What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

College Football Players---Students or Employees?

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

LynahFan said:
I think it's inevitable. If your coach is running a program that is netting $50M to the university, he probably really is worth $5M per year. However, if you have to start paying your players, sharing in marketing revenue, etc, so the program's net return to the general fund is only $10M, would you really pay your coach $5M? Or, put differently, if the school does continue to pay the coach $5M, you can bet that they're going to be pressuring him to cut costs in order to preserve as much as possible profit for the university (i.e. increase the $10M return).
Click to expand...
But a good coach makes a huge revenue difference, so if you reduce the coach's pay, another school will step in and offer more, as if the other school offers $3 million, but the coach adds $10 million in revenue, it's still a bargain. A top football coach brings a lot of value to a college football program, and their pay inevitably will reflect that.
 
Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

This all reminds me of the passage on college football in Kurt Vonnegut's first novel, 1952's "Player Piano." He was WAY ahead of his time. Here's an excerpt from that chapter:

Buck Young, tall, massive, shy, appeared in the doorway and looked around the room. Doctor Roseberry stood and waved, and left Purdy and McCloud to join him at the door.
"Bucky boy!"
"Doc." Buck seemed somewhat ashamed to be seen with the coach, and looked hopefully at a vacant booth. He was behaving as though he were keeping an appointment with a dope peddler, and, in a way, Doctor Roseberry reflected cheerfully, he was.
"Buck, I'm not going to waste any words, because there isn't much time. This offer won't be open many more days. Maybe it'll be off tomorrow. It's all up to the alumni," he lied.
"Uh-huh," said Buck.
"I'm prepared to offer you thirty thousand, Buck, six hundred a week, all year round, startin' tomorrow. What do you say?"
Young's Adam's apple bobbed. He cleared his throat. "Every week?" he asked faintly.
"That's how much we think of you, boy. Don't sell yourself short."
"And I could study, too? You'd give me time off for classes and study?"
Roseberry frowned. "Well - there's some pretty stiff rulings about that. You can't play college football, and go to school. They tried that once, and you know what a silly mess that was."
Click to expand...
 
Slap Shot said:
Not so fast my friend. It may not have a direct impact, but like the movement that created it there's going to be a similar reaction when pay for play is argued inequitable.
Click to expand...
WNBA players do not make as much as NBA because of revenue generated, same thing for women's basketball vs football. They can argue all they want, but until they show money, they won't get as much.
 
Jimjamesak said:
WNBA players do not make as much as NBA because of revenue generated, same thing for women's basketball vs football. They can argue all they want, but until they show money, they won't get as much.
Click to expand...

True, but the NBA and WNBA aren't educational institutions receiving federal money.
 
Slap Shot said:
Not so fast my friend. It may not have a direct impact, but like the movement that created it there's going to be a similar reaction when pay for play is argued inequitable.
Click to expand...

Once they are deemed employees there can be no threat of federal aid being taken away for pay inequity. Im sure female professors make less than male ones on avg. Yet no actions are being taken.
 
JF_Gophers said:
Once they are deemed employees there can be no threat of federal aid being taken away for pay inequity. Im sure female professors make less than male ones on avg. Yet no actions are being taken.
Click to expand...

According to this: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html it does cover teacher pay through the Office of Civil Rights.
 
Last edited:
thebrain said:
According to this: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html it does cover teacher pay through the Office of Civil Rights.
Click to expand...

interesting since teaching isn't an activity that would receive aid.

I wonder how that works if the men have union negotiated wages vs a non union women's team. wouldn't they simply need to negotiate their own pay?
 
Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

HumRsky said:
This all reminds me of the passage on college football in Kurt Vonnegut's first novel, 1952's "Player Piano." He was WAY ahead of his time. Here's an excerpt from that chapter:
Click to expand...

I think I might have to read this novel now. :)
 
Priceless said:
You all seem to be overlooking one thing:



It's so that an 18-year-old football player doesn't get paralyzed and then told, "Sorry, insurance only covers $100,000 and then you're on your own!"

This ruling will never stand anyway. Way too many holes, not to mention a favorite topic around here: Title IX.
Click to expand...

And remember the whole student-athlete terminology came into being because the NCAA did not want to get involved in workers compensation cases. If the employer-employee relationship is upheld, then the athletes would be eligible for WC.
 
Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

The implications of this are quite staggering. Hypothetical, but still staggering.

* If athletes are indeed employees for the purpose of determining whether they can unionize, will a different federal agency (Labor) decide they are also employees for the purpose of compliance with other labor rules?

* If Labor weighs in with the same view as the NLRB, then compliance with minimum wage rules comes into play. But then, employers could seek to offset wages against scholarships ... But of course, the union could seek to negotiate those terms as well.

* Employers have to provide medical coverage that's compliant under the Affordable Care Act. I'm sure most athletes get some form of medical care today, but compliance with the ACA is a wrinkle.

* Unionized teams competing against non-union teams. Let's say hypothetically, if Michigan unionizes, and Alabama doesn't, which school gains an advantage? Or is it a wash? Or if part of a conference unionizes but other schools don't ... will the conference split up? (If one side gets an advantage, it will certainly create pressure on those disadvantaged ...)

* Unions have been more successful when there's a broader constituency and therefore more pressure on employers. If football and men's basketball players seek to go it alone, that creates a wedge against all the other sports. But that broadening hits against the initial movement ... which is narrowly focused on those two sports.

* Employers have a requirement to pay employees equally based on job duties. Is the job of a men's basketball player really any different from a women's basketball player? I can't see a legally valid justification to pay the men more than the women.

* By extension, is the job of a men's basketball player any different than a men's wrestler? A college hockey player? What grounds could justify pay differentials?

....I don't know where this is headed, but it could be really big. The one thing that seems apparent is that schools with big revenue streams will have a great advantage.
 
Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Farce Poobah said:
* Employers have a requirement to pay employees equally based on job duties. Is the job of a men's basketball player really any different from a women's basketball player? I can't see a legally valid justification to pay the men more than the women.
Click to expand...

That will be settled by a slam dunk contest.

I'm kidding, but not really...
 
Farce Poobah said:
* Employers have a requirement to pay employees equally based on job duties. Is the job of a men's basketball player really any different from a women's basketball player? I can't see a legally valid justification to pay the men more than the women.

* By extension, is the job of a men's basketball player any different than a men's wrestler? A college hockey player? What grounds could justify pay differentials?

....I don't know where this is headed, but it could be really big. The one thing that seems apparent is that schools with big revenue streams will have a great advantage.
Click to expand...
Well that would be why you have job classifications, even for people doing essentially the same thing.

A serious question to people here, have any of you ever been a member of a union?
 
Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Farce Poobah said:
The implications of this are quite staggering. Hypothetical, but still staggering.

* If athletes are indeed employees for the purpose of determining whether they can unionize, will a different federal agency (Labor) decide they are also employees for the purpose of compliance with other labor rules?

* If Labor weighs in with the same view as the NLRB, then compliance with minimum wage rules comes into play. But then, employers could seek to offset wages against scholarships ... But of course, the union could seek to negotiate those terms as well.

* Employers have to provide medical coverage that's compliant under the Affordable Care Act. I'm sure most athletes get some form of medical care today, but compliance with the ACA is a wrinkle.

* Unionized teams competing against non-union teams. Let's say hypothetically, if Michigan unionizes, and Alabama doesn't, which school gains an advantage? Or is it a wash? Or if part of a conference unionizes but other schools don't ... will the conference split up? (If one side gets an advantage, it will certainly create pressure on those disadvantaged ...)

* Unions have been more successful when there's a broader constituency and therefore more pressure on employers. If football and men's basketball players seek to go it alone, that creates a wedge against all the other sports. But that broadening hits against the initial movement ... which is narrowly focused on those two sports.

* Employers have a requirement to pay employees equally based on job duties. Is the job of a men's basketball player really any different from a women's basketball player? I can't see a legally valid justification to pay the men more than the women.

* By extension, is the job of a men's basketball player any different than a men's wrestler? A college hockey player? What grounds could justify pay differentials?

....I don't know where this is headed, but it could be really big. The one thing that seems apparent is that schools with big revenue streams will have a great advantage.
Click to expand...
The money being made at the Big Tyme State schools is what's going to kill college athletics if this duck really flys. Football players are going to see what kids at Alabama or Texas are getting, and they're going to want that same kind of money. Then you're going to have everybody else at those schools who do the non-revenue type of sports, like Cross Country, they're going to want their cut of the money as well to go run Cross Country for Alabama or Texas. CC kids are going to see those kids there getting paid as well. While the rest of the kids at the have not schools are going to have their hands out, only to end up watching their schools cut their programs because they can't afford to pay their athletes their salaries. There's a lot of schools out there that have their Athletic departments bleeding money. This ruling is going to be a dagger right to the heart for a lot of those schools.
 
Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

I don't understand how the football players at Northwestern are employees, but the other Northwestern athletes are not.
 
Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

UncleRay said:
I don't understand how the football players at Northwestern are employees, but the other Northwestern athletes are not.
Click to expand...
Because they are the only parties to the suit. If they prevail all the way through then the whole athletic program could fall under the ruling.

Saw a crawl on E$PN that the union and Congre$$ will be meeting tomorrow in DC. THAT ought to be interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top