UNION

[jatiger13]

This union would only cover the private universities. I think 17 or so in total. The state universities would not be affected by this. That means that the vast majority of schools would not be affected by this at all. So another college football game is not any closer. Unless you only want to play with Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Notre Dame, Boston College, Baylor, BYU, USC, TCU and a few other schools.

I read that someone said that the athletes would have to pay taxes on the scholarships. That is simply not true, since a scholarship is a grant and therefore not taxable.

[SugaRicky]

Quote: Originally Posted by jatiger13

I read that someone said that the athletes would have to pay taxes on the scholarships. That is simply not true, since a scholarship is a grant and therefore not taxable.

Well based on the article I read, if they were considered employees, then the scholarship would be deemed as "payment for services" provided by the students and thus taxable.

[jatiger13]

Quote: Originally Posted by SugaRicky

Well based on the article I read, if they were considered employees, then the scholarship would be deemed as "payment for services" provided by the students and thus taxable.

ESPN's legal analyst Lester Munson was on "Mike & Mike", he said that the student athletes will be unpaid employees. And since the scholarships are in fact grants, under US law, they are not taxable under any circumstances.

[ndfan1993]

Quote: Originally Posted by jatiger13

ESPN's legal analyst Lester Munson was on "Mike & Mike", he said that the student athletes will be unpaid employees. And since the scholarships are in fact grants, under US law, they are not taxable under any circumstances.

That is under the current system if this went through right now. Assuming they have to recognize them as student employees the schools would not doubt stop awarding them scholarships since they would now be compensated for their play and that money would be taxable.

[JLoco11]

Actually, it hurts the chances... for a number of various legal reasons.

First, this only applies to private universities like Northwestern (and mainly schools with a "state" attached to the end of their name). Large public universities subsidized by states follow state guidelines, where as Northwestern is a private run "company".

Even if every private university did this, the major schools (Texas, Florida, Florida State, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan etc) wouldn't. Essentially it splits the NCAA into 2 groups. Sounds easy, but when you take into account that conferences now play a major part of revenue, it's not like the Big 10 can just kick out Northwestern, Purdue or Rutgers that easily to divide a conference evenly.

Second issue that certain states are Right to Work states, in which you can gain benefits of being in a union, without being in the actual union. A player could, in theory, gain the privileges of union membership, without being a member or paying the membership dues. So athletes who understand state laws, could play both sides of the equation, and really screw with NCAA bylaws.

What the union ruling does, is make the NCAA future even more complicated. NCAA is a rules enforcement association.... not a company, not a corporation or membership. Association rules govern differently than a company, and thus one of their main rules is earnings. An athlete who earns a W2 and makes more than a set number, loses eligibility to play in their sport (see Jeremy Bloom of Colorado). The union ruling doesn't change the course for the NCAA, it only changes the course for Northwestern University.

The school would be at odds with the NCAA and they could rule that any unionized, paid college athlete, is not eligible to play. Union can't do anything about that (they don't have a relationship with the NCAA, only the school). Northwestern can't do anything about that, they're in a state that has union busting laws.

It's an out of control spiral that will not resolve itself any time soon.... thus making an NCAA game even less likely.

EDIT: One other thing to make note of.... the NCAA here is always the round peg in the square hole. EA wanted to pay athletes for their likeness and settled, but the NCAA rules forbid money out of loss of eligibility. Federal laws state people should be paid minimum wage or equivalent, yet NCAA is an association governing athletics, which skirts along the edges of federal laws.

In every legal fight that the NCAA will face, their biggest defense is that they're merely an association who enforces rules for all sports. Football (the biggest money sport), is 1 of many sports they govern and as a rules enforcement association, they argue all sports should be treated equal. In all these court cases against them over football, the NCAA's arguments puts their position in the gray area that makes it difficult to win a case against them. As many small wins as Obannon and Colter and Keller win, the NCAA's status as a rules enforcement association means the courts will have to do something unprecedented for athletes to win... the courts will have to change an association's regulations.

No matter the results of the upcoming cases, this is going to the Supreme Court one way or another. Far too many points to appeal that it's case that will be decided in the highest court. It's a long fight for everyone involved.

[fudgie]

Quote: Originally Posted by JLoco11

Actually, it hurts the chances... for a number of various legal reasons. First, this only applies to private universities like Northwestern (and mainly schools with a "state" attached to the end of their name). Large public universities subsidized by states follow state guidelines, where as Northwestern is a private run "company". Even if every private university did this, the major schools (Texas, Florida, Florida State, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan etc) wouldn't. Essentially it splits the NCAA into 2 groups. Sounds easy, but when you take into account that conferences now play a major part of revenue, it's not like the Big 10 can just kick out Northwestern, Purdue or Rutgers that easily to divide a conference evenly. Second issue that certain states are Right to Work states, in which you can gain benefits of being in a union, without being in the actual union. A player could, in theory, gain the privileges of union membership, without being a member or paying the membership dues. So athletes who understand state laws, could play both sides of the equation, and really screw with NCAA bylaws. What the union ruling does, is make the NCAA future even more complicated. NCAA is a rules enforcement association.... not a company, not a corporation or membership. Association rules govern differently than a company, and thus one of their main rules is earnings. An athlete who earns a W2 and makes more than a set number, loses eligibility to play in their sport (see Jeremy Bloom of Colorado). The union ruling doesn't change the course for the NCAA, it only changes the course for Northwestern University. The school would be at odds with the NCAA and they could rule that any unionized, paid college athlete, is not eligible to play. Union can't do anything about that (they don't have a relationship with the NCAA, only the school). Northwestern can't do anything about that, they're in a state that has union busting laws. It's an out of control spiral that will not resolve itself any time soon.... thus making an NCAA game even less likely. EDIT: One other thing to make note of.... the NCAA here is always the round peg in the square hole. EA wanted to pay athletes for their likeness and settled, but the NCAA rules forbid money out of loss of eligibility. Federal laws state people should be paid minimum wage or equivalent, yet NCAA is an association governing athletics, which skirts along the edges of federal laws. In every legal fight that the NCAA will face, their biggest defense is that they're merely an association who enforces rules for all sports. Football (the biggest money sport), is 1 of many sports they govern and as a rules enforcement association, they argue all sports should be treated equal. In all these court cases against them over football, the NCAA's arguments puts their position in the gray area that makes it difficult to win a case against them. As many small wins as Obannon and Colter and Keller win, the NCAA's status as a rules enforcement association means the courts will have to do something unprecedented for athletes to win... the courts will have to change an association's regulations. No matter the results of the upcoming cases, this is going to the Supreme Court one way or another. Far too many points to appeal that it's case that will be decided in the highest court. It's a long fight for everyone involved.

You make excellent points, but I'm either reading it wrong or your off on what a public institution is. Northwestern is a "private" school like Southern California and Notre Dame, but they still receive federal grants. They're publicly subsidized and ran independently hence being "private". I think we're on the same page on that boat.

But schools like Michigan, Texas, Alabama and pretty much any school with -State in its name are public universities. They'd abide by state laws, but I'm not sure if being in a Right To Work state would deter a player's union?

Anyways, what i'm getting at is that if players unionize across the country there are really no differences if they attend a private or public university. It'll come down to state laws (states can put a hurting on public and private institutions by reallotting funds), conferences and the NCAA.

My question is how does this differ than the NFLPA, NHLPA, MLBPA, ect. In the end wouldn't that be the route that the football players went more so than the UAW or a traditional union? We'd have a Big10PA or SECPA? It wouldn't be nation wide but more so conference unionizing to avoid being busted up by state laws?

(on a side note how the hell does the NHL navigate American and Canadian laws while having players on work visas from across the world under contract? It's fascinating to me)

This is all very interesting, and I'm really interested in what everyone has to say. These are important times we are living in!

[JLoco11]

Quote: Originally Posted by fudgie

You make excellent points, but I'm either reading it wrong or your off on what a public institution is. Northwestern is a "private" school like Southern California and Notre Dame, but they still receive federal grants. They're publicly subsidized and ran independently hence being "private". I think we're on the same page on that boat. But schools like Michigan, Texas, Alabama and pretty much any school with -State in its name are public universities. They'd abide by state laws, but I'm not sure if being in a Right To Work state would deter a player's union? Anyways, what i'm getting at is that if players unionize across the country there are really no differences if they attend a private or public university. It'll come down to state laws (states can put a hurting on public and private institutions by reallotting funds), conferences and the NCAA. My question is how does this differ than the NFLPA, NHLPA, MLBPA, ect. In the end wouldn't that be the route that the football players went more so than the UAW or a traditional union? We'd have a Big10PA or SECPA? It wouldn't be nation wide but more so conference unionizing to avoid being busted up by state laws? (on a side note how the hell does the NHL navigate American and Canadian laws while having players on work visas from across the world under contract? It's fascinating to me) This is all very interesting, and I'm really interested in what everyone has to say. These are important times we are living in!

Public universities have their operating costs funded 100% by their state... that's anything related to the school staying open such as salaries, building maintenance, utilities etc. Donations schools receive are in addition to the 100% funding. So T. Boone Pickens giving $10 million to Oklahoma State, doesn't mean Oklahoma can give OK state 10 million less in funding. They get 100% funding PLUS keep all donations.

Private universities are on their own to cover operating costs. Sure governments fund into these universities, but that's for "research" (i.e. pay a top professor thousands of dollars to write a paper on photosynthesis or something). Money received from states do not go towards operating costs like salary, administration, overhead, dorms etc. Private schools are on their own to keep their doors open, hence why the cost of going there is so much higher than a public school.

The reason this is key, is because employees of universities are actually state employees, since their salary is paid by the state... in most states, they are unionized employees already. In order to be a public university employee, a good portion of them are required to be in the state specified or nationally recognized union (such as Faculty Unions or state run SEUI unions)... with the exception of Right to Work states, which total 24 states mostly Republican leaning states in the south.

Private universities may have local unions, but that would be dependent upon employees organizing at universities to create a local union.... such as what the Northwestern students did. Private university unions are not part of state unions since they're not paid as state employees.

Essentially, if a public university school (Michigan, Ohio State, Florida etc) approved players as a union, they would be state union employees.... all separate from each other. A Florida player would be in a different union than a Texas player from a Utah player.

If private schools unionized (Northwestern, Syracuse, Harvard, Stanford), they COULD create a national union, but because of the number of Right to Work states, they would probably end up with a much lower membership. Thus local unions would be the easier route to create, with each private school team deciding if they want to be a union.

Thus, you would create 50 state unions + however many private unions. Each one has it's own terms of conditions and benefits. No state union is the same. That's the slippery slope this ruling for Northwestern just created.

Conferences couldn't create a union of their own, because they work across multiple states, with multiple state employees. It's not like an Auto Workers Union, which is a private industry, independent from state funding. If a conference had all private universities (Ivy League is the best example), that's the only way possible a Conference could create a union. California schools cannot unionize with Arizona schools because each state has their own separate union. You can't play for USC and Oregon at the same time, nor can you be in Cali or Oregon's union at the same time.

Professional sports unions are also different, as they are not tied to states either. It's similar to the Auto Worker example, so pro sports is a much easier process to govern.

This is why the bigger schools rather pay the athletes stipends or "salary" because it avoids this scenario. However, that plan is also subject to scrutiny because the biggest hurdle there is will taxpayers in each state go along with the idea to pay athletes to play football with tax dollars. That's another convo for another thread... but for this convo, unionizing creates an even larger headache for the NCAA and college sports.

[fudgie]

I see. Thank you that helped clear up some of the blurred lines I had on the matter.