Labor board: Northwestern University football players can unionize

[ludin]

Colleges already spend a lot of money on athletes - scholarships, equipment, facilities, coaches and staff, personal trainers, the list goes on and on. Colleges are free to choose to spend however much or however little on athletics as they want. Lifting the ban wouldn't change this fact at all. If a college doesn't want to spend more money on athletics then they already do, fine, no one's going to force them, no one's even suggesting that they should.

because this has nothing to do with the topic. the topic is about student athletes being considered employee's it has nothing to do with NCAA rules.

 

[ludin]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Pray tell me how the teams will be full of gimp volunteers yet saban and the AD don't take a pay cut? I mean who is gonna pay their salary? Who the hell is gonna keep paying $500 to see a bunch of walk ons? What TV network will dole out the big bucks for that? Your 'simple solution' really just sounds like high school v2

Ivys don't give scholarships and 2 things come to mind right away: they don't have loans either (other kinds of finaid that amounts to the same thing) and they have an inherent recruiting tool - an elite education

edit: NW prez is bluffing or could be serious - NW has always been terrible at football so few would care.

who says they have to take a pay cut?

actually if you knew your football history the IVY league schools when they gave athletic scholarships were some of the top teams in the nation. they
consistently placed in the top 5. They decided to preserve their educational standards and quit giving athletic scholarships.

It doesn't matter if NW is good or bad. that is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[JasperL]

This is ridiculous on so many levels, and will be overturned. How in the world is a student an employee of anything at the school. The only transaction I see is a promise to give them an education in return for their participation in sports. What else is there to bargain for? THAT IS THE BARGAIN. You either decide well yes I would like to take that deal or no I will not.

The problem is the NCAA and the schools have colluded and set the terms of the 'deal.' Furthermore, for a football player talented enough to play in the NFL, the 'deal' is the only route available to get there. At least with baseball, players have an option - go pro out of HS, or go to college, so when they're presented with the "deal" they actually have a CHOICE. Talented football and basketball players don't have a realistic choice.

The ban on compensation also extends well beyond the school because the NCAA prohibits athletes from cashing in their market value in any other way, prohibiting contact or getting paid by agents, limiting the kind of summer employment, prohibiting outsiders for paying for appearances, autographs, jerseys, etc. A star coach can negotiate a 6 or 7 figure endorsement deal, but his best players can receive $0.00 for their services endorsing products. The schools can sell a player's jersey and number (without name) and NCAA.org itself sold jerseys of famous NCAA players, but the players cannot receive one penny of benefit from the sales of their own jersey with the number THEY made valuable.

Anyway, major college sports are a multi $billion BUSINESS, and the only ones in that business whose compensation (inside and outside their institutions) is capped by the arrangement of a cartel of the employers are the talented players that make it all possible. Just seems unsustainable to me whether we like the results or not.

 

[chromium]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

who says they have to take a pay cut?

actually if you knew your football history the IVY league schools when they gave athletic scholarships were some of the top teams in the nation. they
consistently placed in the top 5. They decided to preserve their educational standards and quit giving athletic scholarships.

It doesn't matter if NW is good or bad. that is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Uh if they cut football there won't be a pay cut for the coach or AD? If they pay the players instead, they will have to cut expenses or raise profits. If they use only walk ons they lose millions in revenue, again a pay cut. You figure it out.

It does matter that NW sucks, because no one applies to NW for the football. The prez and board of trustees aren't going to care in the way that admin at ohio state or UMich will. You really think the latter would cut football just to avoid an NFL style split of revenue with the players?

Pedo state has taught us what lengths colleges will go to keep the football team in operation

 

[ChrisL]

Colleges already spend a lot of money on athletes - scholarships, equipment, facilities, coaches and staff, personal trainers, the list goes on and on. Colleges are free to choose to spend however much or however little on athletics as they want. Lifting the ban wouldn't change this fact at all. If a college doesn't want to spend more money on athletics then they already do, fine, no one's going to force them, no one's even suggesting that they should.

And you can't see how this is going to make things 10 times worse? For another thing, the smaller colleges that can't afford to compete are going to be left out in the cold. The ones who can afford to "pay" their student athletes are going to keep pulling in ALL the money. Then, we're going to get things like salary caps. It's ridiculous. They are student athletes, not professionals. It doesn't matter how good they are, they are still students attending an academic institution and representing that institution when they play. It's just opening the door to all kinds of ridiculous demands on colleges, and I see academics suffering as a result, more so in some than others of course. Are they going to demand payment and have to have salary caps too? :roll: This is not good for the overall bigger picture.

 

[ChrisL]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

It's an exercise of free association.

I don't think most libertarians support unionization. I could be wrong. Maybe some left leaners . . . I'm not sure. I just never considered that to be a libertarian value because they seem to be more about individual responsibility more so than group think, which a lot of unions represent.

 

[ChrisL]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

So the exploited should continue to submit to being exploited so that those who benefit from this exploitation can continue to receive benefits from the continued exploitation. That makes sense to you?

Exploited? They don't have to play sports. The reason for this is to make the college/university more attractive to potential students. Also, the colleges make money, but how is that not a good thing? How can a conservative not support that? :mrgreen:

If you have a problem with how much they pay their coaching staff or how they market the players, then I would think there would be other ways to address those issues.

 

[fmw]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

While no university is going to let football players unionize at least the movement might tone down the NCAA which really needs some reform.

 

[ChrisL]

The problem is the NCAA and the schools have colluded and set the terms of the 'deal.' Furthermore, for a football player talented enough to play in the NFL, the 'deal' is the only route available to get there. At least with baseball, players have an option - go pro out of HS, or go to college, so when they're presented with the "deal" they actually have a CHOICE. Talented football and basketball players don't have a realistic choice.

The ban on compensation also extends well beyond the school because the NCAA prohibits athletes from cashing in their market value in any other way, prohibiting contact or getting paid by agents, limiting the kind of summer employment, prohibiting outsiders for paying for appearances, autographs, jerseys, etc. A star coach can negotiate a 6 or 7 figure endorsement deal, but his best players can receive $0.00 for their services endorsing products. The schools can sell a player's jersey and number (without name) and NCAA.org itself sold jerseys of famous NCAA players, but the players cannot receive one penny of benefit from the sales of their own jersey with the number THEY made valuable.

Anyway, major college sports are a multi $billion BUSINESS, and the only ones in that business whose compensation (inside and outside their institutions) is capped by the arrangement of a cartel of the employers are the talented players that make it all possible. Just seems unsustainable to me whether we like the results or not.

That's not true at ALL. There are plenty of "star" college athletes who do not make it in the NFL.

 

[Henrin]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Unionizing is a libertarian belief?

Yes, people have the right to unionize due to their right to association. Libertarians thus support unionizing, but that does not mean they support forcing people into a union and mandating them pay union dues, forcing negotiations, mandated topics of discussion, mandating things be provided to unions, laws that put an obligation on either party to negotiate in good faith, protecting those unionized from being fired, etc. In short, we support unionization in so far as to protect the right to association, but do not support any forced association, or any other violation of human rights that are currently in current law.

 

[ChrisL]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Yes, people have the right to unionize due to their right to association. Libertarians thus support unionizing, but that does not mean they support forcing people into a union and mandating them pay union dues, forcing negotiations, mandated topics of discussion, mandating things be provided to unions, laws that put an obligation on either party to negotiate in good faith, protecting those unionized from being fired, etc. In short, we support unionization in so far as to protect the right to association, but do not support any forced association, or any other violation of human rights that are currently in current law.

Well thanks for the clarification, but I'll bet at least some libertarians are going to disagree with you.

 

[Perotista]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Yeah, but if the SCOTUS rules the appointments to the NLRB was unconstitutional as the senate was in session. Every decision made by the NLRB since the appointments may become null and void. This may or may not be a big thing. We will just have to wait and see.

 

[justabubba]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Exploited? They don't have to play sports. The reason for this is to make the college/university more attractive to potential students. Also, the colleges make money, but how is that not a good thing? How can a conservative not support that? :mrgreen:

If you have a problem with how much they pay their coaching staff or how they market the players, then I would think there would be other ways to address those issues.

what more effective ways, other than that the players have chosen, do you suggest

 

[ChrisL]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

what more effective ways, other than that the players have chosen, do you suggest

There could be rules on how the colleges are allowed to market their players, how much they're allowed to spend on their sports programs, etc.

 

[justabubba]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

While no university is going to let football players unionize at least the movement might tone down the NCAA which really needs some reform.

employers don't 'get' to 'let' the employees unionize
employees have a 'right' of association to form a bargaining unit if the election results of the prospective bargaining unit employees indicate 50% plus one of them chose the union option

 

[justabubba]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

There could be rules on how the colleges are allowed to market their players, how much they're allowed to spend on their sports programs, etc.

and would the players be involved in establishing those new rules?

 

[ChrisL]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

and would the players be involved in establishing those new rules?

How the hell should I know? :lol: I'm just commenting on a message board. I think student athletes unionizing is not good for other students or for colleges who couldn't compete with the big money colleges.

 

[justabubba]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

How the hell should I know? :lol: I'm just commenting on a message board. I think student athletes unionizing is not good for other students or for colleges who couldn't compete with the big money colleges.

you insisted there were other ways to effect change instead of unionizing
i assumed you had some answers

 

[ChrisL]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

you insisted there were other ways to effect change instead of unionizing
i assumed you had some answers

I just gave you a couple of ideas. Better than the student athletes being able to make unreasonable demands from the colleges.

 

[justabubba]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

I just gave you a couple of ideas. Better than the student athletes being able to make unreasonable demands from the colleges.

no. you offered no real alternatives
in contrast, the northwestern athletes did
they now have an opportunity to negotiate for change in a way that no longer existed

 

[the_recruit]

because this has nothing to do with the topic. the topic is about student athletes being considered employee's it has nothing to do with NCAA rules.

:roll: This is how conversations work bud. The discussion naturally progresses to related issues. Look around. Why do you think this story has reignited a national dialogue on pay-for-play? In fact, the only reason the story got any national coverage at all was because of its obvious implication on the more important issue of pay-for-play and NCAA ByLaw 12.1.2.

If you believe i'm actually derailing this thread quit your bitching and report me.

 

[the_recruit]

And you can't see how this is going to make things 10 times worse?

No. I don't. Please explain it to me.

For another thing, the smaller colleges that can't afford to compete are going to be left out in the cold. The ones who can afford to "pay" their student athletes are going to keep pulling in ALL the money.

Sorry that's already the way it is. The best athletes go to the top tier programs that can offer them huge scholarships and the chance to play in BCS bowls and get national exposure to NFL scouts. Little schools get the leftovers. That's the way it's been for a half century, it's nothing new.

Then, we're going to get things like salary caps. It's ridiculous.

So? Why is it ridiculous?

They are student athletes, not professionals. It doesn't matter how good they are, they are still students attending an academic institution and representing that institution when they play.

Student athlete is a bogus term invented by the NCAA. Universities are compensating athletes to perform a service that can generate tens of millions of dollars in profit for the school. Unless we get rid of athletic scholarships altogether, they are effectively professionals.

It's just opening the door to all kinds of ridiculous demands on colleges,

How so? Like what?

and I see academics suffering as a result, more so in some than others of course.

Why would this cause academics to suffer? It wouldn't force any school to spend a dime more on athletics then they want to.

Are they going to demand payment and have to have salary caps too? :roll: This is not good for the overall bigger picture.

The players can't force the school to do anything. If the player wants a big paycheck and the school doesn't want to pay him a big paycheck, then they're probably not going to make a deal.

 

[ludin]

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Uh if they cut football there won't be a pay cut for the coach or AD? If they pay the players instead, they will have to cut expenses or raise profits. If they use only walk ons they lose millions in revenue, again a pay cut. You figure it out.

no the just don't give scholarships. if they drop the football program they still have to pay the coaches buy out. so he is paid either way.

It does matter that NW sucks, because no one applies to NW for the football. The prez and board of trustees aren't going to care in the way that admin at ohio state or UMich will. You really think the latter would cut football just to avoid an NFL style split of revenue with the players?

no it doesn't. they will drop it because they can't afford the liability. there is more to it than just paying players and going the other direction. if you had read any of the links i posted you would know this.

also athletic departments are considered non-profit so there is no profit to spit with the players if they even wanted it.

Pedo state has taught us what lengths colleges will go to keep the football team in operation

If you are referring to penn st. then call it penn st. that way people know what you are talking about.
The reason they are still there is because they care about the students that are on scholarship. if they were to drop the football program all those kids would lose their scholarships.

 

[ludin]

:roll: This is how conversations work bud. The discussion naturally progresses to related issues. Look around. Why do you think this story has reignited a national dialogue on pay-for-play? In fact, the only reason the story got any national coverage at all was because of its obvious implication on the more important issue of pay-for-play and NCAA ByLaw 12.1.2.

If you believe i'm actually derailing this thread quit your bitching and report me.

no it is what we call a strawman which is a logical fallacy.
it means you can't actually address the point in question so you have to bring up an irrelevant in an attempt to disprove the original argument.

they are attempting to get something and be catagorized as something they are not. they are students not employee's.
if you don't believe me let them drop out of school and see if they can still play on the football team. they can't.

the only way they can play football is if they are a student and make the grades. without those conditions met they are not allowed on the football field. in fact it makes their scholarship null and void.

 

[the_recruit]

no it is what we call a strawman which is a logical fallacy.
it means you can't actually address the point in question so you have to bring up an irrelevant in an attempt to disprove the original argument.

Not surprisingly you have no idea what a strawman actually is. I've repeatedly shown you how athletes on scholarships are effectively employees. You've even implicitly agreed by admitting that college athletes are effectively "paid". You're just don't have the wherewithal to connect the dots.

they are attempting to get something and be catagorized as something they are not. they are students not employee's.
if you don't believe me let them drop out of school and see if they can still play on the football team. they can't.

the only way they can play football is if they are a student and make the grades. without those conditions met they are not allowed on the football field. in fact it makes their scholarship null and void.

Yep. These are conditions of their (effective) employment. Just like I have to meet certain conditions to be employed at my job (and you at yours, assuming anyone is willing to employ you for anything).

Look, I can only repeat myself so many times. It's clear you're not able (or not willing) to understand it. Although it's been fun, I've wasted enough time slapping you around. Good day!