[cardcrimson]

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

1. Isn't that the same with every student?
2. So what. It's a term that is common place in the US vernacular at all levels of school sports. A noun doesn't determine whether someone is an employee or not.

If college athletes are indeed employees, what about high school athletes? High school football games draw large crowds who pay to attend. Some schools even televise their games complete with commercials. Guess there employees, too. I've even had to pay to attend some of my daughter's water polo games. Guess she's an employee of her high school. 

What about work rules? They are so onerous in the state of California, school sports programs couldn't possibly adhere to them. The PAGA mills would litigate every program out of existence.

Regarding scholarships, it's time to start taxing them. After giving away so much free stuff the last couple of years, our government needs the money.

[cardcrimson]

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

1. Isn't that the same with every student?
2. So what. It's a term that is common place in the US vernacular at all levels of school sports. A noun doesn't determine whether someone is an employee or not.

If college athletes are indeed employees, what about high school athletes? High school football games draw large crowds who pay to attend. Some schools even televise their games complete with commercials. Guess there employees, too. I've even had to pay to attend some of my daughter's water polo games. Guess she's an employee of her high school. 

What about work rules? They are so onerous in the state of California, school sports programs couldn't possibly adhere to them. The PAGA mills would litigate every program out of existence.

Regarding scholarships, it's time to start taxing them. After giving away so much free stuff the last couple of years, our government needs the money.