Dartmouth Delivers Potential Serious Blow To NCAA

[retired711]

View embedded media

First, contrary to the headline, this was *not* a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board. It was a ruling by a regional director. It can and will be appealed to the full Board. The full Board ruled against college athletes in a similar case in 2015, but quite likely (but not certainly), the Board will uphold the director. Still, we have to keep in mind that this decision is not final.

Second, there is an advantage to unionization: it makes it possible to negotiate a salary cap and a cap on NIL. The NFL's salary cap is legal only because it is part of a collective bargaining agreement with the players' union. Steps that would otherwise be a violation of anti-trust laws can be OK if they are part of a collective bargaining agreement.

 

[retired711]

How is this different than the Northwestern case years ago? I thought they also found the athletes could be considered employees and therefore unionize, but the scope of NLRB meant it would only hold for private institutions. Dartmouth is private so whats different this time?

What is different is that the landscape has changed. There was no NIL and no portal in 2015 when the Northwestern case was decided. Times have changed and the law might well change too. As I say above, classifying athletes as employees makes it possible to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that imposes restrictions that would not otherwise be legally possile.

 

[Unionst]

Not for athletics, but they give them for academics. And a good athletes probably get "academic" money pumped their way. And don't forget endowment money that might cover their entire tuition (I'm not fully aware of how it all works, just surmising based on what I read/hear). And anyway, I was thinking along the lines the Dartmouth ruling would open the flood gates for non Ivy schools.

Incorrect. Need based aid only.

 

[ScarletKid2008]

To be fair, I can't blame players for wanting a piece of the action when their coaches get 7 figures even for doing a bad job, schools get millions of media dollars to spend on anything they want and the players, always at risk of career ending injuries, get room, board and tuition.

The ncaa could’ve nipped this path in the butt by structuring the participating conferences and putting some meaningful boundaries on the greed train.

When coaches salaries , especially at state schools were reaching absurd amounts and then paying tens of millions for firing coaches and/or allowing them to leave over night for higher paying jobs. NCAA should’ve put a pay structure aka cap on coach spend, recruiting spend, facilities, etc. They found a way to cap how much food these kids got as a benefit but couldn’t find a way to cap state employees salaries at 5m a year ?!

 

[blueoyster]

So, if the athletes are now employees, do they actually need to take classes? Can they remain employees for more than 4 years?? What a cluster f*** this could end up being!

 

[RU Cheese]

What is different is that the landscape has changed. There was no NIL and no portal in 2015 when the Northwestern case was decided. Times have changed and the law might well change too. As I say above, classifying athletes as employees makes it possible to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that imposes restrictions that would not otherwise be legally possile.

The CBA concept applied back then too. What makes this legal decision any different?

 

[Joey Bags]

Gonna assume the end result of all of this is I’ll be a lot more productive on Saturdays in the fall and weeknights in the winter

 

[NickRU714]

they do. in most cases the revenue sports just lose a multiple of what non revenue sports lose.

Is there a source for this?

I would assume most non-revenue sports are operating at a near 100% loss

Revenue sports are at least providing some of their own funding.

 

[retired711]

The CBA concept applied back then too. What makes this legal decision any different?

The director's decision is exactly the same as the one that the National Labor Relations Board reversed in 2015. But a lot of people think that the Board will affirm this time. The Board does not respect its precedents anywhere near as much as a court does. It may think that the landscape of college sports has changed enough that it should come to a different result than in 2015. If it does come to a different result, then student-athletes can organize and then negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the NCAA.

I should add that the NLRB's final decision can be appealed to the federal courts. The NLRB will be overturned if either a court thinks that the federal labor laws prohibit treating student-athletes as employees, or if a court thinks that the NLRB's decision is not the product of "reasoned decisionmaking." That means that the NLRB has to show a good reason for changing its mind if it doesn't follow its 2015 precedent. It doesn't have to show that this decision is "better," but only that it's reasonable to take a different approach than in 2015.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, so feel free to respond if you think I didn't.

 

[brgRC90]

The ncaa could’ve nipped this path in the butt by structuring the participating conferences and putting some meaningful boundaries on the greed train.

When coaches salaries , especially at state schools were reaching absurd amounts and then paying tens of millions for firing coaches and/or allowing them to leave over night for higher paying jobs. NCAA should’ve put a pay structure aka cap on coach spend, recruiting spend, facilities, etc. They found a way to cap how much food these kids got as a benefit but couldn’t find a way to cap state employees salaries at 5m a year ?!

But this is precisely the kind of thing the NCAA doesn't have the power to do. When it was forced on universities they deliberately made it mostly toothless so they could continue to tilt the playing field in their favor as much as possible.

 

[retired711]

So, if the athletes are now employees, do they actually need to take classes? Can they remain employees for more than 4 years?? What a cluster f*** this could end up being!

Yes, they can be required to go to class. Consider teaching assistants. They are employees and, in fact, at Rutgers they are part of a union. But if they don't go to their own classes, they can lose their jobs. And, as with teaching assistants, the length of their employment can be limited.

 

[WhiteBus]

Gonna assume the end result of all of this is I’ll be a lot more productive on Saturdays in the fall and weeknights in the winter

You are going to feel unshackled and able to do anything you want. The pandemic opened my eyes to freedom. I was doing so many things during the year, including going to every Rutgers home game mostly because they were "traditions". You can do a lot on a Saturday and still watch the game! Seems like a good move with what is going in college sports these days.

 

[NY AGENTMAN]

Negotiate a % of the gross proceeds with the players and take away the scholarships. Woman’s field hockey (for example)with no gross revenue would get eliminated

 

[krup]

A credit could be considered compensation, at least by the NLRB.

More likely the practices will be considered the classes that are earning the credits, and the performances will technically be totally voluntary and not affect the grade/credit.

 

[JayDogSmooth]

I don’t care if they’re employees, get paid, etc - I just want competitive football and to win

Period

If that means unionizing, so be it

I’ll also say this

To everyone that says they’re out if this happens, if we ever had 2006 type success again, which would largely be in part due to NIL, I can guarantee nobody would care how that was accomplished, or how much guys got paid, assuming the trade off wasn’t Penn state scandal esque

You want big time football?
Sold out crowds?
Championships?

That, my friends, comes with a price
I hope to God I’m alive to see that happen On The Banks

 

[MADHAT1]

Heck how soon until the students are employees? LOLOL

actually some are.
Some Grad students are employed by the University they attend while pursuing an advanced degree.
Grad students have been allowed to join a union since 2016 when NLRB decided that Columbia University Grad students were employees under federal labor law..
Today's college athletes might receive the same type decision.

I think this unionization effort by the Dartmouth athletes is a trial balloon using these athletes because Ive League school players will get far less coverage and push-back from the public that it would if filed by players from a program a major conference.
Think of the type of publicity this would cause if the players were from Alabama or Ohio State .

Bet the reasoning for wanting a union is negotiating a share of TV rights money for the players and probably life time health coverage for injuries sustained while playing for a college team..

The more I think about this, the more I feel those two things are part of what the B1G and SEC will be talking about when they meet to discuss the future of college sports and probably union membership for college athletes will be an issue raised

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Is there a source for this?

I would assume most non-revenue sports are operating at a near 100% loss

Revenue sports are at least providing some of their own funding.

Just looking at Rutgers athletic department income statement you can see.

 

[mdh2003]

The ncaa could’ve nipped this path in the butt by structuring the participating conferences and putting some meaningful boundaries on the greed train.

When coaches salaries , especially at state schools were reaching absurd amounts and then paying tens of millions for firing coaches and/or allowing them to leave over night for higher paying jobs. NCAA should’ve put a pay structure aka cap on coach spend, recruiting spend, facilities, etc. They found a way to cap how much food these kids got as a benefit but couldn’t find a way to cap state employees salaries at 5m a year ?!

Simple reason why they didn’t do this - they didn’t want to. Why in the world would the Power schools (the ones that REALLY are the ”NCAA”, win most of the games, have most of the power, and make most of the money) voluntarily cede one of it‘s greatest advantages? The ability to outspend 90% of the schools out there is the fuel that keeps their gravy train moving down the tracks.

 

[NickRU714]

Simple reason why they didn’t do this - they didn’t want to. Why in the world would the Power schools (the ones that REALLY are the ”NCAA”, win most of the games, have most of the power, and make most of the money) voluntarily cede one of it‘s greatest advantages? The ability to outspend 90% of the schools out there is the fuel that keeps their gravy train moving down the tracks.

This is whst people miss.
It wasn't just NCAA. It's the schools too.

Why would Rutgers want any rules or caps that bring Temple up or Rutgers down to an equal level?
Level playing field? No way.

Despite the narrative, Rutgers is a HAVE under the current system compared to the rest of college athletics (300+ CBB and 130 CFB teams).

 

[mdh2003]

This is whst people miss.
It wasn't just NCAA. It's the schools too.

Why would Rutgers want any rules or caps that bring Temple up or Rutgers down to an equal level?
Level playing field? No way.

Despite the narrative, Rutgers is a HAVE under the current system compared to the rest of college athletics (300+ CBB and 130 CFB teams).

I am continually amazed what otherwise intelligent people “miss” about college sports. It’s actually pretty impressive.

 

[RUScrew85]

I don’t care if they’re employees, get paid, etc - I just want competitive football and to win

Period

If that means unionizing, so be it

I’ll also say this

To everyone that says they’re out if this happens, if we ever had 2006 type success again, which would largely be in part due to NIL, I can guarantee nobody would care how that was accomplished, or how much guys got paid, assuming the trade off wasn’t Penn state scandal esque

You want big time football?
Sold out crowds?
Championships?

That, my friends, comes with a price
I hope to God I’m alive to see that happen On The Banks

Wrong.

 

[RUScrew85]

Incorrect. Need based aid only.

Yeah and no one ever games that system.

 

[JayDogSmooth]

Wrong.

How so

 

[MulletCork]

Do the non revenue sports charge admissions to to their games? They're in the same boat.

My wife used to play women's soccer so she likes to go to a Rutgers game now and then. When I went last fall, there was no admission fee. Few years back it used to be around $7 or so for the general public, if I recall. But it was free now.

They do sell beer now too, which is nice for a game.

 

[Armor and Sword]

Does this mean that band members that perform at games are also employees? The school paper reporters and editors?

College newspapers are typically student-run and independent of the college they are based at. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...tayed-into-its-new-high-tech-home/ar-BB1hxjjb

 

[RUInsanity]

How so

Every time there is news of a new change or potential change to college sports or the landscape or conference alignment etc..... pretty much the same posters chime in about the forthcoming demise of college sports and how they will stop following. Until the next change/potential change......then the same group of posters chime in about the demise of college sports and how they will stop following......and so on and so forth.

I follow/care about Rutgers and how we do regardless of change to the college sports rules or landscape. That includes non-revenue sports, our academic standing, our funding, our facilities (athletic and non-athletic) etc....

 

[JayDogSmooth]

Every time there is news of a new change or potential change to college sports or the landscape or conference alignment etc..... pretty much the same posters chime in about the forthcoming demise of college sports and how they will stop following. Until the next change/potential change......then the same group of posters chime in about the demise of college sports and how they will stop following......and so on and so forth.

I follow/care about Rutgers and how we do regardless of change to the college sports rules or landscape. That includes non-revenue sports, our academic standing, our funding, our facilities (athletic and non-athletic) etc....

We all know what’s coming
And we all saw it a mile away once we joined the B1G

And yet, those w the biggest gripes towards it are the ones still posting on the message board knowing said rules are on the horizon

 

[RU from Jersey]

I agree with a few others that this could affect Title IX in a big way unless non rev sport participants are not considered employees. Although there is a charge for some of these sports at some schools if not most.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

No scholarship for Ivys.

sure... they give the top athletes they can get "need-based" aid. same same

 

[Eagleton96]

First, contrary to the headline, this was *not* a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board. It was a ruling by a regional director. It can and will be appealed to the full Board. The full Board ruled against college athletes in a similar case in 2015, but quite likely (but not certainly), the Board will uphold the director. Still, we have to keep in mind that this decision is not final.

Second, there is an advantage to unionization: it makes it possible to negotiate a salary cap and a cap on NIL. The NFL's salary cap is legal only because it is part of a collective bargaining agreement with the players' union. Steps that would otherwise be a violation of anti-trust laws can be OK if they are part of a collective bargaining agreement.

We all want some modicum of fairness and competitive balance and this seems like an inevitable step. Any thoughts about how this ruling will overlap with Title 9? If they are employees does Title 9 no longer apply to them?

 

[Unionst]

Yeah and no one ever games that system.

All systems get gamed. Doesn’t change the fact that there are neither academic nor athletic scholarships. So the Ivies are not like other D1 conferences.

 

[retired711]

We all want some modicum of fairness and competitive balance and this seems like an inevitable step. Any thoughts about how this ruling will overlap with Title 9? If they are employees does Title 9 no longer apply to them?

Title IX would continue to apply so long as college athletics are considered an "education program or activity." And if not, Title VII, which prohibits discrimination by race or gender in employment, would become relevant.

 

[RUTGERS95]

not sure how they can be seen as employees to be honest

 

[retired711]

actually some are.
Some Grad students are employed by the University they attend while pursuing an advanced degree.
Grad students have been allowed to join a union since 2016 when NLRB decided that Columbia University Grad students were employees under federal labor law..
Today's college athletes might receive the same type decision.

I think this unionization effort by the Dartmouth athletes is a trial balloon using these athletes because Ive League school players will get far less coverage and push-back from the public that it would if filed by players from a program a major conference.
Think of the type of publicity this would cause if the players were from Alabama or Ohio State .

Bet the reasoning for wanting a union is negotiating a share of TV rights money for the players and probably life time health coverage for injuries sustained while playing for a college team..

The more I think about this, the more I feel those two things are part of what the B1G and SEC will be talking about when they meet to discuss the future of college sports and probably union membership for college athletes will be an issue raised

There is nothing about Dartmouth that makes this decision apply to them and no one else. In fact, it's the other way around. If unionization is allowed by athletes who don't receive athletic scholarships, then surely it is allowed by athletes at places that do offer scholarships.

 

[Eagleton96]

Title IX would continue to apply so long as college athletics are considered an "education program or activity." And if not, Title VII, which prohibits discrimination by race or gender in employment, would become relevant.

The issue is that when hiring an employee, you must hire the best employee that fits the position and geneder cannot be a factor. If the job is basketball player, the skill of the player, or the potential to bring in revenue, is what matters...not the gender. Title 9 says there must be parity. You don't have any parity hiring standards in terms of labor law. If a school were to say: this is a business, and we are hiring employees to earn revenue...I'm just now sure how that would be reconciled with Title 9.

 

[RUScrew85]

How so

I'm not really interested in low level pro football. I can watch the NFL for pro football and the product would be better. Plus I'm not expected to chip in on nfl salaries... yet.

 

[ScarletKid2008]

But this is precisely the kind of thing the NCAA doesn't have the power to do. When it was forced on universities they deliberately made it mostly toothless so they could continue to tilt the playing field in their favor as much as possible.

Yep. Exactly my point. When the schools themselves knowingly used money and the weak self ruling “structure “ aka NCAA as a lever to gain and keep massive competitive advantages and therefore reap more profits due to that advantage… that’s when this whole thing was destined for doom.

Honestly I’m suprised it took this long and suprised it was the players and not other schools that successfully break up the money train.

 

[brgRC90]

Yep. Exactly my point. When the schools themselves knowingly used money and the weak self ruling “structure “ aka NCAA as a lever to gain and keep massive competitive advantages and therefore reap more profits due to that advantage… that’s when this whole thing was destined for doom.

Honestly I’m suprised it took this long and suprised it was the players and not other schools that successfully break up the money train.

I think it took a while partly because the money wasn't so big. Announcements of billion dollar media deals get attention, though.

 

[retired711]

The issue is that when hiring an employee, you must hire the best employee that fits the position and geneder cannot be a factor. If the job is basketball player, the skill of the player, or the potential to bring in revenue, is what matters...not the gender. Title 9 says there must be parity. You don't have any parity hiring standards in terms of labor law. If a school were to say: this is a business, and we are hiring employees to earn revenue...I'm just now sure how that would be reconciled with Title 9.

I'm not sure I agree with what you say about how Title VII would apply to college sports. But it doesn't matter so long as college sports are considered an "education program or activity," because that subjects them to Title IX. The fact that athletes would be unionized would not, it seems to me, exempt athletes from being considered an "education program or activity."

 

[JayDogSmooth]

I'm not really interested in low level pro football. I can watch the NFL for pro football and the product would be better. Plus I'm not expected to chip in on nfl salaries... yet.

So you will completely stop coming to games once this comes to fruition?