College Football Players---Students or Employees?

[joecct]

There is no way this stands up. It's a stupid ruling because he knows it's going to fail (for sure under title IX) and he's just trying to make a point. I hate rulings like that.

All in all, dumb.

Or, Title IX forces the expansion to female athletes.

Or, the CHL starts advertising that you can get paid pkaying for them while in college you watch the hoops players get the bucks while you're freezing your butt off playing in front of the 3rd string cheerleaders.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

There is no way this stands up. It's a stupid ruling because he knows it's going to fail (for sure under title IX) and he's just trying to make a point. I hate rulings like that.

All in all, dumb.

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Steve Spurrier weighs in.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Buni-RaIMAAOr3i.png

I'm sure the NCAA is just thrilled with him.

[joecct]

Exactly. What's the precedent for the $5k cap?

Also, "college athletes" is bulls***. It's just football and men's basketball players. No one involved in this suit cares about hockey players or any other athlete.

Sioux them!!

[Critical Thinker]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Haven't read the decision yet, but this strikes me as a mushy decision. If you have the right to sell your likeness, shouldn't you have the right to let the market determine how much that likeness is worth?

Exactly. What's the precedent for the $5k cap?

Also, "college athletes" is bulls***. It's just football and men's basketball players. No one involved in this suit cares about hockey players or any other athlete.

[St. Clown]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Haven't read the decision yet, but this strikes me as a mushy decision. If you have the right to sell your likeness, shouldn't you have the right to let the market determine how much that likeness is worth?

It reads like the judge came up with the number because she heard it through the grapevine that most schools would be happy with a "a few thousand dollars" compensation. It seemed pretty arbitrary to me, too.

[CLS]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

I'm surprised this news wasn't already here. The NCAA lost a lawsuit about refusing to pay college athletes for use of their likeness, and paying them, in general. The court decision limits compensation to $5,000/year.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/sport/...html?hpt=hp_t2

Haven't read the decision yet, but this strikes me as a mushy decision. If you have the right to sell your likeness, shouldn't you have the right to let the market determine how much that likeness is worth?

[St. Clown]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

I'm surprised this news wasn't already here. The NCAA lost a lawsuit about refusing to pay college athletes for use of their likeness, and paying them, in general. The court decision limits compensation to $5,000/year.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/sport/...html?hpt=hp_t2

[RaceBoarder]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Not college... But this only could happen in Texas...

How the hell do you get this far into a project like this and miss something of this nature

[St. Clown]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

That man was given 5.2oz of pasta, not the proscribed 5.0oz serving! Off with his head!

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

http://msn.foxsports.com/buzzer/stor...smtw:fscom:FOX

Ikard, who was an Academic All-American and signed with the Titans as an unrestricted free agent on Saturday, was one of the players that the OU compliance office self-reported on for being served too much pasta at a graduation banquet last May.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

I heard the Northwestern players are voting on unionizing today, but I'm not paying close attention to what's going on. Is anyone following this?

Vote is today (might be over already...not sure). The ballots will be sealed until the court case is resolved. The hearing before the NLRB will be sometime later this month (I believe). Following that, there will probably be appeals going on for awhile in federal court...maybe even up to the Supreme Court. In other words, we probably won't know the outcome of how they voted for a few years.

[Critical Thinker]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

I heard the Northwestern players are voting on unionizing today, but I'm not paying close attention to what's going on. Is anyone following this?

[Handyman]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

I

That then raises these interesting questions. Can a school insist on a non-compete agreement with a player before it agrees to give compensation? Are the players going to have to file tax returns and pay taxes in each state in which they play a game, just like the pros do? Does the idea of a "walk on" football or basketball player simply end? After all, any employer who chooses to have volunteers perform the exact same job duties that an "employee" performs runs the risk of running afoul of wage and hour laws if the "volunteer" isn't paid. There are probably a thousand complications that none of these players have given a moments thought to, I would bet.

Yup, the unintended consequences of all this are going to be hilarious. Once you open Pandora's Box you lose control...

[SJHovey]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

That's all well and good for the first paragraph, the problem I'd have is that as a rep of a college/university, you can be dang sure that I'd have written into the collective bargaining contract that we're not going to put a player onto the field due to seniority. It'd be not just a firm stance, but a rock solid stance, insisted upon by the coach or AD. Putting the most talented players onto the field will still be the rule of the day regardless of how this whole situation ends.

I would certainly think so.

Again, I have no idea how this will play out. I just think it's a kind of interesting if you think about it.

The professional collective bargaining agreements we've all seen in action are negotiated collectively, from both sides. That is, the players have one representative, and the owners or clubs also have one representative. Thus, all the teams basically abide by the same rules, such as player transfers, free agency and the like.

But that's not what is happening, at least not right now on the college level. Will the NCAA take over for the schools, as their negotiating agent? Otherwise what you will see is a mishmash of contracts. You could even see contracts at a school that are different depending upon the sport.

That then raises these interesting questions. Can a school insist on a non-compete agreement with a player before it agrees to give compensation? Are the players going to have to file tax returns and pay taxes in each state in which they play a game, just like the pros do? Does the idea of a "walk on" football or basketball player simply end? After all, any employer who chooses to have volunteers perform the exact same job duties that an "employee" performs runs the risk of running afoul of wage and hour laws if the "volunteer" isn't paid. There are probably a thousand complications that none of these players have given a moments thought to, I would bet.