BIG story-NCAA football players attempt to unionize

[downtown]

So this is a really big story, even if you don't care at all about college sports, for reasons I'll get to in a second.

So as a quick background, NCAA football, (and to a lesser extent, NCAA basketball) as an industry, makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year, mostly through very lucrative TV deals. Coaches, 3rd party vendors, TV reps, the NCAA, and some schools have made a lot of money off of this boom time, but players have not.

Scholarship athletes are given a full college scholarship in exchange for playing sports. That scholarship pays for room, board, books, meals, and occasionally other emergencies (some schools let you use that money for say, braces). Only some schools guarantee that scholarship for all 4 years, so at some places, if you rip up your ACL and can't play anymore, you may lose your scholarship.

Many people have complained that the students are getting a raw deal. Players at Northwestern have apparently had enough, and decided to try and form a union. This entire article is worth a read, but here are some snippets.

A group of Northwestern football players led by senior quarterback Kain Colter have submitted signed union cards and a petition to be represented by a labor union to the National Labor Relations Board, the federal organization that recognizes groups that seek collective bargaining rights.

If the NLRB ultimately recognizes the union — which would be called the College Athletes Players Association — its members would have to be treated as school employees and granted the same workplace rights and protections as everyone else, a death blow to the NCAA’s current amateur system.

Right. I remember. What did All Players United want?

As I wrote at the time, the point of last year’s protest was to draw attention to a mix of symbolic and concrete goals:

* Showing support for athletes who are currently suing the NCAA over its handling of concussions and brain trauma;

* The NCAA instituting serious, systemic policies to minimize the risk of athlete brain damage, something the association has failed to do despite its raison d’etre;

* Showing support for former and current athletes who have joined former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon’s antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA regarding the use of player likenesses;

* The NCAA and its member schools increasing scholarship amounts to cover the full cost of attending school; guaranteeing scholarship renewals for permanently-injured athletes; ensuring athletes aren’t stuck with sports-related medical bills; and establishing a trust fund to increase graduation rates.

So this important this is, right now, the union attempt isn't asking to be paid. They're asking for medical support after graduation (cause football is DANGEROUS), for scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance (something supported by most big conferences) and to help graduation rates.

However, most sportswriters, myself included, believe that the ULTIMATE goal of an NCAA union would be to eventually include payment. These demands are fairly modest, and could be accomplished without a union, and I can't see it dissolving once the NCAA grants it.

If the Feds approve the union, (and this will probably be a pretty ugly court case that will be appealed several times), it would only impact PRIVATE schools, of which there aren't that many playing big time football (USC, Stanford, Notre Dame, Vandy, Duke, Northwestern, BYU, Boston College, Baylor off the top of my head).

Public school unionization depends on state level labor laws. Already, graduate students can unionize in about 20 or so states, mostly in the midwest, northeast and west. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_student_unionization). HOWEVA, should this come to pass, schools in states that allow union representation will be able to offer better benefits packages to their student athletes, which should give them a competitive advantage.

Some have speculated that given the HUGE cultural impact of college sports in the south, this might actually be the drive that allows for more open unionization in southern states, which could have national political implications.

What do you think? Should they be allowed to unionize? Are there better ways of solving this problem? I'll get more in depth in the pros and cons later today.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I don't believe they should be allowed to unionize, as they are not employees as defined by law. However, the NCAA is broken. I don't think players should be paid, but I would be in favor of:

- some share in the money from merchandising, perhaps set up as a trust for the atheletes.
- guarantee of scholarships, so if the players get hurt they can still get a degree for free.
- extended health care (al la workers comp) for injuries that occur while playing sports.
- less coercion by administration so that the players can actually get an education while there.

 

[BvBPL]

From what I read, the union is the NCPA. Is that associated w/ any existing unions?

I don't see why a union shouldn't be allowed. I mean, so they don't get paid, so they're "student-athletes," so their amateurs, so what? Even if that bars them technically from a union that shouldn't mean a player's association isn't possible. A player's association may not fall under the purview of the NLRB and its rules, but that doesn't mean it would be useless.

 

[downtown]

From what I read, the union is the NCPA. Is that associated w/ any existing unions?

I don't see why a union shouldn't be allowed. I mean, so they don't get paid, so they're "student-athletes," so their amateurs, so what? Even if that bars them technically from a union that shouldn't mean a player's association isn't possible. A player's association may not fall under the purview of the NLRB and its rules, but that doesn't mean it would be useless.

The NCPA is the closest thing to a professional association that exists, but its small, and isn't recognized by anybody important. The NCAA won't negotiate with them.

I've seen labor lawyers say that it's both likely and unlikely that the Feds will certify them. It's hard to really argue against their stated goals right now. Who could possibly be against additional concussion coverage?

 

[Traitorfish]

Everyone should be in a union. College atheletes are a sub-set of "everyone", therefore, they should be in a union. /syndicalism

But, yeah, this sounds hard to argue with unless you're against the whole "unions" thing to start with. It's an occupation which is very strenuous on their end and very profitable on the school's end, so it's just good sense for them to pursue the same sort of collective bargaining which anybody else in that sort of situation would/should.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Traitor - not everyone would agree with that. Unions have done some wonders for labor, and also are at least in part responsible for many royal screw-ups in the US - see City of Detroit, auto industry, USPS.

I do believe the atheletes are getting the short end of the stick. Even if not certified, I have a feeling the atheletes will be getting more, as, among other things, the NCAA tries to stay relevant.

 

[Traitorfish]

Traitor - not everyone would agree with that. Unions have done some wonders for labor, and also are at least in part responsible for many royal screw-ups in the US - see City of Detroit, auto industry, USPS.

None the less, everyone should be in a union. Principles are worth holding on to.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I didn't know brain injury was a serious enough issue in basketball. Have they considered helmets?

 

[Red Door]

However, most sportswriters, myself included, believe that the ULTIMATE goal of an NCAA union would be to eventually include payment. These demands are fairly modest, and could be accomplished without a union, and I can't see it dissolving once the NCAA grants it.

If the Feds approve the union, (and this will probably be a pretty ugly court case that will be appealed several times), it would only impact PRIVATE schools, of which there aren't that many playing big time football (USC, Stanford, Notre Dame, Vandy, Duke, Northwestern, BYU, Boston College, Baylor off the top of my head).

A couple of questions from me open to anyone, because I only somewhat follow the whole NCAA/union/payment debate...

Where does this unionization end/begin? Rugby teams are mostly club sports and governed by a non-NCAA entity, but one could argue that it is dangerous. Similar to most ice hockey club teams in the South, etc. I even know a dude who did something to his knee (and thus permanently retire) from Club Gymnastics? Would this be for all athletes? Only athletes governed by the NCAA? Only varsity sports?

How/Who would pay these athletes? I sympathize with the argument of being paid for your likeness/jersey/etc, but I don't actually understand how a payment system would be in place for a college athlete. Would it be similar to a work-study program or closer to a campus job, where the school directly sends one a check for their job (in this case, X sport)? Or would it be a side payment from the NCAA?


If this gets approved as a Union, would these private schools enjoy an immense recruiting advantage over other schools? We already saw one Northwestern recruit being reprimanded by future teammates for talking about his teammates "getting him paid", will this lead to future players choosing a unionized USC team over non-unionized UCLA regardless of outcome on the field? I'm interested to see what sports-minded people would think about this outcome.

 

[warpus]

a death blow to the NCAA’s current amateur system.

Wait, really?

At first glance the league seems to be at least semi-pro and potentially even pro. I suppose the one thing that allows them to call it "amateur" is that the players don't get paid (or whatever) ?

To me it seems like they're exploiting the players. I hope they get their union.

 

[IglooDame]

The athletes ARE getting paid ("compensated"), though - via college athletic scholarships.

 

[Light Cleric]

The athletes ARE getting paid ("compensated"), though - via college athletic scholarships.

This is what drives me nuts; that fact is always left out and the premise that they play for "free" is argued when in reality they're getting a paid ride through schools that can be upwards of $20k a semester or more for other people.

I think it's utterly stupid that they can't make money off of signing autographs, selling their own jerseys, appearing in video games and all that stuff. It's their likeness, they should be able to do what they want with it. But if we're going to pay them for actually playing, then they can pay for their room and board, tuition, and everything else with that money.

I know I didn't answer the actual question about the unions, I'm too torn on it to be able to really say. There is a good question about how you can unionize one group without allowing others to do so or whether the union will be as incompetent as the NFLPA has been in many cases, i.e. having a lockout and then caving on basically every major point anyway, namely Goodell's power, and then complain about it endlessly anyway, or how they signed off on the owner collusion in the uncapped year and are now tried to sue over it, something even Judge Doty didn't buy, or whine and moan about knee injuries and then oppose the NFL having players wear knee pads because they don't want get sued by the NFLPA down the road claiming they didn't protect the players.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

The fact that they are getting a scholarship is not the same thing as getting an education - the numbers I have seen are 50% and lower who get degrees - I would bet it lower at the bigger athletic schools. Downtown can quote the figures better than I for sure, but for the most part, especially in the bigger schools, the only goal is keeping them academically eligible. That is why I would like to see the schools have to continue their scholarship after their eligibility ends, so they still have the opportunity to get the "education" promised. Far from a perfect solution, but better than what is there now.

 

[BvBPL]

The NCPA is the closest thing to a professional association that exists, but its small, and isn't recognized by anybody important. The NCAA won't negotiate with them.

Since that's the case, I'd say that a primary initial goal would be to bring in existing, recognized unions as partners if not becoming part of the union. Are the food service workers at Ryan Field unionized? That would seem to be a natural fit, as would various educational unions.

 

[downtown]

A couple of questions from me open to anyone, because I only somewhat follow the whole NCAA/union/payment debate...

Where does this unionization end/begin? Rugby teams are mostly club sports and governed by a non-NCAA entity, but one could argue that it is dangerous. Similar to most ice hockey club teams in the South, etc. I even know a dude who did something to his knee (and thus permanently retire) from Club Gymnastics? Would this be for all athletes? Only athletes governed by the NCAA? Only varsity sports?

The details are still being hammered out, but right now, it would appear to only cover NCAA Men's Basketball and Football players. The others would not have as legally strong a claim to "Employee" Status. There is debate right now whether they would be able to unionize Walk-Ons.

How/Who would pay these athletes? I sympathize with the argument of being paid for your likeness/jersey/etc, but I don't actually understand how a payment system would be in place for a college athlete. Would it be similar to a work-study program or closer to a campus job, where the school directly sends one a check for their job (in this case, X sport)? Or would it be a side payment from the NCAA?

Probably the conferences, out of TV Revenue sharing. The NCAA has other funds currently set up for medical emergencies to be distributed to member athletes, so those could be expanded to cover the medical coverages.

If this gets approved as a Union, would these private schools enjoy an immense recruiting advantage over other schools? We already saw one Northwestern recruit being reprimanded by future teammates for talking about his teammates "getting him paid", will this lead to future players choosing a unionized USC team over non-unionized UCLA regardless of outcome on the field? I'm interested to see what sports-minded people would think about this outcome.

In the short term, no, since the short term isn't really about *paying* athletes, it's about medical coverage, cost of attendance benefits, and others...things that could potentially be easily matched by non union schools. If a union negotiated for revenue sharing, then yes, programs that recognized the union (which would also potentially include some public schools, like in Michigan), would be at an advantage. That would make me think states like Alabama and Texas might want to reevaluate their state laws towards organized labor.

Since that's the case, I'd say that a primary initial goal would be to bring in existing, recognized unions as partners if not becoming part of the union. Are the food service workers at Ryan Field unionized? That would seem to be a natural fit, as would various educational unions.

Doesn't look like it (I could be wrong though), although a few other schools nearby, like UIC, are. The United Steelworkers are providing legal and administrative support to this effort though.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The athletes ARE getting paid ("compensated"), though - via college athletic scholarships.

The point is that it is insufficient compensation, just as it is for many graduate students who are forced to teach and perform other chores. Many such students at public universities are already covered by collective bargaining agreements and have formed unions to protect their interests.

College football is a big time business that generates over $6B in revenue, which is greater than the NBA.

Paying college football and basketball players has been occurring for decades, and it has likely been going on since the first scholarships were given out. But it has been done covertly.

The hypocrisy that permeates big-money college sports takes your breath away. College football and men’s basketball have become such huge commercial enterprises that together they generate more than $6 billion in annual revenue, more than the National Basketball Association. A top college coach can make as much or more than a professional coach; Ohio State just agreed to pay Urban Meyer $24 million over six years. Powerful conferences like the S.E.C. and the Pac 12 have signed lucrative TV deals, while the Big 10 and the University of Texas have created their own sports networks. Companies like Coors and Chick-fil-A eagerly toss millions in marketing dollars at college sports. Last year, Turner Broadcasting and CBS signed a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal for the television rights to the N.C.A.A.’s men’s basketball national championship tournament (a k a “March Madness&#8221. And what does the labor force that makes it possible for coaches to earn millions, and causes marketers to spend billions, get? Nothing. The workers are supposed to be content with a scholarship that does not even cover the full cost of attending college. Any student athlete who accepts an unapproved, free hamburger from a coach, or even a fan, is in violation of N.C.A.A. rules.

This glaring, and increasingly untenable, discrepancy between what football and basketball players get and what everyone else in their food chain reaps has led to two things. First, it has bred a deep cynicism among the athletes themselves. Players aren’t stupid. They look around and see jerseys with their names on them being sold in the bookstores. They see 100,000 people in the stands on a Saturday afternoon. During the season, they can end up putting in 50-hour weeks at their sports, and they learn early on not to take any course that might require real effort or interfere with the primary reason they are on campus: to play football or basketball. The N.C.A.A. can piously define them as students first, but the players know better. They know they are making money for the athletic department. The N.C.A.A.’s often-stated contention that it is protecting the players from “excessive commercialism” is ludicrous; the only thing it’s protecting is everyone else’s revenue stream. (The N.C.A.A. itself takes in nearly $800 million a year, mostly from its March Madness TV contracts.) “Athletes in football and basketball feel unfairly treated,” Leigh Steinberg, a prominent sports agent, says. “The dominant attitude among players is that there is no moral or ethical reason not to take money, because the system is ripping them off.”

It’s a system that enables misconduct to flourish. The abuse scandals that have swirled around Penn State football and Syracuse basketball. The revelation that a University of Miami booster — now in prison, convicted of running a Ponzi scheme — provided dozens of Miami football players with money, cars and even prostitutes. The Ohio State merchandise scandal that cost the coach, Jim Tressel, his job. The financial scandal at the Fiesta Bowl that led to the firing of its chief executive and the indictment of another top executive.

Forcing so-called students to work in such a lucrative industry that requires 50 hours of their time each week without any suitable compensation is exploitation. The cost of their scholarships should certainly be factored into it. But the least they should receive is a minor stipend to help defray all the other expenses which are not covered.

 

[illram]

This is a fantastic idea and long overdue. D1 college sports are basically minor leagues for the pros.

 

[BvBPL]

College football is a big time business that generates over $6B in revenue, which is greater than the NBA.

There are two ways to phrasing the issue.

We can say that the athletes receive insufficient compensation for the amount of work they do. That their scholarships are too small and should be increased.

Or it can be examined by saying that college sports are so lucrative that colleges should "share the wealth."

The former focuses on that the scholarships are insufficient to provide for the necessities of life required for the athletes whereas the later is an equity-based argument for income distribution.

It would seem from the articles that the parties are presently focusing on the former issue.

That said, there are plenty of issues in the peripheral of the issue, like whether or not the student should be able to control portrayals of his likeness and such.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't think there is any doubt at all that they are all interrelated. That this particular effort is currently focusing on these aspects because they know there will be less resistance than to other matters, such as restoring the $2K stipend previously allowed but then rescinded.

 

[JollyRoger]

A free ride should be enough. A little reform on spending money and perhaps deal with post-career injury issues, but otherwise, leave the system as it is.