[82lsju]

On Tuesday, the National College Players Association filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the NCAA office, the Pac-12 Conference and California schools USC and UCLA as single and joint employers of FBS football players and Division I men’s and women’s basketball players. The goal is to affirm employee status for D-I basketball players and FBS football players.

https://www.si.com/college/2022/02/08/nc...&active=no

[82lsju]

On Tuesday, the National College Players Association filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the NCAA office, the Pac-12 Conference and California schools USC and UCLA as single and joint employers of FBS football players and Division I men’s and women’s basketball players. The goal is to affirm employee status for D-I basketball players and FBS football players.

https://www.si.com/college/2022/02/08/nc...&active=no

[martyup]

I'm pretty sure a victory on this issue will not turn out how the athletes envision.

[martyup]

I'm pretty sure a victory on this issue will not turn out how the athletes envision.

[82lsju]

yes, the whole taxes on compensation thing could become a problem for a lot of scholarship athletes, what's the all-in "value" of a Stanford athletic scholarship, let's say $100K/year, state + fed + SSI + Medicare + SDI taxes are probably ~$30K so the recipient needs to make another ~$30K after taxes to "breakeven", some could do that with NIL, maybe for some sports the stars get paid a lot more than the all-in after tax value of the scholarship, most probably won't....

[82lsju]

yes, the whole taxes on compensation thing could become a problem for a lot of scholarship athletes, what's the all-in "value" of a Stanford athletic scholarship, let's say $100K/year, state + fed + SSI + Medicare + SDI taxes are probably ~$30K so the recipient needs to make another ~$30K after taxes to "breakeven", some could do that with NIL, maybe for some sports the stars get paid a lot more than the all-in after tax value of the scholarship, most probably won't....

[2006alum]

yes, the whole taxes on compensation thing could become a problem for a lot of scholarship athletes, what's the all-in "value" of a Stanford athletic scholarship, let's say $100K/year, state + fed + SSI + Medicare + SDI taxes are probably ~$30K so the recipient needs to make another ~$30K after taxes to "breakeven", some could do that with NIL, maybe for some sports the stars get paid a lot more than the all-in after tax value of the scholarship, most probably won't....

And that assumes they get to stay student athletes. If schools have to pay employer half of SSI + Medicare for all of their scholarship athletes, I imagine a lot of schools will feel pressure to cut sports. It can't be repeated enough that only ~30 D1 Athletic Departments are revenue-generating. The rest lose money.

[2006alum]

yes, the whole taxes on compensation thing could become a problem for a lot of scholarship athletes, what's the all-in "value" of a Stanford athletic scholarship, let's say $100K/year, state + fed + SSI + Medicare + SDI taxes are probably ~$30K so the recipient needs to make another ~$30K after taxes to "breakeven", some could do that with NIL, maybe for some sports the stars get paid a lot more than the all-in after tax value of the scholarship, most probably won't....

And that assumes they get to stay student athletes. If schools have to pay employer half of SSI + Medicare for all of their scholarship athletes, I imagine a lot of schools will feel pressure to cut sports. It can't be repeated enough that only ~30 D1 Athletic Departments are revenue-generating. The rest lose money.

[ca245]

Can someone explain why the arguments in the lawsuit that D1 FB, MBB, and WBB should be employees won’t apply to D1 student athletes in other sports or to lower divisions? If “working” for a “business” that is making a profit is the deciding factor, there are many people in 8-5 “jobs” that wouldn’t qualify.

[ca245]

Can someone explain why the arguments in the lawsuit that D1 FB, MBB, and WBB should be employees won’t apply to D1 student athletes in other sports or to lower divisions? If “working” for a “business” that is making a profit is the deciding factor, there are many people in 8-5 “jobs” that wouldn’t qualify.

[dabigv13]

This struck me:

Buoyed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the NCAA v. Alston antitrust lawsuit in June, the country’s sentiment has started to swing in the favor of players over those in charge—coaches, school administrators and conference officials.

When has "the country's sentiment" not been for the players over conference officials and school administrators? Big leap from that to a supposition that most of the country wants student athletes to be unionized employees of their school or their school's affiliate professional team.

It seems to me there is and has been a big push for employee status from many in sports media, along with the athletes who stand to make the most from it, but I don't think Joe Fan is agitating for it.

From the article, it doesn't seem to me like anyone in congress has workable legislation that would preserve any semblance of the current college athletics system. I think it's going to get broken and then have to be put together again, probably in a way with many less college athletes and the ones remaining being even less of students than they are now.

[dabigv13]

This struck me:

Buoyed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the NCAA v. Alston antitrust lawsuit in June, the country’s sentiment has started to swing in the favor of players over those in charge—coaches, school administrators and conference officials.

When has "the country's sentiment" not been for the players over conference officials and school administrators? Big leap from that to a supposition that most of the country wants student athletes to be unionized employees of their school or their school's affiliate professional team.

It seems to me there is and has been a big push for employee status from many in sports media, along with the athletes who stand to make the most from it, but I don't think Joe Fan is agitating for it.

From the article, it doesn't seem to me like anyone in congress has workable legislation that would preserve any semblance of the current college athletics system. I think it's going to get broken and then have to be put together again, probably in a way with many less college athletes and the ones remaining being even less of students than they are now.

[OutsiderFan]

The schools have way, way more to lose than the athletes in terms of money, but the athletes have more to lose in terms of how many losers there will be.

As I have said here before, all the schools had to do was do something reasonable to throw the revenue sport athletes a bone, and the system would have generally stayed intact.  Instead, by operating with a plantation mentality, the schools created a situation where the only outcome is they must start sharing significantly more money with the labor, which sort of defeats the purpose of having resisted paying them more in the first place.

But, for some reason I don't understand, unlike the pro leagues, there are donors who line up to subsidize the operating costs of the sports, making the amount spent on sports greater than they generate. This has been in the form of coaching salaries, facilities, and staff to recruit. Now, it's laundering money through NIL deals. Given all this, it would be a whole heckuva lot more straightforward if that money went to the athletes as compensation in a free labor market. Like, everyone cuts their own deal to play for whatever they will take. Of course, when you open this Pandora's box, now you are dealing with working conditions. The NCAA may have its rules, but individual players may have their own demands that have to be individually negotiated, absent a union and CBA.

I'd like each school to be capped as to how much it can pay players, but the endemic booster system that created bag men will find ways around a salary cap.  I want to see more money going to players and less to coaches, staff and facilities, but...

Even if players get paid more and get classified as labor, the the whole situation is a total mess in terms of Title IX issues and broad based sports offerings. Again, the schools just had to give a little to avoid it, so some part of me is glad the NCAA did this to itself. It's just well deserved karma.

[OutsiderFan]

The schools have way, way more to lose than the athletes in terms of money, but the athletes have more to lose in terms of how many losers there will be.

As I have said here before, all the schools had to do was do something reasonable to throw the revenue sport athletes a bone, and the system would have generally stayed intact.  Instead, by operating with a plantation mentality, the schools created a situation where the only outcome is they must start sharing significantly more money with the labor, which sort of defeats the purpose of having resisted paying them more in the first place.

But, for some reason I don't understand, unlike the pro leagues, there are donors who line up to subsidize the operating costs of the sports, making the amount spent on sports greater than they generate. This has been in the form of coaching salaries, facilities, and staff to recruit. Now, it's laundering money through NIL deals. Given all this, it would be a whole heckuva lot more straightforward if that money went to the athletes as compensation in a free labor market. Like, everyone cuts their own deal to play for whatever they will take. Of course, when you open this Pandora's box, now you are dealing with working conditions. The NCAA may have its rules, but individual players may have their own demands that have to be individually negotiated, absent a union and CBA.

I'd like each school to be capped as to how much it can pay players, but the endemic booster system that created bag men will find ways around a salary cap.  I want to see more money going to players and less to coaches, staff and facilities, but...

Even if players get paid more and get classified as labor, the the whole situation is a total mess in terms of Title IX issues and broad based sports offerings. Again, the schools just had to give a little to avoid it, so some part of me is glad the NCAA did this to itself. It's just well deserved karma.

[ca245]

The schools have way, way more to lose than the athletes in terms of money, but the athletes have more to lose in terms of how many losers there will be.

As I have said here before, all the schools had to do was do something reasonable to throw the revenue sport athletes a bone, and the system would have generally stayed intact.  Instead, by operating with a plantation mentality, the schools created a situation where the only outcome is they must start sharing significantly more money with the labor, which sort of defeats the purpose of having resisted paying them more in the first place.

But, for some reason I don't understand, unlike the pro leagues, there are donors who line up to subsidize the operating costs of the sports, making the amount spent on sports greater than they generate. This has been in the form of coaching salaries, facilities, and staff to recruit. Now, it's laundering money through NIL deals. Given all this, it would be a whole heckuva lot more straightforward if that money went to the athletes as compensation in a free labor market. Like, everyone cuts their own deal to play for whatever they will take. Of course, when you open this Pandora's box, now you are dealing with working conditions. The NCAA may have its rules, but individual players may have their own demands that have to be individually negotiated, absent a union and CBA.

I'd like each school to be capped as to how much it can pay players, but the endemic booster system that created bag men will find ways around a salary cap.  I want to see more money going to players and less to coaches, staff and facilities, but...

Even if players get paid more and get classified as labor, the the whole situation is a total mess in terms of Title IX issues and broad based sports offerings. Again, the schools just had to give a little to avoid it, so some part of me is glad the NCAA did this to itself. It's just well deserved karma.

Absent federal legislation or the SA's unionizing and entering into a labor agreement with the schools, any agreement between schools to cap payments are likely to run into anti-trust issues.  I don't see either solution happening that quickly, so the mess will be around for a while.

[ca245]

The schools have way, way more to lose than the athletes in terms of money, but the athletes have more to lose in terms of how many losers there will be.

As I have said here before, all the schools had to do was do something reasonable to throw the revenue sport athletes a bone, and the system would have generally stayed intact.  Instead, by operating with a plantation mentality, the schools created a situation where the only outcome is they must start sharing significantly more money with the labor, which sort of defeats the purpose of having resisted paying them more in the first place.

But, for some reason I don't understand, unlike the pro leagues, there are donors who line up to subsidize the operating costs of the sports, making the amount spent on sports greater than they generate. This has been in the form of coaching salaries, facilities, and staff to recruit. Now, it's laundering money through NIL deals. Given all this, it would be a whole heckuva lot more straightforward if that money went to the athletes as compensation in a free labor market. Like, everyone cuts their own deal to play for whatever they will take. Of course, when you open this Pandora's box, now you are dealing with working conditions. The NCAA may have its rules, but individual players may have their own demands that have to be individually negotiated, absent a union and CBA.

I'd like each school to be capped as to how much it can pay players, but the endemic booster system that created bag men will find ways around a salary cap.  I want to see more money going to players and less to coaches, staff and facilities, but...

Even if players get paid more and get classified as labor, the the whole situation is a total mess in terms of Title IX issues and broad based sports offerings. Again, the schools just had to give a little to avoid it, so some part of me is glad the NCAA did this to itself. It's just well deserved karma.

Absent federal legislation or the SA's unionizing and entering into a labor agreement with the schools, any agreement between schools to cap payments are likely to run into anti-trust issues.  I don't see either solution happening that quickly, so the mess will be around for a while.

[lex24]

The schools have way, way more to lose than the athletes in terms of money, but the athletes have more to lose in terms of how many losers there will be.

As I have said here before, all the schools had to do was do something reasonable to throw the revenue sport athletes a bone, and the system would have generally stayed intact.  Instead, by operating with a plantation mentality, the schools created a situation where the only outcome is they must start sharing significantly more money with the labor, which sort of defeats the purpose of having resisted paying them more in the first place.

But, for some reason I don't understand, unlike the pro leagues, there are donors who line up to subsidize the operating costs of the sports, making the amount spent on sports greater than they generate. This has been in the form of coaching salaries, facilities, and staff to recruit. Now, it's laundering money through NIL deals. Given all this, it would be a whole heckuva lot more straightforward if that money went to the athletes as compensation in a free labor market. Like, everyone cuts their own deal to play for whatever they will take. Of course, when you open this Pandora's box, now you are dealing with working conditions. The NCAA may have its rules, but individual players may have their own demands that have to be individually negotiated, absent a union and CBA.

I'd like each school to be capped as to how much it can pay players, but the endemic booster system that created bag men will find ways around a salary cap.  I want to see more money going to players and less to coaches, staff and facilities, but...

Even if players get paid more and get classified as labor, the the whole situation is a total mess in terms of Title IX issues and broad based sports offerings. Again, the schools just had to give a little to avoid it, so some part of me is glad the NCAA did this to itself. It's just well deserved karma.

I’m not going to put college sports in a traditional labor category.  Nor use catchy but irrelevant terms like “plantation mentality “. There will be major legal issues. If I’m Stanford and it goes this route, I end the programs. And because these sports essentially fund the non revenue sports, I’d end those too. Just go the club sport route.

Stanford’s reputation won’t be hurt one bit by dropping sports. Applications will not drop. And money isn’t an issue. I suspect that is true at most schools. So just end college sports. Then let’s see where all the HS football and basketball players go to get their paycheck….

Why bother with the headache.

[lex24]

The schools have way, way more to lose than the athletes in terms of money, but the athletes have more to lose in terms of how many losers there will be.

As I have said here before, all the schools had to do was do something reasonable to throw the revenue sport athletes a bone, and the system would have generally stayed intact.  Instead, by operating with a plantation mentality, the schools created a situation where the only outcome is they must start sharing significantly more money with the labor, which sort of defeats the purpose of having resisted paying them more in the first place.

But, for some reason I don't understand, unlike the pro leagues, there are donors who line up to subsidize the operating costs of the sports, making the amount spent on sports greater than they generate. This has been in the form of coaching salaries, facilities, and staff to recruit. Now, it's laundering money through NIL deals. Given all this, it would be a whole heckuva lot more straightforward if that money went to the athletes as compensation in a free labor market. Like, everyone cuts their own deal to play for whatever they will take. Of course, when you open this Pandora's box, now you are dealing with working conditions. The NCAA may have its rules, but individual players may have their own demands that have to be individually negotiated, absent a union and CBA.

I'd like each school to be capped as to how much it can pay players, but the endemic booster system that created bag men will find ways around a salary cap.  I want to see more money going to players and less to coaches, staff and facilities, but...

Even if players get paid more and get classified as labor, the the whole situation is a total mess in terms of Title IX issues and broad based sports offerings. Again, the schools just had to give a little to avoid it, so some part of me is glad the NCAA did this to itself. It's just well deserved karma.

I’m not going to put college sports in a traditional labor category.  Nor use catchy but irrelevant terms like “plantation mentality “. There will be major legal issues. If I’m Stanford and it goes this route, I end the programs. And because these sports essentially fund the non revenue sports, I’d end those too. Just go the club sport route.

Stanford’s reputation won’t be hurt one bit by dropping sports. Applications will not drop. And money isn’t an issue. I suspect that is true at most schools. So just end college sports. Then let’s see where all the HS football and basketball players go to get their paycheck….

Why bother with the headache.

[81alum]

I really do not see the logic that only athletes in revenue-generating sports would be employees but athletes in money-losing sports would not be.  Do corporations that lose money not pay their employees?  

If a university managed to field a money-making soccer or baseball team, would such a team immediately be reclassified and its students turned into employees?  And if a university's football team starts losing money (as most do) would its team be de-unionized and its players turned back from employees to student-athletes?

Making the basis of the distinction money-making vs. money-losing sports is specious.  It makes no sense at all.

And what if for some strange reason a university had a money-making symphony or a cappella group?  Why wouldn't those student-musicians then be in the same position as a football player? 

I have no faith at all that our court system will sort this mess out properly.  This could well be the permanent unraveling of college sports for an institution like Stanford.  It is getting harder and harder to be optimistic about this.

[81alum]

I really do not see the logic that only athletes in revenue-generating sports would be employees but athletes in money-losing sports would not be.  Do corporations that lose money not pay their employees?  

If a university managed to field a money-making soccer or baseball team, would such a team immediately be reclassified and its students turned into employees?  And if a university's football team starts losing money (as most do) would its team be de-unionized and its players turned back from employees to student-athletes?

Making the basis of the distinction money-making vs. money-losing sports is specious.  It makes no sense at all.

And what if for some strange reason a university had a money-making symphony or a cappella group?  Why wouldn't those student-musicians then be in the same position as a football player? 

I have no faith at all that our court system will sort this mess out properly.  This could well be the permanent unraveling of college sports for an institution like Stanford.  It is getting harder and harder to be optimistic about this.

[martyup]

[martyup]

[OutsiderFan]

The bifurcation of "revenue" and "non-revenue" sports as it relates to athlete compensation, isn't predicated on sports that create revenue vs. ones that don't, as much as it is the motivation of those playing revenue sports to get a piece of the pie. Non-revenue sport athletes in the main are just grateful they can play college sports, especially those on scholarship. They aren't asking to be paid because their sports are not exploiting them, as much as the other way around.

My guess is the way this goes would be courts, slowly getting universities to agree on some revenue split between schools and labor when revenue thresholds reach a certain amount. And my further guess is ultimately we will have professional college sports and amateur college sports in some form or fashion. 

The passion I used to have for Cal and Stanford's revenue sports has largely been extinguished just based on the transfer rule liberation and NIL money laundering.  It's professional sports masquerading as amateur, and insulting my intelligence along the way. I'd rather put my passions into professional sports that don't pretend to be something they are not. I will still appreciate and be entertained by the top pro college sports competitions from a clinical perspective, but it will no longer make emotional investments in the teams on a day in and day out basis.

[OutsiderFan]

The bifurcation of "revenue" and "non-revenue" sports as it relates to athlete compensation, isn't predicated on sports that create revenue vs. ones that don't, as much as it is the motivation of those playing revenue sports to get a piece of the pie. Non-revenue sport athletes in the main are just grateful they can play college sports, especially those on scholarship. They aren't asking to be paid because their sports are not exploiting them, as much as the other way around.

My guess is the way this goes would be courts, slowly getting universities to agree on some revenue split between schools and labor when revenue thresholds reach a certain amount. And my further guess is ultimately we will have professional college sports and amateur college sports in some form or fashion. 

The passion I used to have for Cal and Stanford's revenue sports has largely been extinguished just based on the transfer rule liberation and NIL money laundering.  It's professional sports masquerading as amateur, and insulting my intelligence along the way. I'd rather put my passions into professional sports that don't pretend to be something they are not. I will still appreciate and be entertained by the top pro college sports competitions from a clinical perspective, but it will no longer make emotional investments in the teams on a day in and day out basis.

[81alum]

The bifurcation of "revenue" and "non-revenue" sports as it relates to athlete compensation, isn't predicated on sports that create revenue vs. ones that don't, as much as it is the motivation of those playing revenue sports to get a piece of the pie. 

I get that Outsider, but the vast majority of "revenue sports" have no pie to get a piece of.  At most universities even the "revenue sports" are subsidized by allocations from general funds, or from student fees.  A very small number of "revenue sports" actually succeed in generating more revenue than they spend, and when they do, that revenue is used to pay for the non revenue sports.

What this development really smacks of is football and basketball resenting having to help pay for all the other sports.  If those football players get paid so they are not "exploited" it will mean that there will be fewer resources for all the non-revenue sports, where one could argue the athletes work every bit as hard and already get many fewer advantages than football and basketball players.  I hear these athletes complain bitterly at my current university all the time about the favoritism given to football--the better housing, the better food, the more luxurious travel accommodations, even more academic counseling, more access to the weight room, and the list goes on and on.  Talk about exploited athletes!  I think you would find that the athletes in revenue sports are the least exploited on most campuses, and yet they are arguing to be paid out of the revenues that would otherwise be helping athletes with fewer advantages.  The rich would get richer and the poor poorer.

On your other point that your passion is waning due to these developments, I hear you and agree.  Professional sports are no substitute for me--it was the amateur ideal of a student-athlete that sparked my interest in sports in the first place, and it was Stanford's unique ability to uphold that ideal while so many others were falling short of the mark that inspired my love of Stanford athletics in particular.  The more professionalized college sports become the less I will be interested.  It has already begun to happen for me, just as it has for you.

[81alum]

The bifurcation of "revenue" and "non-revenue" sports as it relates to athlete compensation, isn't predicated on sports that create revenue vs. ones that don't, as much as it is the motivation of those playing revenue sports to get a piece of the pie. 

I get that Outsider, but the vast majority of "revenue sports" have no pie to get a piece of.  At most universities even the "revenue sports" are subsidized by allocations from general funds, or from student fees.  A very small number of "revenue sports" actually succeed in generating more revenue than they spend, and when they do, that revenue is used to pay for the non revenue sports.

What this development really smacks of is football and basketball resenting having to help pay for all the other sports.  If those football players get paid so they are not "exploited" it will mean that there will be fewer resources for all the non-revenue sports, where one could argue the athletes work every bit as hard and already get many fewer advantages than football and basketball players.  I hear these athletes complain bitterly at my current university all the time about the favoritism given to football--the better housing, the better food, the more luxurious travel accommodations, even more academic counseling, more access to the weight room, and the list goes on and on.  Talk about exploited athletes!  I think you would find that the athletes in revenue sports are the least exploited on most campuses, and yet they are arguing to be paid out of the revenues that would otherwise be helping athletes with fewer advantages.  The rich would get richer and the poor poorer.

On your other point that your passion is waning due to these developments, I hear you and agree.  Professional sports are no substitute for me--it was the amateur ideal of a student-athlete that sparked my interest in sports in the first place, and it was Stanford's unique ability to uphold that ideal while so many others were falling short of the mark that inspired my love of Stanford athletics in particular.  The more professionalized college sports become the less I will be interested.  It has already begun to happen for me, just as it has for you.

[ca245]

Most athletic departments lose money and are often kept afloat by alumni donations. If recent developments sour alumni on college sports and donations dry up, the red ink will only get worse.
I keep thinking of a cartoon I once saw, where the CEO is addressing the gathered employees: “According to our profit-sharing plan, you each owe the company $5000.”

[ca245]

Most athletic departments lose money and are often kept afloat by alumni donations. If recent developments sour alumni on college sports and donations dry up, the red ink will only get worse.
I keep thinking of a cartoon I once saw, where the CEO is addressing the gathered employees: “According to our profit-sharing plan, you each owe the company $5000.”

[Spiny_Norman]

What will there be for the courts to sort out? Who is going to file suit against whom for what? It's a very muddled state of affairs because there really are no guidelines. I imagine that there are lawyers, administrators and consultants across the country trying to come up with a model that will a) pass muster with the courts; b) be financially viable for the university; c) be acceptable to the athletes themselves. I have no idea how it will turn out. I don't even have a sense about who is leading the development of ideas and solutions. This seems like a leaderless revolution.

The unheard voice so far is the tv networks. ESPN and Fox have invested billions in college football. CBS and ESPN have invested billions in college basketball. Any change in the dynamics of college sports affects them a lot. The collapse of college sports would be catastrophic for them. What role can they play to help sort out this mess?

[Spiny_Norman]

What will there be for the courts to sort out? Who is going to file suit against whom for what? It's a very muddled state of affairs because there really are no guidelines. I imagine that there are lawyers, administrators and consultants across the country trying to come up with a model that will a) pass muster with the courts; b) be financially viable for the university; c) be acceptable to the athletes themselves. I have no idea how it will turn out. I don't even have a sense about who is leading the development of ideas and solutions. This seems like a leaderless revolution.

The unheard voice so far is the tv networks. ESPN and Fox have invested billions in college football. CBS and ESPN have invested billions in college basketball. Any change in the dynamics of college sports affects them a lot. The collapse of college sports would be catastrophic for them. What role can they play to help sort out this mess?

[BostonCard]

Even if players get paid more and get classified as labor, the the whole situation is a total mess in terms of Title IX issues and broad based sports offerings. Again, the schools just had to give a little to avoid it, so some part of me is glad the NCAA did this to itself. It's just well deserved karma.

Seems to me that these  things are in a trilemma that can’t be resolved.  You can pay revenue athletes but would run afoul of title ix, you can pay all athletes, but probably not be able to afford it, or you can pay none and probably be in violation of fair labor standards.

The answer is probably to take much of the money out of college sports, but good luck stuffing that genie back in the bottle.  There’s a lesson here about geese and golden eggs.

BC

---

The unheard voice so far is the tv networks. ESPN and Fox have invested billions in college football. CBS and ESPN have invested billions in college basketball. Any change in the dynamics of college sports affects them a lot. The collapse of college sports would be catastrophic for them. What role can they play to help sort out this mess?

Given that their priorities are to the advertisers and viewers and not to schools and athletes, and that television is a strong contributor to the problem, I am not sanguine that they will play a role to sort out this mess.

BC

[BostonCard]

Even if players get paid more and get classified as labor, the the whole situation is a total mess in terms of Title IX issues and broad based sports offerings. Again, the schools just had to give a little to avoid it, so some part of me is glad the NCAA did this to itself. It's just well deserved karma.

Seems to me that these  things are in a trilemma that can’t be resolved.  You can pay revenue athletes but would run afoul of title ix, you can pay all athletes, but probably not be able to afford it, or you can pay none and probably be in violation of fair labor standards.

The answer is probably to take much of the money out of college sports, but good luck stuffing that genie back in the bottle.  There’s a lesson here about geese and golden eggs.

BC

---

The unheard voice so far is the tv networks. ESPN and Fox have invested billions in college football. CBS and ESPN have invested billions in college basketball. Any change in the dynamics of college sports affects them a lot. The collapse of college sports would be catastrophic for them. What role can they play to help sort out this mess?

Given that their priorities are to the advertisers and viewers and not to schools and athletes, and that television is a strong contributor to the problem, I am not sanguine that they will play a role to sort out this mess.

BC

[dabigv13]

I dont think Herbstreit would be pushing employee status if ESPN wasn't at least tacitly on board with that. Probably makes it simpler for them and they could really care less if college athletics outside of CFB, MBB, and WBB survives in any way.

I'm sure ESPN et al will be trying to influence how this develops to their advantage. Same for the schools. But while there are player advocacy organizations, not all player's views are represented necessarily.

What there won't be is any organization that represents the interests of college sports fans, and at least at this point, no organization explicitly of "nonrevenue" sports athletes.

[dabigv13]

I dont think Herbstreit would be pushing employee status if ESPN wasn't at least tacitly on board with that. Probably makes it simpler for them and they could really care less if college athletics outside of CFB, MBB, and WBB survives in any way.

I'm sure ESPN et al will be trying to influence how this develops to their advantage. Same for the schools. But while there are player advocacy organizations, not all player's views are represented necessarily.

What there won't be is any organization that represents the interests of college sports fans, and at least at this point, no organization explicitly of "nonrevenue" sports athletes.

[lex24]

Issues and some consequences off the top of my head:

Issues

1. Title IX
2. Non-revenue sports. As others have said, whether an enterprise makes money or not is irrelevant to the question of whether one is an employee.
3. Salaries. How. Hard to imagine without a CBA. And good luck with that.
4. Unions vs Universities. Again I think their would have to be a CBA. A Union for college athletes is hard enough. How do the University’s organize into a cohesive group. They can’t even agree on an NCS. You think Alabama and Stanford are going to have the same interests?
5. Taxes. If they are employees, then why wouldn’t the scholarship be considered income? 
6. Different states. Different laws.
6. NAIA and Non Div 1 schools. How can you have two different systems.  If they are employees for Stanford they are employees for North Dakota St. 

Consequences 

1. Most Universities end their football programs. And many their basketball programs. 
2. Those that keep football limit rosters to perhaps 55-60.  Max
3. Non revenue sports all become club sports.  
4.  The system is worse, not better for all except those few that are the stars.  

Large numbers of kids that at least had the opportunity to attend college on an athletic scholarship (and lack other resources and avenues) now have no opportunity.

Also, if they are employees, they get the full range of labor laws. Absent some Congressional action. The Courts are not going to solve any of these issues. The Courts may decide big picture issues. The main one being are they employees.

In the end, I put this in the “careful what you wish for” category. Because in the end, I think it’s a massive negative for kids that want to have an avenue after HS to play their sport.

[lex24]

Issues and some consequences off the top of my head:

Issues

1. Title IX
2. Non-revenue sports. As others have said, whether an enterprise makes money or not is irrelevant to the question of whether one is an employee.
3. Salaries. How. Hard to imagine without a CBA. And good luck with that.
4. Unions vs Universities. Again I think their would have to be a CBA. A Union for college athletes is hard enough. How do the University’s organize into a cohesive group. They can’t even agree on an NCS. You think Alabama and Stanford are going to have the same interests?
5. Taxes. If they are employees, then why wouldn’t the scholarship be considered income? 
6. Different states. Different laws.
6. NAIA and Non Div 1 schools. How can you have two different systems.  If they are employees for Stanford they are employees for North Dakota St. 

Consequences 

1. Most Universities end their football programs. And many their basketball programs. 
2. Those that keep football limit rosters to perhaps 55-60.  Max
3. Non revenue sports all become club sports.  
4.  The system is worse, not better for all except those few that are the stars.  

Large numbers of kids that at least had the opportunity to attend college on an athletic scholarship (and lack other resources and avenues) now have no opportunity.

Also, if they are employees, they get the full range of labor laws. Absent some Congressional action. The Courts are not going to solve any of these issues. The Courts may decide big picture issues. The main one being are they employees.

In the end, I put this in the “careful what you wish for” category. Because in the end, I think it’s a massive negative for kids that want to have an avenue after HS to play their sport.

[ca245]

Absent contractual agreement to the contrary, wouldn’t employment be at will? So a school could cut an underperforming player anytime (and bring in a replacement?). At least right now a school cannot cut a scholarship athlete in the middle of the year. 
Could a conference’s schools agree to limit FB rosters to say 60 players without running afoul of antitrust laws if there is no CBA?
Some sort of CBA is badly needed but good luck getting one in place quickly.

[ca245]

Absent contractual agreement to the contrary, wouldn’t employment be at will? So a school could cut an underperforming player anytime (and bring in a replacement?). At least right now a school cannot cut a scholarship athlete in the middle of the year. 
Could a conference’s schools agree to limit FB rosters to say 60 players without running afoul of antitrust laws if there is no CBA?
Some sort of CBA is badly needed but good luck getting one in place quickly.

[Goose]

Some sort of CBA is badly needed but good luck getting one in place quickly.

And how could such a CBA actually work when the union membership turns over by 25% each year? The new guys may not much like what their predecessors negotiated. After four years, essentially nobody would remain from any given contract signing. Get the money all front loaded and screw over the class of x + 4 ...? Why not, if you negotiate an 8 year contract, you get paid big time, and then leave. A few may say "That's not right", but if it is employees vs employer, money always wins, especially if you will be gone when the bad effects set in.

[Goose]

Some sort of CBA is badly needed but good luck getting one in place quickly.

And how could such a CBA actually work when the union membership turns over by 25% each year? The new guys may not much like what their predecessors negotiated. After four years, essentially nobody would remain from any given contract signing. Get the money all front loaded and screw over the class of x + 4 ...? Why not, if you negotiate an 8 year contract, you get paid big time, and then leave. A few may say "That's not right", but if it is employees vs employer, money always wins, especially if you will be gone when the bad effects set in.