[needle]

A bridge too far for Stanford? We may find out soon.

 NCAA president Charlie Baker proposed rule changes Tuesday that would allow Division I schools for the first time to pay their athletes in ways that are not tied to educational resources.

Baker shared the proposed changes in a letter sent to member schools. If Division I schools choose to adopt the rules, they would be allowed to enter into name, image and likeness deals directly with their athletes. The new rules would also create a trust fund for athletes at the richest tier of athletic departments and allow those schools to create its own set of rules for recruiting, transfers, roster size and a wide range of other policies.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...-nil-deals

[needle]

A bridge too far for Stanford? We may find out soon.

 NCAA president Charlie Baker proposed rule changes Tuesday that would allow Division I schools for the first time to pay their athletes in ways that are not tied to educational resources.

Baker shared the proposed changes in a letter sent to member schools. If Division I schools choose to adopt the rules, they would be allowed to enter into name, image and likeness deals directly with their athletes. The new rules would also create a trust fund for athletes at the richest tier of athletic departments and allow those schools to create its own set of rules for recruiting, transfers, roster size and a wide range of other policies.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...-nil-deals

[Goose]

IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

[Goose]

IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

[cardfan77]

This will be the death of college athletics

[cardfan77]

This will be the death of college athletics

[Goose]

This will be the death of college athletics

Agree, if it is adopted.

[Goose]

This will be the death of college athletics

Agree, if it is adopted.

[lex24]

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using Reese Witherspoon. She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

Second, even if I’m wrong – which is quite possible- the power five conferences will have scores of lawyers analyzing this. No way they’re going to go that route if there’s even a colorable claim that this turns the athletes into employees.

[lex24]

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using Reese Witherspoon. She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

Second, even if I’m wrong – which is quite possible- the power five conferences will have scores of lawyers analyzing this. No way they’re going to go that route if there’s even a colorable claim that this turns the athletes into employees.

[82lsju]

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

Second, even if I’m wrong – which is quite possible- the power five conferences will have scores of lawyers analyzing this. No way they’re going to go that route if there’s even a colorable claim that this turns the athletes into employees.

I guess it will depend at least in part on the details from

The new rules would also create a new subdivision of Division I schools that would be allowed to create its own set of rules for recruiting, transfers, roster size and a wide range of other policies. To be a part of that subdivision, each school would have to put millions of dollars each year into a trust fund for athletes.

and if Stanford started marketing using Reese Witherspoon I would imagine that while she might not be an employee she'd have some sort of contract in place and be a contractor and get a form 1099, and at least where I work you can only be a contractor for I think 12 months then you are let go (you can return in I think three months) so the company is not at risk of having you be considered a full time employee

[82lsju]

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

Second, even if I’m wrong – which is quite possible- the power five conferences will have scores of lawyers analyzing this. No way they’re going to go that route if there’s even a colorable claim that this turns the athletes into employees.

I guess it will depend at least in part on the details from

The new rules would also create a new subdivision of Division I schools that would be allowed to create its own set of rules for recruiting, transfers, roster size and a wide range of other policies. To be a part of that subdivision, each school would have to put millions of dollars each year into a trust fund for athletes.

and if Stanford started marketing using Reese Witherspoon I would imagine that while she might not be an employee she'd have some sort of contract in place and be a contractor and get a form 1099, and at least where I work you can only be a contractor for I think 12 months then you are let go (you can return in I think three months) so the company is not at risk of having you be considered a full time employee

[Goose]

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

It is different if playing on a sports team is a de-facto requirement to be paid for a clearly bogus marketing campaign. It is also a problem if the vast proportion of your time (and compensation) come from a single source. That makes you a "statutory employee", as many "consultants" found out the hard way.

Second, even if I’m wrong – which is quite possible- the power five conferences will have scores of lawyers analyzing this. No way they’re going to go that route if there’s even a colorable claim that this turns the athletes into employees.

I agree, so I expect this will never happen. Difficult to be sure though, as it is often possible to find lawyers that will support their clients desires even when it is "obvious" to disinterested observers that they will lose. See Lyon & Lyon and Cellpro.

[Goose]

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

It is different if playing on a sports team is a de-facto requirement to be paid for a clearly bogus marketing campaign. It is also a problem if the vast proportion of your time (and compensation) come from a single source. That makes you a "statutory employee", as many "consultants" found out the hard way.

Second, even if I’m wrong – which is quite possible- the power five conferences will have scores of lawyers analyzing this. No way they’re going to go that route if there’s even a colorable claim that this turns the athletes into employees.

I agree, so I expect this will never happen. Difficult to be sure though, as it is often possible to find lawyers that will support their clients desires even when it is "obvious" to disinterested observers that they will lose. See Lyon & Lyon and Cellpro.

[2006alum]

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

Yes, but if Stanford started marketing Reese Witherspoon's classes, which they also compensated her for teaching, and they also directed when she taught them, how she taught them, and what precisely she taught, then I'm afraid she's employee. Not sure how all those fancy lawyers are going to argue out of such a pretty obvious analog. The only thing previously keeping students from being employees is that to the degree they had monetary "compensation," it was incidental to their academic scholarships. That fiction is obliterated by the NCAA's proposal. 

This will be the death of college athletics

Agree, if it is adopted.

Thirded. But honestly, at this point, it can't come fast enough.

[2006alum]

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

Yes, but if Stanford started marketing Reese Witherspoon's classes, which they also compensated her for teaching, and they also directed when she taught them, how she taught them, and what precisely she taught, then I'm afraid she's employee. Not sure how all those fancy lawyers are going to argue out of such a pretty obvious analog. The only thing previously keeping students from being employees is that to the degree they had monetary "compensation," it was incidental to their academic scholarships. That fiction is obliterated by the NCAA's proposal. 

This will be the death of college athletics

Agree, if it is adopted.

Thirded. But honestly, at this point, it can't come fast enough.

[Softball Fan]

IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

If college athletes are classified as employees; California Assembly Bill 5, effective January 2020, forces the employer to treat them as all other employees, not as independent contractors.  That would mean all benefits paid to Stanford employees would also have to be paid to the athletes.  This would become unworkable in many ways.  There would have to be some amendments made to California laws about employees.

[Softball Fan]

IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

If college athletes are classified as employees; California Assembly Bill 5, effective January 2020, forces the employer to treat them as all other employees, not as independent contractors.  That would mean all benefits paid to Stanford employees would also have to be paid to the athletes.  This would become unworkable in many ways.  There would have to be some amendments made to California laws about employees.

[lex24]

1701816187[/url]']

1701808590[/url]']

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

Yes, but if Stanford started marketing Reese Witherspoon's classes, which they also compensated her for teaching, and they also directed when she taught them, how she taught them, and what precisely she taught, then I'm afraid she's employee. Not sure how all those fancy lawyers are going to argue out of such a pretty obvious analog. The only thing previously keeping students from being employees is that to the degree they had monetary "compensation," it was incidental to their academic scholarships. That fiction is obliterated by the NCAA's proposal. 

1701804757[/url]']

1701802556[/url]']
This will be the death of college athletics

Agree, if it is adopted.

Thirded. But honestly, at this point, it can't come fast enough.

Those fancy lawyers may agree with you.  In which case the Power 5 will tell the NCAA to feck off.

[lex24]

1701816187[/url]']

1701808590[/url]']

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

Yes, but if Stanford started marketing Reese Witherspoon's classes, which they also compensated her for teaching, and they also directed when she taught them, how she taught them, and what precisely she taught, then I'm afraid she's employee. Not sure how all those fancy lawyers are going to argue out of such a pretty obvious analog. The only thing previously keeping students from being employees is that to the degree they had monetary "compensation," it was incidental to their academic scholarships. That fiction is obliterated by the NCAA's proposal. 

1701804757[/url]']

1701802556[/url]']
This will be the death of college athletics

Agree, if it is adopted.

Thirded. But honestly, at this point, it can't come fast enough.

Those fancy lawyers may agree with you.  In which case the Power 5 will tell the NCAA to feck off.

[jacket3ree]

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

Second, even if I’m wrong – which is quite possible- the power five conferences will have scores of lawyers analyzing this. No way they’re going to go that route if there’s even a colorable claim that this turns the athletes into employees.

I don't think you are wrong. Isn't this like every contract I sign?  'Consultant is an independent contractor and in no way shape or form considered employees of [client]?'  We get paid and 'work' for the client, but we don't work for the client.

This won't kill college athletics, but it will split divisions further.  The normal play for scholarship and stipend conferences and the NASCAR conferences.  I'd buy stock in tarp manufacturers though.

[jacket3ree]

1701796673[/url]']
IMO the University directly paying players to participate in athletics unquestionably would make them employees of the University. It  would end any pretense that they are amateurs. It in no way could be connected to their "name, image, or likeness". It would be pay for service, period. I am sure the IRS and the State of California would see it that way.

The follow-on consequences would be "interesting". How long would athletic departments remain tax exempt, and would subsidizing sports that don't make money be an allowable cost of doing business? How does that fit with Title IX requirements? What if compensation was deferred and you had to "vest" by remaining "employed"? How does the portal work then :-). IMO, too ugly to contemplate.

First, I disagree. They’re not being paid for their services. They’re being compensated for the universities use of their name and likeness. It’s no different than if Stanford started marketing using  Reese Witherspoon.  She’d be entitled to be paid for the use of her name and likeness. Doesn’t make her an employee.

Second, even if I’m wrong – which is quite possible- the power five conferences will have scores of lawyers analyzing this. No way they’re going to go that route if there’s even a colorable claim that this turns the athletes into employees.

I don't think you are wrong. Isn't this like every contract I sign?  'Consultant is an independent contractor and in no way shape or form considered employees of [client]?'  We get paid and 'work' for the client, but we don't work for the client.

This won't kill college athletics, but it will split divisions further.  The normal play for scholarship and stipend conferences and the NASCAR conferences.  I'd buy stock in tarp manufacturers though.

[Goose]

I don't think you are wrong. Isn't this like every contract I sign?  'Consultant is an independent contractor and in no way shape or form considered employees of [client]?'  We get paid and 'work' for the client, but we don't work for the client.

Right. Presumably you have several clients many of which provide a "substantial" part of your income. But if you have only one client and/or that client provides the vast majority of your income, you are a "statutory employee", no matter what the contract says. Lots of companies and contractors have been in this situation and they lose the battle trying to claim "independent contractor" status. I have (in the past) lost contractors because we were getting into a gray area about becoming such an employee, and neither the company nor the contractor wanted that to happen. Obviously the vast majority of student athletes would be in that situation, unless they have another real lucrative client :-).

[Goose]

I don't think you are wrong. Isn't this like every contract I sign?  'Consultant is an independent contractor and in no way shape or form considered employees of [client]?'  We get paid and 'work' for the client, but we don't work for the client.

Right. Presumably you have several clients many of which provide a "substantial" part of your income. But if you have only one client and/or that client provides the vast majority of your income, you are a "statutory employee", no matter what the contract says. Lots of companies and contractors have been in this situation and they lose the battle trying to claim "independent contractor" status. I have (in the past) lost contractors because we were getting into a gray area about becoming such an employee, and neither the company nor the contractor wanted that to happen. Obviously the vast majority of student athletes would be in that situation, unless they have another real lucrative client :-).

[jonnyss]

If college athletes are classified as employees; California Assembly Bill 5, effective January 2020, forces the employer to treat them as all other employees, not as independent contractors.  That would mean all benefits paid to Stanford employees would also have to be paid to the athletes.  This would become unworkable in many ways.  There would have to be some amendments made to California laws about employees.

what stanford staff benefits worry you? isn't health insurance the most costly benefit? all stanford students are already required to carry health insurance. starting in 2024, both staff and students have aetna health insurance; ok, stanford staff can pay higher premiums for a larger provider panel, and students only have access to the smaller epo panel, but i don't think that's much more costly to the school. certainly  athletes deserve disability insurance if they don't already have it. 3 weeks vacation? they already have that. 12 weeks unpaid fmla (family medical leave act)? don't athletes already get to take time off for illness and family emergency?  doesn't seem prohibitive.

now, title 9,  that does seem a hurdle - or a boon to female athletes, depending how the universities play it.

[jonnyss]

If college athletes are classified as employees; California Assembly Bill 5, effective January 2020, forces the employer to treat them as all other employees, not as independent contractors.  That would mean all benefits paid to Stanford employees would also have to be paid to the athletes.  This would become unworkable in many ways.  There would have to be some amendments made to California laws about employees.

what stanford staff benefits worry you? isn't health insurance the most costly benefit? all stanford students are already required to carry health insurance. starting in 2024, both staff and students have aetna health insurance; ok, stanford staff can pay higher premiums for a larger provider panel, and students only have access to the smaller epo panel, but i don't think that's much more costly to the school. certainly  athletes deserve disability insurance if they don't already have it. 3 weeks vacation? they already have that. 12 weeks unpaid fmla (family medical leave act)? don't athletes already get to take time off for illness and family emergency?  doesn't seem prohibitive.

now, title 9,  that does seem a hurdle - or a boon to female athletes, depending how the universities play it.

[Goose]

If college athletes are classified as employees; California Assembly Bill 5, effective January 2020, forces the employer to treat them as all other employees, not as independent contractors.  That would mean all benefits paid to Stanford employees would also have to be paid to the athletes.  This would become unworkable in many ways.  There would have to be some amendments made to California laws about employees.

what stanford staff benefits worry you? isn't health insurance the most costly benefit? all stanford students are already required to carry health insurance. starting in 2024, both staff and students have aetna health insurance; ok, stanford staff can pay higher premiums for a larger provider panel, and students only have access to the smaller epo panel, but i don't think that's much more costly to the school. certainly  athletes deserve disability insurance if they don't already have it. 3 weeks vacation? they already have that. 12 weeks unpaid fmla (family medical leave act)? don't athletes already get to take time off for illness and family emergency?  doesn't seem prohibitive.

now, title 9,  that does seem a hurdle - or a boon to female athletes, depending how the universities play it.

Stanford would have to pay for workman's compensation, which isn't the same thing as health insurance. That could be quite expensive for athletes who are well-paid. They would also have to pay half the FICA, which is another considerable expense. Equally importantly, many state regulatory agencies, such as CAL OSHA would gain jurisdiction on workplace safety etc. Obviously the various unions would also be able to organize the athletes. In short, it would be a majorly expensive undertaking at best. At worst, it could be a litigious nightmare.

It is not that it can't be done. It can, but only if the athletic departments function as a business. They don't now.

[Goose]

If college athletes are classified as employees; California Assembly Bill 5, effective January 2020, forces the employer to treat them as all other employees, not as independent contractors.  That would mean all benefits paid to Stanford employees would also have to be paid to the athletes.  This would become unworkable in many ways.  There would have to be some amendments made to California laws about employees.

what stanford staff benefits worry you? isn't health insurance the most costly benefit? all stanford students are already required to carry health insurance. starting in 2024, both staff and students have aetna health insurance; ok, stanford staff can pay higher premiums for a larger provider panel, and students only have access to the smaller epo panel, but i don't think that's much more costly to the school. certainly  athletes deserve disability insurance if they don't already have it. 3 weeks vacation? they already have that. 12 weeks unpaid fmla (family medical leave act)? don't athletes already get to take time off for illness and family emergency?  doesn't seem prohibitive.

now, title 9,  that does seem a hurdle - or a boon to female athletes, depending how the universities play it.

Stanford would have to pay for workman's compensation, which isn't the same thing as health insurance. That could be quite expensive for athletes who are well-paid. They would also have to pay half the FICA, which is another considerable expense. Equally importantly, many state regulatory agencies, such as CAL OSHA would gain jurisdiction on workplace safety etc. Obviously the various unions would also be able to organize the athletes. In short, it would be a majorly expensive undertaking at best. At worst, it could be a litigious nightmare.

It is not that it can't be done. It can, but only if the athletic departments function as a business. They don't now.

[81alum]

Today's NYT piece on the proposal:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/us/nc...posal.html

It is hard for me to imagine the non revenue sports surviving in this environment.  Large scale revenue sharing will mean that the money generated by football and men's basketball will go to athletes, not to the athletic budgets.  Up until now that revenue has funded the "non-revenue" sports.

I'm a dinosaur in love with the amateur ideal.  But even if I wasn't I would be alarmed that the changes being contemplated will destroy the model where a couple of wealthy revenue sports subsidize everything else, leaving precisely nothing to subsidize everything else.

[81alum]

Today's NYT piece on the proposal:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/us/nc...posal.html

It is hard for me to imagine the non revenue sports surviving in this environment.  Large scale revenue sharing will mean that the money generated by football and men's basketball will go to athletes, not to the athletic budgets.  Up until now that revenue has funded the "non-revenue" sports.

I'm a dinosaur in love with the amateur ideal.  But even if I wasn't I would be alarmed that the changes being contemplated will destroy the model where a couple of wealthy revenue sports subsidize everything else, leaving precisely nothing to subsidize everything else.

[81alum]

Here is one further thought.  If this comes to pass, the non-revenue sports will probably become much more reliant on charitable contributions, since the subsidies from football will dry up.  In other words, PEOPLE LIKE US.  If we want to see Stanford continue competing in a great many non revenue and Olympic sports, we fans will have to do a lot more to pay for it since football no longer will.  Probably time to adjust our mindset.

[81alum]

Here is one further thought.  If this comes to pass, the non-revenue sports will probably become much more reliant on charitable contributions, since the subsidies from football will dry up.  In other words, PEOPLE LIKE US.  If we want to see Stanford continue competing in a great many non revenue and Olympic sports, we fans will have to do a lot more to pay for it since football no longer will.  Probably time to adjust our mindset.

[cardcrimson]

If college athletes are classified as employees; California Assembly Bill 5, effective January 2020, forces the employer to treat them as all other employees, not as independent contractors.  That would mean all benefits paid to Stanford employees would also have to be paid to the athletes.  This would become unworkable in many ways.  There would have to be some amendments made to California laws about employees.

what stanford staff benefits worry you? isn't health insurance the most costly benefit? all stanford students are already required to carry health insurance. starting in 2024, both staff and students have aetna health insurance; ok, stanford staff can pay higher premiums for a larger provider panel, and students only have access to the smaller epo panel, but i don't think that's much more costly to the school. certainly  athletes deserve disability insurance if they don't already have it. 3 weeks vacation? they already have that. 12 weeks unpaid fmla (family medical leave act)? don't athletes already get to take time off for illness and family emergency?  doesn't seem prohibitive.

now, title 9,  that does seem a hurdle - or a boon to female athletes, depending how the universities play it.

Stanford would have to pay for workman's compensation, which isn't the same thing as health insurance. That could be quite expensive for athletes who are well-paid. They would also have to pay half the FICA, which is another considerable expense. Equally importantly, many state regulatory agencies, such as CAL OSHA would gain jurisdiction on workplace safety etc. Obviously the various unions would also be able to organize the athletes. In short, it would be a majorly expensive undertaking at best. At worst, it could be a litigious nightmare.

It is not that it can't be done. It can, but only if the athletic departments function as a business. They don't now.

Schools in CA will be at a brobdingnagian disadvantage due to the onerous employment laws and regulations. The schools will struggle with compliance in a myriad of areas while the PAGA mills will have a field day bring class action suits.

[cardcrimson]

If college athletes are classified as employees; California Assembly Bill 5, effective January 2020, forces the employer to treat them as all other employees, not as independent contractors.  That would mean all benefits paid to Stanford employees would also have to be paid to the athletes.  This would become unworkable in many ways.  There would have to be some amendments made to California laws about employees.

what stanford staff benefits worry you? isn't health insurance the most costly benefit? all stanford students are already required to carry health insurance. starting in 2024, both staff and students have aetna health insurance; ok, stanford staff can pay higher premiums for a larger provider panel, and students only have access to the smaller epo panel, but i don't think that's much more costly to the school. certainly  athletes deserve disability insurance if they don't already have it. 3 weeks vacation? they already have that. 12 weeks unpaid fmla (family medical leave act)? don't athletes already get to take time off for illness and family emergency?  doesn't seem prohibitive.

now, title 9,  that does seem a hurdle - or a boon to female athletes, depending how the universities play it.

Stanford would have to pay for workman's compensation, which isn't the same thing as health insurance. That could be quite expensive for athletes who are well-paid. They would also have to pay half the FICA, which is another considerable expense. Equally importantly, many state regulatory agencies, such as CAL OSHA would gain jurisdiction on workplace safety etc. Obviously the various unions would also be able to organize the athletes. In short, it would be a majorly expensive undertaking at best. At worst, it could be a litigious nightmare.

It is not that it can't be done. It can, but only if the athletic departments function as a business. They don't now.

Schools in CA will be at a brobdingnagian disadvantage due to the onerous employment laws and regulations. The schools will struggle with compliance in a myriad of areas while the PAGA mills will have a field day bring class action suits.

[Mick]

If college athletes are classified as employees; California Assembly Bill 5, effective January 2020, forces the employer to treat them as all other employees, not as independent contractors.  That would mean all benefits paid to Stanford employees would also have to be paid to the athletes.  This would become unworkable in many ways.  There would have to be some amendments made to California laws about employees.

what stanford staff benefits worry you? isn't health insurance the most costly benefit? all stanford students are already required to carry health insurance. starting in 2024, both staff and students have aetna health insurance; ok, stanford staff can pay higher premiums for a larger provider panel, and students only have access to the smaller epo panel, but i don't think that's much more costly to the school. certainly  athletes deserve disability insurance if they don't already have it. 3 weeks vacation? they already have that. 12 weeks unpaid fmla (family medical leave act)? don't athletes already get to take time off for illness and family emergency?  doesn't seem prohibitive.

now, title 9,  that does seem a hurdle - or a boon to female athletes, depending how the universities play it.

Stanford would have to pay for workman's compensation, which isn't the same thing as health insurance. That could be quite expensive for athletes who are well-paid. They would also have to pay half the FICA, which is another considerable expense. Equally importantly, many state regulatory agencies, such as CAL OSHA would gain jurisdiction on workplace safety etc. Obviously the various unions would also be able to organize the athletes. In short, it would be a majorly expensive undertaking at best. At worst, it could be a litigious nightmare.

It is not that it can't be done. It can, but only if the athletic departments function as a business. They don't now.

Schools in CA will be at a of immense proportions disadvantage due to the onerous employment laws and regulations. The schools will struggle with compliance in a myriad of areas while the PAGA mills will have a field day bring class action suits.

Can't wait until the first union organization meetings are held. Those will be fun. Is there much, if any, organizing on the Stanford campus among administrative staff?

[Mick]

If college athletes are classified as employees; California Assembly Bill 5, effective January 2020, forces the employer to treat them as all other employees, not as independent contractors.  That would mean all benefits paid to Stanford employees would also have to be paid to the athletes.  This would become unworkable in many ways.  There would have to be some amendments made to California laws about employees.

what stanford staff benefits worry you? isn't health insurance the most costly benefit? all stanford students are already required to carry health insurance. starting in 2024, both staff and students have aetna health insurance; ok, stanford staff can pay higher premiums for a larger provider panel, and students only have access to the smaller epo panel, but i don't think that's much more costly to the school. certainly  athletes deserve disability insurance if they don't already have it. 3 weeks vacation? they already have that. 12 weeks unpaid fmla (family medical leave act)? don't athletes already get to take time off for illness and family emergency?  doesn't seem prohibitive.

now, title 9,  that does seem a hurdle - or a boon to female athletes, depending how the universities play it.

Stanford would have to pay for workman's compensation, which isn't the same thing as health insurance. That could be quite expensive for athletes who are well-paid. They would also have to pay half the FICA, which is another considerable expense. Equally importantly, many state regulatory agencies, such as CAL OSHA would gain jurisdiction on workplace safety etc. Obviously the various unions would also be able to organize the athletes. In short, it would be a majorly expensive undertaking at best. At worst, it could be a litigious nightmare.

It is not that it can't be done. It can, but only if the athletic departments function as a business. They don't now.

Schools in CA will be at a of immense proportions disadvantage due to the onerous employment laws and regulations. The schools will struggle with compliance in a myriad of areas while the PAGA mills will have a field day bring class action suits.

Can't wait until the first union organization meetings are held. Those will be fun. Is there much, if any, organizing on the Stanford campus among administrative staff?

[82lsju]

Can't wait until the first union organization meetings are held. Those will be fun. Is there much, if any, organizing on the Stanford campus among administrative staff?

I don't know about staff but

In a landslide vote, 94% of Stanford’s graduate worker voters said ‘yes’ to being represented by the Stanford Graduate Workers Union (SGWU), according to an email announcement on Thursday. The final vote count was 1639 to 108, with a turnout rate of just over half.

https://stanforddaily.com/2023/07/06/sta...-unionize/

[82lsju]

Can't wait until the first union organization meetings are held. Those will be fun. Is there much, if any, organizing on the Stanford campus among administrative staff?

I don't know about staff but

In a landslide vote, 94% of Stanford’s graduate worker voters said ‘yes’ to being represented by the Stanford Graduate Workers Union (SGWU), according to an email announcement on Thursday. The final vote count was 1639 to 108, with a turnout rate of just over half.

https://stanforddaily.com/2023/07/06/sta...-unionize/

[needle]

NCAA prez Charlie Baker spoke about the proposal Wednesday, here's some reax:

 While plenty of questions go unanswered about the model, Baker answered a few during his time on the dais Wednesday. In the most important reveal, the NCAA needs congressional assistance to make his proposal work.

Baker is asking for a “little” antitrust exemption as well as protection from college athletes being deemed employees. Why drop his proposal now without congressional legislation needed to codify such?

Maybe it’s a way to show Congress how serious the NCAA is to change. Or maybe Congress is well on its way to passing that legislation.

“Does he know something we don’t?” asks one athletic director. “If not, we are going to get sued again.”

https://sports.yahoo.com/how-will-we-pay...36131.html

[needle]

NCAA prez Charlie Baker spoke about the proposal Wednesday, here's some reax:

 While plenty of questions go unanswered about the model, Baker answered a few during his time on the dais Wednesday. In the most important reveal, the NCAA needs congressional assistance to make his proposal work.

Baker is asking for a “little” antitrust exemption as well as protection from college athletes being deemed employees. Why drop his proposal now without congressional legislation needed to codify such?

Maybe it’s a way to show Congress how serious the NCAA is to change. Or maybe Congress is well on its way to passing that legislation.

“Does he know something we don’t?” asks one athletic director. “If not, we are going to get sued again.”

https://sports.yahoo.com/how-will-we-pay...36131.html