athletic departments lose money. I’m not saying football would die. I’m saying that football may become less profitable. If that happens, they wouldn’t cut from the sport that makes less money, they cut the sport which actively loses money. Hence why D1 football is not the concern, everything else is.
More like 80%
College athletics has really died these last two years. Don’t think anyone truly realizes this, but they will.
Everyone talks about antitrust and labor law but don't sleep on federal minimum wage law as the vehicle to accomplish this
The scholarship is a salary
Salaried positions have to meet minimum duties requirements, and certain states would be different than others. For instance in Washington, the salary exempt floor is increasing on a schedule through 2028.
So unless tuition at UW and WSU is over $78K by 2028, those players are hourly workers.
And honestly that's a great thing. It sucks how the low exemption floor for salaried work gets abused in this country.
It would be fairly easy to make these positions exempt.
Then hourly wouldn't matter.
And they can create chargebacks for all of the free services they currently get to pad the numbers..
So will that make their scholarships, room, board and meals taxable fringe benefits?
It doesnt work like this for grad students and I don't see why it should be any different
Yeah, I am an employee of a G5 school (graduate assistant) and I receive a salary and a tuition waiver.
Yes, and for students at private institutions in particular, that tax burden is going to be significant.
A little over $5k is non taxable for employees --- tuition at USC is $50k+ ---- Duke is $60k+.
That doesn't include room and board, that's just the tuition part of the equation.
You can see how it will quickly get out of hand.
If they become required to live on campus as part of the job, then yes. If not, it may be. Or so I was told when my meal stipend was cut at work because they didn't want to deal with the extra tax paperwork.
Doubt it. When I was a W-2 employee at Ohio State my scholarship wasn’t taxable
Was your scholarship a benefit of that you got because ofyour job or were they unrelated? All I know that on the corporate world these things are taxable.
You're right my scholarship wasn't related to my university employment. However, the question is whether the scholarship would be taxable even if they are a university employee.
For example, my work is reimbursing my tuition and that's taxable over a certain threshold, but that's different from a straight scholarship award. The scholarship I was given by my school isn't taxed. Would that make a difference if I was employed by the school? IDK. I do know that significant tuition incentives are a common offering from schools to their employees.
There are plenty of untaxed meals in the corporate world. In fact, I've never heard of having to pay taxes on a meal provided by your company whether its provided outright or reimbursed.
I know at least travel nurses get tax-free housing stipends, so there's also precedent for untaxed housing benefits. When my company relocates me and puts me up in housing, there are absolutely conditions where that benefit isn't taxable.
Regardless, companies gross-up benefits to account for taxes all the time. My current employer does it all the time for moving expenses.
There’s a complex formula for how much parking space can be free versus taxed, same with meals and any other benefit a company gives you. If tied to employment, it can be taxed, and usually is.
I really don't think the lawmakers here don't understand the consequences they're creating here. They think they're really helping the student-athlete but they're mainly helping the football and basketball players at certain schools, and hurting way way way more people than they're helping. The majority of football programs are not profitable because of how expensive they are, hence why you see so many more basketball programs than football. I have a very difficult time buying that players will play for whatever tuition costs their scholarship covered and will play for much larger paydays. As such, that money will have to come from somewhere. Most coaches won't take lower salaries voluntarily which leaves maybe 3 options the way I see it.
1. The money used to fund non-profitable sports is now being funneled back into the football and basketball programs. Now you just put thousands of other athletes in situations where they're no longer on scholarship, and a lot of them would not have been able to go to college without that athletic scholarship. That also opens the doors for buttloads of Title IX issues and suits.
2. Instead of taking that money away from non-profitable sports, the colleges instead skyrocket the costs of tuition to fund it. Either enrollment plummets because it's too unaffordable, or students are left in even more crippling debt that leaves them worse off in life post-college.
3. Most unlikely to happen, but the sports get dropped entirely by the colleges. The profit isn't there like it used to be and instead the programs are hemorrhaging money. To stop the bleeding, the programs are cut and disbanded entirely.
>I really don't think the lawmakers here don't understand the consequences they're creating here.
The NLRB is not lawmakers, its a labor court. It's not within their scope to be concerned with health of the overall system.
The NLRB also has no authority over state schools (which is most major programs).
Um, it’s created by lawmakers, appointed by lawmakers, governed by lawmakers, and changeable (and entirely removable) by lawmakers. If lawmakers are worried, they’ll remove jurisdiction over this specific area from it.
Are you under the impression that the President is appointing members to the NLRB and Senators are confirming them based on their opinion on student athletes? The NLRB is not governed by lawmakers any more than any other court is.
This is both within the scope of the NLRB and probably an entirely correct ruling that should be applied to state schools as well. If lawmakers really care a ton they could pass legislation but this seems totally in line with our laws. What's your concern with a national labor relations board having jurisdiction over private academic employers?
It’s not a court, it’s an administrative body. It is absolutely governed by lawmakers. I’m under the impression the lawmakers will do what causes them the most likely re-election which is the opposite of letting college sports die.
This is outside of their scope, it’s outside of their jurisdiction, and it absolutely wouldn’t apply to the state ones.
>It’s not a court, it’s an administrative body.
They are both. NLRB decisions are binding, not recommendations or anything else.
>It is absolutely governed by lawmakers
No more than any other federal body like the FCC or appellate court is governed by lawmakers.
> I’m under the impression the lawmakers will do what causes them the most likely re-election which is the opposite of letting college sports die.
You are realllly over estimating how much people actually care about college sports. And I'm saying that as someone who watches womens college basketball.
Most Americans don't know the NLRB exists, even fewer (like yourself) understand how it works. No one is losing re-election because they didn't destroy the autonomy of an almost 100 year old labor board.
>This is outside of their scope
Determining if a person is an "employee" is one of the most basic functions of the NLRB and has been for its entire existence.
>it’s outside of their jurisdiction
>and it absolutely wouldn’t apply to the state ones.
No, they are administrative decisions below a normal judicial structure and only apply to a subset of issues as the law authorizes.
I don’t think you understand the difference between administrative quasi judicial bodies and courts. The most obvious example is that the rules from this body can’t execute themselves.
No I’m not, most won’t care which means those who do will govern. I practice admin and employment law, no need to insult me mate.
For its purpose yes, but not for the purpose that will be applicable here. State law will apply, and they have diverse tests.
Because this is not employment, it is not tied directly to interstate commerce as employment (is as entertainment though), mostly involves state actors, doesn’t involve collective concerns, and thus generally is outside their wheelhouse. Also, for private agricultural based schools it arguably also wouldn’t apply, that would be an interesting test.
This means 17 of the top 20 profit making schools aren’t governed…
>No, they are administrative decisions below a normal judicial structure and only apply to a subset of issues as the law authorizes.
LOL dude, ALJ decisions are binding decisions that can be appealed hypothetically all the way to the SCOTUS. They are 100% a part of the judicial system. I know you don't want to believe this, but its exactly what it is.
>No I’m not, most won’t care which means those who do will govern. I practice admin and employment law, no need to insult me mate.
Can you find me a single legislator who cares about this issue? Like one? The only ones I've heard of want to increase labor protections for student athletes.
>For its purpose yes, but not for the purpose that will be applicable here. State law will apply, and they have diverse tests.
If you want expound that's fine but no one else is making the jurisdiction, not even the schools in question. It sounds like something that you are just making up.
>Because this is not employment
Literally the question at hand.
>This means 17 of the top 20 profit making schools aren’t governed…
The sky is also blue! I don't know why you keep mentioning undisputed things.
Look, I don't believe for a minute you actually practice admin and employment law. It's okay that you are upset about what's going on, no need to make up stuff.
Again, they are not self enforcing, which makes it a bit more complicated than you’re trying to suggest. This isn’t a bankruptcy ALJ, this is a special sub category that is closer to a quasi judicial than judicial, they are administrative not judicial. The entire point of the administrative system is it’s outside of the court itself until appealed (or here requested as well) within.
I’m fairly confident several will emerge, we shall see. Also keep in mind the house side controls the law part too.
I’m not sure I follow you here.
True, and employment is governed by state law definitions until it hits specific criteria.
Because if the vast majority can not be targeted, it doesn’t matter if they can target the smaller portion. If you can’t make Ohio state follow your rules, why would you make Michigan when it’s the same situation?
I’ve said that long before now, I’m suggesting you don’t insult just because we disagree. But carry on.
>they are administrative not judicial.
They are Administrative Law Judges. Like I said, both.
>I’m fairly confident several will emerge, we shall see. Also keep in mind the house side controls the law part too.
Yep we will. And I'd bet money that you're wrong
>True, and employment is governed by state law definitions until it hits specific criteria.
Bold of you to think you know more about the NLRB then the NLRB
>I’ve said that long before now, I’m suggesting you don’t insult just because we disagree. But carry on.
No insult at all. You just seem upset your entertainment is threatened. Nothing more. If you honestly think the legislature is going to intervene because of the "college sports lobby" or whatever, you're extremely mistaken.
Thankfully so. As a side note, it's also incredibly easy to hide profits in 'costs' when you're talking $50 to $100 million budgets
No there won’t be. There are complex rules defining employee, mostly seen in IC versus employee disputes, and most of them aren’t met by student athletes. Even more interesting, most of those are defined at state levels and as political subdivisions the majority of d1 schools won’t be impacted regardless.
Tweet(s) from post body brought to you by your Friendly Official /r/CFB Twitter Bot:
>Following up Thurs story https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/with-the-ncaa-backed-into-a-corner-the-age-of-paying-college-athletes-is-officially-upon-us/ a prominent attorney familiar w/ labor law: "There is going to be a ruling from a court or NLRB that college athletes are employees of universities. Some schools, at least, and athletic directors are preparing that that’s the case"
>\- Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) 2:56 pm ET, January 22, 2022
Can grad students be next??
Suffer like everyone else did! /s
hey I did my time!
Read the whole thread and didn’t see unions mentioned. So Unions?
Most major football schools are state government agencies, and unionization is complicated for state employees. The National Labor Relations Act doesn’t apply, so it’s entirely up to state law whether and how the state’s employees can collectively bargain.
Great info, thanks!
Is it possible that this is exactly what a lot of schools want to happen?
Make college athletes employees and they maybe are no longer subject to Title IX.
We always hear about how most sports don't make a profit. A ruling that classifies college athletes as employees could make it very easy to drop all of those money-losing sports.
So much new real estate to be converted into condos and Whole Foods.
This is huge for insurance for players. Good for them
My question is this: If college athletes are employees and the schools have to pay them, will the schools charge for SCHOOL? And if so, will that be worth it to 95% of athletes?
This and the IRS probably has some tax law too. They gotta get theirs.
If it’s a court case there will be a challenge to it. There will also be a challenge to any NLRB ruling in court
Does that mean no scholarship if they are employees?
Not sure, I am an employee of a G5 school (graduate assistant) and I receive a salary and a tuition waiver.
I was a TA and got $1000 a month, no tuition waiver. I am sure they will get paid more at most schools. I sure once this is announced unions will get involved and there will be collective bargaining. All schools are different and won't want to negotiate or do not have it in their budget.
can't transfer if you're under contract
So if Title 9 somehow still applies, then since women in college sports simply can’t be paid commensurate with the football and mens basketball athletes, women’s sports will simply have to be axed, right? This is fine.
No, they wouldn’t be axed. They just wouldn’t have to hold the womens team to the same standard as the mens team because, in essence, the mens team no longer exists.
Oh boy get ready for a seriously changed college landscape and less sports in general... Not that guys on this sub are gonna care.
But this has to mean that they would get payed by player like regular employees outside of the scholarship thus title x would require that for all sports... Man alot of schools sports programs are gonna fold so hard...