Northwestern football players win right to unionize

[Kaneyoufeelit]

I think this is the best compromise available. The endorsement income that superstars like Andrew Luck can't realize because of current NCAA rules is usually Exhibit 1A in arguments for paying players. But those are rare cases, and blowing up the whole system on their behalf would be full potato.

So let those guys earn whatever they can on the side. The Olympics has muddled along just fine since its governing body abolished a similar rule. But trying to give these guys a competitive salary on top of their current scholarships would be a disaster.

This is my fear. I'm afraid that because the system seems to be unfair to a few highly publicized guys, and guys like Bilas and others spout off about it every chance they get, that the whole system is going to get blown up and we will lose college football as we know it. I like the endorsement idea as a compromise. The tricky part about that it firmly puts boosters into the recruiting process because I know that if I go to X school that Y booster has an "endorsement" opportunity worth $20,000 each year.

 

[loomis41973]

I think this is the best compromise available. The endorsement income that superstars like Andrew Luck can't realize because of current NCAA rules is usually Exhibit 1A in arguments for paying players. But those are rare cases, and blowing up the whole system on their behalf would be full potato.

So let those guys earn whatever they can on the side. The Olympics has muddled along just fine since its governing body abolished a similar rule. But trying to give these guys a competitive salary on top of their current scholarships would be a disaster.

So just create a bidding war for top athletes? Horrible idea.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

So just create a bidding war for top athletes? Horrible idea.

I'm not trying to be cute, but is this any different than what already goes on for some guys?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...But I cannot get over the fundamental illogic of giving kids a scholarship to perform an activity that is TREMENDOUSLY lucrative to the schools, and then telling the students that they can receive NONE of that value in liquid form...

But in CFB the players aren't the ones bringing in the revenue. Maybe a few great ones do, at the margin (like Johnny Football). But by and large CFB fanbases follow the school, not the recruits or players. I, for one, did not watch one less ND game, or buy one less ND shirt, when they went 2-whatever, or when they had that terrible recruiting class under Willingham.

 

[wizards8507]

But in CFB the players aren't the ones bringing in the revenue. Maybe a few great ones do, at the margin (like Johnny Football). But by and large CFB fanbases follow the school, not the recruits or players. I, for one, did not watch one less ND game, or buy one less ND shirt, when they went 2-whatever, or when they had that terrible recruiting class under Willingham.

Exactly. If Notre Dame versus USC was a bunch of 2-star #RKGs because all of the "freak" athletes went to the NFL minor leagues or some crap like that, we'd still be just as passionate.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

There's no fair way to pay players? Why not just give them all a small "laundry stipend", as they say?

CFB blue bloods would love to see that happen, but it's been repeatedly blocked by the "have-nots". As was mentioned above, most college athletic departments are not profitable. Giving every D1 football player an annual $5k stipend would result in a further ~$500k liability that cash strapped ADs have to cover. Due to Title IX, that would likely mean cutting a couple men's sports entirely.

Would that be a better state of affairs? Football players have some pocket money, but other hard-working athletes don't get a scholarship at all because their chosen sports happens not to be profitable?

 

[NDohio]

Oh my. This is a horrible situation. If this goes through appeals and unions happen in college athletics, good bye college athletics as we know them.

 

[ND NYC]

old article from last fall but still pertinent in lots of ways to this latest development:

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany discusses possible football, basketball changes - ESPN

ps when will colleges GAURANTEE a 4 year scholly? right now "scholarships" are technically and legally "one year renewables".
we know good schools like ND always renew but lots of others do not-so should be careful with the "200k is not enough for these kids?" arguments. all thats guaranteed with an LOI out of HS is freshman year at college.

 

[wizards8507]

But is that what schools want? For kids to realize how unattractive playing D-I football is?

Yeah, playing D-I football sucks major ass. Being on national TV and getting laid all the time must get pretty old after about a week.

Do you realize how ludicrous that sounds? There are lines of kids who would pay money above and beyond tuition to get a chance to wear the blue and gold (or crimson and cream or maize and blue). I say let these guys unionize, refuse to give in to their demands, and let them strike. I'd rather see a field full of scabs who are playing for pride and love of their university than a bunch of prima donnas out looking for the next paycheck.

 

[Luckylucci]

This is my fear. I'm afraid that because the system seems to be unfair to a few highly publicized guys, and guys like Bilas and others spout off about it every chance they get, that the whole system is going to get blown up and we will lose college football as we know it. I like the endorsement idea as a compromise. The tricky part about that it firmly puts boosters into the recruiting process because I know that if I go to X school that Y booster has an "endorsement" opportunity worth $20,000 each year.

Exactly, kids will get paid insane amounts to do silly jobs if they attend X school. "Hey Jimmy if you come to University of ABC we'll give you 10k every time you "mow" coaches lawn." Now thats a silly example but that would definitely happen. How would you moderate that. I really like this idea in premise but how do you regulate it.

 

[#1rish]

So much for the "Student-Athlete"

 

[Irish Houstonian]

What's really funny is that, if the players do unionize, schools won't be able to change a single "benefit" or "condition of employment" without first bargaining with the Union. Else it's an Unfair Labor Practice and the NLRB can enjoin the team from changing anything.

Changing practice time? Bargain with the Union. Team retreat? Bargain with the Union. Different uniforms? New equipment? Different schedule? New opponent? Bargain with the Union. This could be hilarious if carried out to its logical conclusion.

Oh, what's that Kelly? You want to suspend Atkinson for texting? Boom. Unfair labor practice.

 

[wizards8507]

all thats guaranteed with an LOI is freshman year.

Sorry, but that's on the kid and the parents. They willingly enter into those contracts. If it's important to them, they should put that pressure back on the recruiters and give preference to the schools that DO offer them.

Besides, "regular" kids only get one-year scholarships, too. I had no idea what my out-of-pocket tuition would be for sophomore year at ND until sophomore year at ND.

 

[Emcee77]

Yeah, playing D-I football sucks major ass. Being on national TV and getting laid all the time must get pretty old after about a week.

Do you realize how ludicrous that sounds? There are lines of kids who would pay money above and beyond tuition to get a chance to wear the blue and gold (or crimson and cream or maize and blue). I say let these guys unionize, refuse to give in to their demands, and let them strike. I'd rather see a field full of scabs who are playing for pride and love of their university than a bunch of prima donnas out looking for the next paycheck.

You took my comment out of context. Read that back again and you'll see that that was a rhetorical question. Of course schools don't want that. I said so in the very next sentence.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is my fear. I'm afraid that because the system seems to be unfair to a few highly publicized guys, and guys like Bilas and others spout off about it every chance they get, that the whole system is going to get blown up and we will lose college football as we know it. I like the endorsement idea as a compromise. The tricky part about that it firmly puts boosters into the recruiting process because I know that if I go to X school that Y booster has an "endorsement" opportunity worth $20,000 each year.

That's definitely a problem. Maybe the rule states that no athlete can sign an outside deal until his sophomore (or junior?) year, and that the details have to be vetted by the NCAA. Would probably be pretty easy to differentiate between legit commercial transactions and boosters trying to follow through on recruiting promises.

So just create a bidding war for top athletes? Horrible idea.

I'm not trying to be cute, but is this any different than what already goes on for some guys?

Exactly. Trying to hold back the money in CFB is sort of like campaign finance reform; boosters will always find a way around the rules, because there's simply too much at stake. We need to bring as much of it as possible above board in order to preserve what we have now. Otherwise, the commercialization and corruption will hollow it out from within.

 

[wizards8507]

You took my comment out of context. Read that back again and you'll see that that was a rhetorical question. Of course schools don't want that. I said so in the very next sentence.

My point still remains. If the hotshot kids want to demand compensation, the only ones who will lose are the hotshot kids because the #RKGs will step up behind them, more than willing to play for free. It might actually be a good thing to purge the NCAA from the divas and hoodlums who don't want to be student athletes in the first place.

 

[#1rish]

So, a kid who earns a scholarship based on his academics should get paid as well, right? No, they study for 3-4 years or whatever and get themselves well-paying job.

Same should go for athletes. Just because one can throw the ball harder or run faster doesn't mean they are entitled to any compensation.

 

[Cackalacky]

It has been determined that the typical student athlete spends 43.3 hours a week with regards to the sport on top of academics. Additionally, they can miss as many as 6 classes per week traveling. So in Louis Nix's last semester at ND he was taking 19 hours of credit so theoretically he "should have been studying" 3 hours for every hour in class.
That equals 57 hours in studying, 19 hours in class, and 43 hours with the football team. 119 hours per week in activities succeeding at ND. Athletes are at sever disadvantages to typical students. The football players are lucky to get full rides.

 

[Cackalacky]

My point still remains. If the hotshot kids want to demand compensation, the only ones who will lose are the hotshot kids because the #RKGs will step up behind them, more than willing to play for free. It might actually be a good thing to purge the NCAA from the divas and hoodlums who don't want to be student athletes in the first place.

Unreal logic here. AMAZING.....

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

What's really funny is that, if the players do unionize, schools won't be able to change a single "benefit" or "condition of employment" without first bargaining with the Union. Else it's an Unfair Labor Practice and the NLRB can enjoin the team from changing anything.

Changing practice time? Bargain with the Union. Team retreat? Bargain with the Union. Different uniforms? New equipment? Different schedule? New opponent? Bargain with the Union. This could be hilarious if carried out to its logical conclusion.

Oh, what's that Kelly? You want to suspend Atkinson for texting? Boom. Unfair labor practice.

Good point. I think if it involves a mandatory subject of bargaining, then it all has to go through the union. Working conditions included.

The weird thing is how this will work with Title IX. If only the male football players are considered part of the "bargaining unit," then they can potentially negotiate wages. But then you have men getting paid and women not getting paid. So a school could potentially be forced to comply with one law while simultaneously violating another. Either Title IX goes away, or this victory won't really be a victory for long.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

My point still remains. If the hotshot kids want to demand compensation, the only ones who will lose are the hotshot kids because the #RKGs will step up behind them, more than willing to play for free. It might actually be a good thing to purge the NCAA from the divas and hoodlums who don't want to be student athletes in the first place.

This honestly sounds like something that would be on "Dan on Fire"

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

My point still remains. If the hotshot kids want to demand compensation, the only ones who will lose are the hotshot kids because the #RKGs will step up behind them, more than willing to play for free. It might actually be a good thing to purge the NCAA from the divas and hoodlums who don't want to be student athletes in the first place.

Yeah this is not right.

 

[MPClinton22]

So, now that these players are considered "employees" (with their scholarship actually being income), shouldn't they have to pay taxes on that scholarship? I mean, have fun paying 10-11k in taxes per year. Oh and don't forget about your union dues. Seems like 1 step forward but 2 steps back if you ask me.

I just don't think they fully grasp the can of worms they've opened if this gets through appeals. I just don't see a way this ends well if it is upheld.

 

[Emcee77]

But in CFB the players aren't the ones bringing in the revenue. Maybe a few great ones do, at the margin (like Johnny Football). But by and large CFB fanbases follow the school, not the recruits or players. I, for one, did not watch one less ND game, or buy one less ND shirt, when they went 2-whatever, or when they had that terrible recruiting class under Willingham.

Well, we've had this discussion before, but I don't think that matters. This is an ideological difference similar to what we were talking about in another thread about CEO pay. It just depends how you look at it. You see the ones in control as creating the value; I see the ones on the field as doing it.

CFB blue bloods would love to see that happen, but it's been repeatedly blocked by the "have-nots". As was mentioned above, most college athletic departments are not profitable. Giving every D1 football player an annual $5k stipend would result in a further ~$500k liability that cash strapped ADs have to cover. Due to Title IX, that would likely mean cutting a couple men's sports entirely.

Would that be a better state of affairs? Football players have some pocket money, but other hard-working athletes don't get a scholarship at all because their chosen sports happens not to be profitable?

To the extent that a football team is not profitable, there is no justification for a laundry stipend. To whatever extent it is, there is.

I don't have a problem with football players getting more than other athletes, to the extent that they are the ones bringing in the money. This is how the world works in many industries. For instance, in insurance, the money tends to be on the underwriting side, not the claims side.

I wouldn't want to see any sports cut, but I tend to think that it would actually be a lesser evil to see football players and players in revenue sports compensated more fairly for the contributions they make, and some sports programs cut, than the current state of affairs. Why should non-revenue sports be funded by the efforts of the revenue athletes anyway? I would hope that athletic departments can make up any shortfall with other fundraising, but I am deeply uncomfortable with the revenue athletes shouldering that burden disproportionately, the situation we currently have, so if paying a stipend to players resulted in some programs being cut, that would be extremely sad but still a net improvement, imo.

There are competing interests there, so I can see how reasonable people would disagree; it depends how you weigh the interests. I'm one who does tend to believe that athletes in revenue sports are exploited to some extent, and I think relieving or reducing that exploitation is a compelling interest.

 

[aubeirish]

Canadian Junior Football League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haha. I had no idea that even existed.


These guys are freaking babies. A lot of people would give up a nut just to be part of a college football team. If these kids are dumb enough to choose a school that is going to limit them academically, that is their problem. Also, it's the NCAA's job to put these cheating Universities in their place. They obviously are not doing a good job. Internet is everywhere. It's just not very hard to get information on anything anymore. Do your due diligence and choose the right school. All I see is a bunch of guys that didn't make the show and are whining about it because they put all the eggs in the same basket. Life goes on guys. A lot of these kids would have never gone to college if it wasn't for football anyways. They should be grateful. This abusive sense of entitlement to everything is sickening to me.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Well, we've had this discussion before, but I don't think that matters. This is an ideological difference similar to what we were talking about in another thread about CEO pay. It just depends how you look at it. You see the ones in control as creating the value; I see the ones on the field as doing it.

I don't think that's an apt comparison. Football rosters are constantly turning over, and yet many programs continue to sell out even in bad years. That's a pretty clear indication that brand and tribal loyalty are the main drivers behind CFB's profitability, and not the talents of individual players.

To the extent that a football team is not profitable, there is no justification for a laundry stipend. To whatever extent it is, there is.

That's only going to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. At what point does D1 cease to make sense as a grouping?

There are competing interests there, so I can see how reasonable people would disagree; it depends how you weigh the interests. I'm one who does tend to believe that athletes in revenue sports are exploited to some extent, and I think relieving or reducing that exploitation is a compelling interest.

I agree that many players are being exploited, but that's mostly because a lot of schools aren't upholding their side of the bargain as educators. I don't think the arrangement is inherently exploitative.

 

[gkIrish]

There's no fair way to pay players? Why not just give them all a small "laundry stipend", as they say?

I get that the scholarship benefits athletes get are HUGE, but I just don't understand how it justifies needlessly keeping them in poverty during their college years. I worked two jobs when I was in school for spending money. Football players can't do that. Their lives are football and school. So when their favorite uncle dies and they have a funeral to go to, they have to scramble to buy a suit and make travel arrangements with money they don't have.

So what, many will say. That's true of many students all over the country, for various reasons other than their commitment to D-I football. Maybe so. D-I players can take out loans like other students, I suppose, sure.

But I cannot get over the fundamental illogic of giving kids a scholarship to perform an activity that is TREMENDOUSLY lucrative to the schools, and then telling the students that they can receive NONE of that value in liquid form, so they had better take out loans if they want any spending money, even though the reality is that more than a third of them will not graduate and will have no more earning power after leaving the program than they did coming in and no way to pay those loans back, and the schools often do very little to ensure that they do graduate with useful, marketable skills.

No one's forcing them to do it, it will be argued. If they think they are better off just taking out loans and going to school as a regular student, or looking for work right out of high school, they are more than welcome to.

But is that what schools want? For kids to realize how unattractive playing D-I football is? No, they want the best players to come to their school so they can field a competitive team and make a lot of money. They recruit the best athletes they can find and gloss over the fact that, in order to succeed, they will have to bust their asses all day, pushing themselves to the limits of physical exhaustion to become faster, bigger, stronger, more skilled, then find a way to study all night, then go to bed, then get up and do it again.

There's just no reason we need to make it so hard for them. It doesn't make sense, when schools could easily carve out a small fraction of the money they get from their conference TV deal and ticket sales and everywhere else for a "laundry stipend" so that the kids have a few bucks to buy a suit and a plane ticket for a funeral.

I agree that they should be able to work on the side but I would limit it to jobs available to all students at the standard hourly rate (i.e. the Huddle at Notre Dame). Once you start allowing them to work as sponsors for car dealerships and shit like that it becomes messy.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why is it a problem that colleges make millions of dollars off of football? It's not like colleges are for-profit organizations. No one is pocketing the ticket money. It all goes back into the school and into other sports programs. Yeah, maybe there's corruption, but that's a separate problem.

Again, my whole issue is that schools shouldn't be paying athletes a salary on top of their scholarships. Even if everyone gets the same amount, the negative consequences are just too scary.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

That's only going to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. At what point does D1 cease to make sense as a grouping?

I think the ultimate casualty of these changes will be that a significant number (maybe most) of FBS schools do opt out. I know people have been touting the super conference model but I think it's doomed to failure. The perennial FBS underclass adds fans to CFB as a whole which all the participants profit from. If IU (for example) becomes relegated to being an annual 1-3 game winner with no punching bags to put on the schedule then interest from its alumni base will wither and die and IU will eventually be looking to opt out as well if they're losing money. The risk then is an endless cycle of the worst teams moving out and their fanbases losing their psychological draw to CFB. The end result is diminished interest in college athletics overall and fewer students receiving athletic scholarships - in football or other sports. I realize that marginalizing major college sports isn't considered a tragedy by many people (and I'm not unsympathetic to that POV) but if the system is financially self-sustaining and allows many people to attend college who wouldn't otherwise possess the means then it's a net societal loss.

 

[MJ12666]

So, a kid who earns a scholarship based on his academics should get paid as well, right? No, they study for 3-4 years or whatever and get themselves well-paying job.

Same should go for athletes. Just because one can throw the ball harder or run faster doesn't mean they are entitled to any compensation.

If a kid who is on an academic scholarship, is engaged by the school to participate in a school sponsored event that is directly related to the scholarship, and the event brings in revenue for the school, then yes they should be entitled to compensation.

As a general rule I am against unions, but I can't see how anyone who is a supporter of free market economics can be against this. Additionally, if I remember correctly, I don't believe that the Northwestern players are looking to be paid. I thought I read that they were looking for guaranteed four year scholarships and medical care for injuries. Anyway, this ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.

 

[Ndaccountant]

So, if they unionize, do they become employees? If that is the case, do they start paying taxes on the scholarship aid? What about the benefits of using the weight room, S&C coaches, specialized dining, etc? Do they start paying for health insurance?

I would really think long on hard on this if I was a random ST player that has no shot of ever making the NFL.