02-12-2022, 11:02 AM
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.
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.