• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Labor board: Northwestern University football players can unionize

Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

I'm more concerned with colleges spending their money on educating students, rather than paying student athletes. I think it's an all around stupid idea.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

I'm more concerned with colleges spending their money on educating students, rather than paying student athletes. I think it's an all around stupid idea.

Then you agree with me that athletics for profit should not be a part of Anerican higher education.

It is and always has been an all around stupid idea. The U of Chicago did it right by dismantling their football program in the 30s and drop out of the Big Ten.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Then you agree with me that athletics for profit should not be a part of Anerican higher education.

It is and always has been an all around stupid idea. The U of Chicago did it right by dismantling their football program in the 30s and drop out of the Big Ten.

I don't really know how I feel about college athletes receiving scholarships. I don't think that college scholarships should ever be awarded on the basis of being a good athlete alone. If these students are earning scholarships and are good at a particular sport too, then that's something else I guess.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Not getting analogies is a demonstration of much dumber intellect....FYI.

I would say equating a voluntary activity to enslavement is on a scale of dumb not frequently seen.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

While I have nothing against college players being paid I dont think unions ought to be allowed, they are more of a detriment than an advantage.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

they are getting payment in the form of education or are you going to continue saying that they don't?

You're mincing words. You think you're making a point but all you're really doing is demonstrating a complete and total failure to understand even the most basic points of the discussion. In the context of the pay-for-play discussion, when someone says "college athletes should be allowed to be paid" they are not talking about compensation in the form of scholarships. They are talking about a paycheck - income that the player can spend as he or she chooses.

They are talking about NCAA ByLaw12.1.2, which explicitly prohibits college athletes from accepting any form of pay for playing.

That's what everyone is talking about it. If you can't comprehend that simple distinction you have no business here.

they are not employee's so there is no market. they are students first athletes second.

without grades they don't play.

The reason you see no market is because the NCAA members have colluded and agreed to not offer to pay athletes for their labor. It's textbook form of price fixing that interferes with free market operation and needs to be lifted. Then see if "there is no market".

30 years of court rulings disagree with you.

there reasoning was. a scholarship offer does not read like an employment. there i no contract of employment. the school offered no job or opened any job pertaining to the position or a promise of employment for the student.

the fact that the labor board ignored already established law is astounding. this will go to court and they will get overturned.
they are not employee's.

they are students. their scholarship offers are dependent on them getting into school taking and passing classes.

1. Look up the definition of colloquial.
2. Bull****
3. I don't give a ****. I don't need a court ruling to tell me what is or isn't employment in the colloquial sense. Maybe you do, but I have no difficulties understanding simple definitions and knowing when and where they apply.

school doesn't need to bargain with anyone. they simply pull all scholarship and make football playing voluntary.

Oh please. There's way too much money to made in college football. All the universities and ncaa execs and advertising companies and sponsors aren't just going to throw it all away just because the players want a cut of the pie. Get real.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

because clearly that means their work isn't that valuable economically...


I'm sorry but this is wrong. First of all, if these athletes don't generate value economically, then the free market won't pay them for their work. In which case you don't need a NCAA law banning pay-for-play. I mean this is precisely the sort of thing the free market excels at - in determining where the value is and is not. So again, why not lift the prohibition?

Second of all, the athletes you're talking about - the ones playing at football programs that operate in the red - probably WON'T see offers of a salary to play for a school's team (for the reasons I just mentioned). But what about the small percentage of athletes that very clearly ARE generating enormous economic value to the tune of tens of millions of dollars for the elite programs. In which case your argument also fails.

So why do we need a prohibition on pay-for-play?

and that scholarships plus the potential for future earnings are very good compensation in relationship to work preformed

That's just your opinion, someone else could just as easily declare that it's not enough compensation. And it's still not a reason for needing a prohibition.
 
Why should that be the case though?

I agree. Why should the NCAA prohibit pay-for-play? Why should that be the case? :lol:

They aren't professional athletes,

I think a lot of people would disagree. I think a lot of people would say that college athletes are effectively professional athletes, and that we're just kidding ourselves by saying they're not. I mean the school offers them compensation in the form of scholarship money, and the athletes have a bunch of duties and responsibilities they have to fulfill in order to continue receiving that compensation (spending X hours a week training, etc). Sounds like a professional to me.

and they are playing to represent their school and, in the case of a scholarship, have already been paid in a way to play.

Which is another reason why the ban is so silly. The NCAA basically says it's ok for universities to attract top athletes with this kind of compensation (scholarships) but it's not ok to attact them with this kind of compensation (a paycheck). It's a silly distinction.

I don't see how this really is of benefit, especially to college sports in general.

I'm not sure that it would benefit college sports in general. I don't think it would change it all that much anyway. The idea is that it would benefit the college athletes, who are doing all the hard work that generates billions of dollars that other people are profiting from.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

I hope those players are successful. Seeing how these college athletes make billions for the universities they should get a large cut of those profits.

That not the way that I hear it. I have read that only 8 or so schools actually make money off of football programs and almost all of the other sports are money losers. It is extremely expensive to coach and outfit the teams and travel to the games. A large part of the rise in college fees goes to subsidize athletic programs. Colleges like them to attract students and up to now students have been willing to pay escalating fees but we seem to be at a bubble.

Hopefully this move will signal the end of intercollegiate athletics, except at a club level, paid for by participants.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

That not the way that I hear it. I have read that only 8 or so schools actually make money off of football programs and almost all of the other sports are money losers.

When the reports talk about schools making money, they're referring to athletics taking in enough revenue to pay for all athletic expenses, on every team.

If we look at football by itself, this is what we see, 69 of 120 football programs make some profit:

58% of football programs and 56% of men's basketball programs are self-sufficient. Only 1 women's basketball program is.
The two biggest drivers of athletic revenue are ticket sales and alumni donations.
The two biggest expenses are scholarships and employee salaries. Those two items alone make up more than 50% of all expenses.​
 
And a legal union has the right to picket. Try using a stadium which is blockaded by picketers. No home games, maybe no team of players, meanwhile the coach and staff still need to be paid millions of dollars for doing nothing.

they do not have the right to block traffic into the stadium. it would be bad for the players. if they don't think that getting a free education is enough then they don't have to play football and can forfeit their scholarship. i think 125k which includes a college degree if they graduate is enough.
 
Hmm. A decision by a board of people who are specifically educated in Labor Law vs. a guy too lazy to use the shift key.

I'm going with the NLRB on this one.

IE: i can't argue against anything that you said so here is my typical liberal adhominem.

thanks for conceding the point.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

You're mincing words. You think you're making a point but all you're really doing is demonstrating a complete and total failure to understand even the most basic points of the discussion. In the context of the pay-for-play discussion, when someone says "college athletes should be allowed to be paid" they are not talking about compensation in the form of scholarships. They are talking about a paycheck - income that the player can spend as he or she chooses.


They are talking about NCAA ByLaw12.1.2, which explicitly prohibits college athletes from accepting any form of pay for playing.

That's what everyone is talking about it. If you can't comprehend that simple distinction you have no business here.

No evidently you don't understand what pay and compensation is. they are one in the same and can be anything in exchange for service.
the students already get a payment for playing football.

if they are employee's then that would be considered income as well. so not only will they pay taxes on what money they can try and squeeze out of the college, but they will have to pay taxes on the scholarships they receive also.

so again your ranting is just that ranting. you don't know what you are talking about. compensation is pay period as defined by the IRS code itself.

The reason you see no market is because the NCAA members have colluded and agreed to not offer to pay athletes for their labor. It's textbook form of price fixing that interferes with free market operation and needs to be lifted. Then see if "there is no market".

college's aren't going to pay high school student money to play football beyond what they do now. if that happens many school will just shut down their athletic departments as they can't afford the additional costs.

1. Look up the definition of colloquial.
2. Bull****
3. I don't give a ****. I don't need a court ruling to tell me what is or isn't employment in the colloquial sense. Maybe you do, but I have no difficulties understanding simple definitions and knowing when and where they apply.

of course you don't because it proves that you are wrong. that is why you don't.

Oh please. There's way too much money to made in college football. All the universities and ncaa execs and advertising companies and sponsors aren't just going to throw it all away just because the players want a cut of the pie. Get real.

this is simple business. if the cost > value then you don't do it. this is where having business classes helps. there are things call ROI's.
yes they will as athletic departments will come under major costs and liabilities.

the cost to operate will simply not be worth whatever money they can possibly make.
This will be overturned as it has for the past 30 years.

they are students not employee's. nothing will change that fact. if they don't like the free education etc... they can pay for it like everyone else. no one says they have to play football it is completely voluntary on their part.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

While I have nothing against college players being paid I dont think unions ought to be allowed, they are more of a detriment than an advantage.

I agree. I see colleges spending big bucks to get the best athletes in order to make money from their athletic programs. I wonder what the cost to education will be?
 
I agree. Why should the NCAA prohibit pay-for-play? Why should that be the case? :lol:



I think a lot of people would disagree. I think a lot of people would say that college athletes are effectively professional athletes, and that we're just kidding ourselves by saying they're not. I mean the school offers them compensation in the form of scholarship money, and the athletes have a bunch of duties and responsibilities they have to fulfill in order to continue receiving that compensation (spending X hours a week training, etc). Sounds like a professional to me.



Which is another reason why the ban is so silly. The NCAA basically says it's ok for universities to attract top athletes with this kind of compensation (scholarships) but it's not ok to attact them with this kind of compensation (a paycheck). It's a silly distinction.



I'm not sure that it would benefit college sports in general. I don't think it would change it all that much anyway. The idea is that it would benefit the college athletes, who are doing all the hard work that generates billions of dollars that other people are profiting from.

I see this as a REALLY bad idea. Colleges are going to be spending money to pay athletes. What's going to become of education in our universities?
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

While I have nothing against college players being paid I dont think unions ought to be allowed, they are more of a detriment than an advantage.

WOW!!!! Another admitted libertarian who is also against labor unions!!!!! :shock::doh Next thing you know the sun will set in the west tonight and shock us all. ;)
 
they do not have the right to block traffic into the stadium. it would be bad for the players. if they don't think that getting a free education is enough then they don't have to play football and can forfeit their scholarship. i think 125k which includes a college degree if they graduate is enough.
the players as northwestern obviously do not share your opinion that what they receive as compensation for playing is presently adequate
which is why they have sought to be recognized as a bargaining unit, authorized to sit down with the employer to negotiate what they will receive as compensation for their hours of labor in the future
that's it. to be able to participate in the discussion about what they will receive for their efforts
can't understand what you and others find so objectionable about having such a voice as that
 
Labor board: Northwestern University football players can unionize - CNN.com



This will change college athletics forever.

If football players get paid, what about the golf team, the women's soccer team, the water polo team, etc? Will those sports be dropped altogether? If athletes strike, do they forfeit their scholarships? Can a team at one school strike on its own? Do athletes at Texas get a piece of the Longhorn Network revenues? Where is this going to go?

Funny, I thought getting an entire college education paid for at a major university was quite a reward to begin with, not to mention the unlimited amount of exposure that could lead to a lucrative pro career for the elite players.

I think this kills college athletics altogether except for football and men's basketball. Problem is, Title IX requires a school to offset the scholarships with women's sports, so it might even kill football and basketball, too at smaller schools.

Yea its a horrible idea.

I wouldn't be surprised if this causes some of the smaller Universities drop their athletic program all together.

Unbelievable.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

WOW!!!! Another admitted libertarian who is also against labor unions!!!!! :shock::doh Next thing you know the sun will set in the west tonight and shock us all. ;)

amazing, isn't it, that libertarians, who espouse rights of the individual are so opposed to the collective rights of those individuals
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

amazing, isn't it, that libertarians, who espouse rights of the individual are so opposed to the collective rights of those individuals

Yeah, what's up with all libertarians not meeting 100% of the expected views of liberals... amazing indeed. :lol:
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

amazing, isn't it, that libertarians, who espouse rights of the individual are so opposed to the collective rights of those individuals

Aren't you concerned about the effect this will have on spending for education as opposed to sports teams?
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Yeah, what's up with all libertarians not meeting 100% of the expected views of liberals... amazing indeed. :lol:

Well, so many liberals stick strictly to party politics, so it's always surprising to them whenever someone steps out of line. :mrgreen: Such as in this case, they don't seem concerned at ALL about education. They see the word "union" and it's automatically good.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Aren't you concerned about the effect this will have on spending for education as opposed to sports teams?

no. not at all
first, there is nothing which requires the employer, in this instance, northwestern, to do anything other than negotiate with the new bargaining unit in good faith
if the employer's position is it is without the funds to pay anything more then it would be foolish to agree to pay that which it does not have
however, if it makes such an allegation and the parties are at impasse, it will then be a matter elevated to a court or more likely, arbitrator, for a final resolution. that objective third party will review all of the facts. and if the arbitrator found that the employer was less than truthful about its financial ability to pay then it will make a award in the union's favor. if it finds that the employer does not have the money to offer additional compensation, that objective third party will make a decision in the employer's favor
but now i ask you, if the university is found to be paying its coaches annual salaries in the millions of dollars, how legitimate is the employer's argument that it cannot afford to pay the players
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

no. not at all
first, there is nothing which requires the employer, in this instance, northwestern, to do anything other than negotiate with the new bargaining unit in good faith
if the employer's position is it is without the funds to pay anything more then it would be foolish to agree to pay that which it does not have
however, if it makes such an allegation and the parties are at impasse, it will then be a matter elevated to a court or more likely, arbitrator, for a final resolution. that objective third party will review all of the facts. and if the arbitrator found that the employer was less than truthful about its financial ability to pay then it will make a award in the union's favor. if it finds that the employer does not have the money to offer additional compensation, that objective third party will make a decision in the employer's favor
but now i ask you, if the university is found to be paying its coaches annual salaries in the millions of dollars, how legitimate is the employer's argument that it cannot afford to pay the players

For one thing, if this is not repealed, this will be the case for ALL colleges/universities, not just Northwestern.

They are NOT employers. They are an institution for higher education. The only employees are the people on the staff.

The coaches ARE employees. The students are not.

You still have not addressed the point that money that should go to educational materials, professors, etc., could now potentially be spent on acquiring athletes.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Yeah, what's up with all libertarians not meeting 100% of the expected views of liberals... amazing indeed. :lol:

what is starkly obvious is that so many who profess to hold libertarian values suddenly no longer hold those same principles when libertarian beliefs are actually being exercised
 
Back
Top Bottom