• 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

The NCAA is the organization that sets the standards for college athletics. They have maintained and always maintained that student athletes are athletes and they are.

EVERY single board member on the NCAA is a college president. There is no one on the NCAA board who speaks for student athletes.
 
again you do not know what you are talking about. college athletics must keep their money separate from educational funding. everything done by the schools athletic department comes from the athletic department. it does not come from educational tuition.

If it is slashing it's college and fine arts programs then it is because they don't have the students to support those programs. it has nothing to do with the sports program.

Apparently its you who doesn't know what they're talking about. The vast majority of athletic programs are heavily subsidized/funded by the universities with educational funds and student tuition and fees.
 
And the school that decides it's worth giving them some extra stuff will get the better players. I don't think you've thought this through. Star football players are in incredibly high demand because they bring in a crapload of money. They can always take that service to a different school.

the reason that they are not paid is for that exact reason. it keeps all schools on the same playing field. Do you honestly think that a kid would go to savannah state if texas, OK or someone come calling with a big check?

you basically price Div II schools out of any shot of getting players and they do get good players in div II schools.
the NCAA has already been considering a stipend, but again they run into issues of schools that can't afford it.
 
the reason that they are not paid is for that exact reason. it keeps all schools on the same playing field. Do you honestly think that a kid would go to savannah state if texas, OK or someone come calling with a big check?

you basically price Div II schools out of any shot of getting players and they do get good players in div II schools.
the NCAA has already been considering a stipend, but again they run into issues of schools that can't afford it.

How is this different than what goes on in the NFL? The Bears have a payroll of $104,583,933 compared to $53,446,196 for the Raiders.
 
they were paid. they got a free ride to college with all books, classes, free room and board, free trainers, free medical staff, free training room etc..

i added it up and on average a college athlete receives about 100k+ in benefits plus a degree, and a chance to make it in the NFL.
so please don't tell me they didn't get paid. they are more compensated than non-sports students ever will be.

of course then again they aren't employee's they are students. in order to play for the college team they have to make the grades, and attend class and enroll in school.
this was a bogus ruling by a stacked board of union supporters.

i see what northwestern and other private schools will do if the appeal fails and they can't go further they will just end their sports programs.
which means the hundreds of kids that get to attend school won't be able to.

It would be interesting to see how the IRS treats these new "employees" and their untaxed perks.
 
Apparently its you who doesn't know what they're talking about. The vast majority of athletic programs are heavily subsidized/funded by the universities with educational funds and student tuition and fees.

they the fee's allow the students into the games all year and the price is discounted.
most athletic departments don't make that much money and now people want to expend more by paying players.

your tuition money goes to pay for teachers, labs, libraries. the activity fee does go to the sports department in exchange for being able to attend games.
what you also don't understand is that football and sometimes basketball basically pay for all other sports the college offers.

They have to pay for those scholarships as well and it comes out of the athletic department on the whole. football is just the biggest part of that department as it brings in the most money. they have other coaches that need paid and other scholarships that are offered.
 
How is this different than what goes on in the NFL? The Bears have a payroll of $104,583,933 compared to $53,446,196 for the Raiders.

the point of college is being a student not a football player. this isn't the NFL. hence the term student athlete. NFL are paid professionals.
college they are still learning more advanced fundamentals
 
they the fee's allow the students into the games all year and the price is discounted.
most athletic departments don't make that much money and now people want to expend more by paying players.

your tuition money goes to pay for teachers, labs, libraries. the activity fee does go to the sports department in exchange for being able to attend games.
what you also don't understand is that football and sometimes basketball basically pay for all other sports the college offers.

They have to pay for those scholarships as well and it comes out of the athletic department on the whole. football is just the biggest part of that department as it brings in the most money. they have other coaches that need paid and other scholarships that are offered.

Why should coaches earn such high salaries? If we're talking about sacrifices being endured for the benefit of the college, why not pay coaches what schools pay junior faculty in the English department?
 
It would be interesting to see how the IRS treats these new "employees" and their untaxed perks.

as long as they are students all money is giving as grants in lew of. IE it is not taxed.

now if they want paid with stipends and all this other stuff then it is taxable, and they have to be taxed. however if they want to be treated as employee's then they are treated as employee's and that 100k in benefits that they receive would be considered income by the IRS.

so i really do hope that they have the money to pay the taxes.
this is why they are students. they do not understand the bigger picture.

Legal issues could arise from paying student-athletes - ESPN

considering them as employee's opens the schools up to other legal issues from lawsuits to major taxation.

the biggest case against this (which has already been hashed out in court several times.) in all instances the courts have found that these guys are not employee's. so how the labor board ignores about 30 years of court rulings is beyond me to begin with.

Waldrep v. Texas Employers Insurance Association.

it went through several appeals and waldrep lost.

In affirming the jury's decision, a state appeals court listed all the ways in which Waldrep did not qualify as a university employee. Among them: the letter of intent and financial aid paperwork signed by Waldrep and TCU did not constitute an employment contract. Financial aid did not represent income. TCU did not pay a salary or promise one; did not withhold taxes; and did not tell Waldrep he was or would become an employee.

They are not employee's and never were. they are students that play a sport.
 
the point of college is being a student not a football player. this isn't the NFL. hence the term student athlete. NFL are paid professionals.
college they are still learning more advanced fundamentals

And players in baseball's minor leagues are also honing their skills and they're getting paid.

Besides, we're looking at collusion of some sort in play here between college football and professional football. The NFL won't draft any player directly from HS, they have to be out of HS for 3 years. That forces the hands of talented players to play college ball and every time they go out on the field they run the risk of suffering a career-ending injury. The NBA will draft from high school but won't let the player onto the court until he is 19 and one year removed from HS. MLB still drafts from HS, though not as frequently, but the players who are drafted create more value than expected from their draft slots. In other words, MLB allows talent to rise naturally rather than forcing players to give away their skills for free. The NHL still drafts from HS also without forcing players to give away their talents for free.
 
Why should coaches earn such high salaries? If we're talking about sacrifices being endured for the benefit of the college, why not pay coaches what schools pay junior faculty in the English department?

it is a niche market. they have a talent that other people don't and good coaches are hard to find. it is the same difference as the guy that does tech support (junior faculty) and the IT manager (coach). there are far more people that can become junior faculty than can become good coaches.
 
it is a niche market. they have a talent that other people don't and good coaches are hard to find. it is the same difference as the guy that does tech support (junior faculty) and the IT manager (coach). there are far more people that can become junior faculty than can become good coaches.

Precisely. And talent on the field works the same way as talent in the coaching ranks. So if coaches shouldn't be shortchanged and paid what they're worth to the organization, then why treat players any differently?
 
And players in baseball's minor leagues are also honing their skills and they're getting paid.

Besides, we're looking at collusion of some sort in play here between college football and professional football. The NFL won't draft any player directly from HS, they have to be out of HS for 3 years. That forces the hands of talented players to play college ball and every time they go out on the field they run the risk of suffering a career-ending injury. The NBA will draft from high school but won't let the player onto the court until he is 19 and one year removed from HS. MLB still drafts from HS, though not as frequently, but the players who are drafted create more value than expected from their draft slots. In other words, MLB allows talent to rise naturally rather than forcing players to give away their skills for free. The NHL still drafts from HS also without forcing players to give away their talents for free.

I remember when this wasn't the case i think it was sometime in the 90's the NCAA change the rule that college athletes had to have at least 3 years of schooling. The reason for this was kids were leaving their sophomore year in college for the pro's washing out and had nothing to fall back on. at least with 3 years of college they will have a better back ground and can always come back and finish. it was a smart move by the NCAA and reinforces the idea that they are suppose to be there for college degree's.

while yes they can draft out of high school almost none of them do.

they know the risks of drafting kids like that and the issues of them washing out to early. while they can do it most only draft out of college. they want to see how the kids do against better competition.

plus i think college they have to wait their sophomore year as well.
 
Precisely. And talent on the field works the same way as talent in the coaching ranks. So if coaches shouldn't be shortchanged and paid what they're worth to the organization, then why treat players any differently?

they are already compensated in the 100k of dollars they get in tuition, gyms and other benefits all non-taxed. if you pay them or treat them like employee's all that is now taxable according to the IRS.

how many college students do you know that have the money to pay taxes on 100K?
 
they are already compensated in the 100k of dollars they get in tuition, gyms and other benefits all non-taxed. if you pay them or treat them like employee's all that is now taxable according to the IRS.

how many college students do you know that have the money to pay taxes on 100K?

The scholarship definitely counts as a form of compensation. For many players, especially those who won't make it into the pros, it might be enough and they may well see it as a fair trade. Obviously the players at Northwestern didn't see it that way. They think that they're worth more than what they're getting. Shouldn't people be able to bargain for more if they think that they're worth more? Isn't that standard conservative-libertarian principle in play?
 
The scholarship definitely counts as a form of compensation. For many players, especially those who won't make it into the pros, it might be enough and they may well see it as a fair trade. Obviously the players at Northwestern didn't see it that way. They think that they're worth more than what they're getting. Shouldn't people be able to bargain for more if they think that they're worth more? Isn't that standard conservative-libertarian principle in play?

you can only bargain form people you work for. they do not work for the college.
the court system has upheld this since the first case was filed in 1971.

the district court said yes but subsequent appeals court all came back with the same ruling. they are not employee's. how the labor board ignored 30+ years of precedent is beyond me.

they are not employee's therefore they have no leverage to bargain anything, nor does the school have to acknowledge them as such.
if they want to be employee's like they say they do.

then they will need to fill out the needed proper forms and pay taxes on all of their income. so all tuition, books, training, tudors etc .. are all taxable according to the IRS.
a college athlete receives 100-120k in benefits they would have to pay taxes on that.

universities also open themselves up to major lawsuits and other liabilities.

this is not just a simple issue of paying players. there is a whole backside i posted it on another thread i think. i will re-post it here.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6768571/legal-issues-arise-paying-student-athletes
 
you can only bargain form people you work for. they do not work for the college.
the court system has upheld this since the first case was filed in 1971.

the district court said yes but subsequent appeals court all came back with the same ruling. they are not students. how the labor board ignored 30+ years of precedent is beyond me.

they are not employee's therefore they have no leverage to bargain anything, nor does the school have to acknowledge them as such.
if they want to be employee's like they say they do.

then they will need to fill out the needed proper forms and pay taxes on all of their income. so all tuition, books, training, tudors etc .. are all taxable according to the IRS.
a college athlete receives 100-120k in benefits they would have to pay taxes on that.

universities also open themselves up to major lawsuits and other liabilities.

this is not just a simple issue of paying players. there is a whole backside i posted it on another thread i think. i will re-post it here.

Legal issues could arise from paying student-athletes - ESPN

As I noted above but you dismissed, rules are always modified as events unfold.

As to how they could leverage their position, strikes of course. Same old tactics as the old line auto unions, teamsters etc. Universities depend on sports revenue. Don't play, block the ability of "scabs" to be recruited in your place, stop games from happening, etc and you dry up university revenue from football. That's applying pressure.

As for the tax angle, I'm sure that the players will figure it out.
 
they are already compensated in the 100k of dollars they get in tuition, gyms and other benefits all non-taxed. if you pay them or treat them like employee's all that is now taxable according to the IRS.

how many college students do you know that have the money to pay taxes on 100K?

Scholarships are generally non-taxable. Use of a gym is certainly not a taxable 'benefit', since it's like a workplace, and their travel is also not taxed.
 
As I noted above but you dismissed, rules are always modified as events unfold.

As to how they could leverage their position, strikes of course. Same old tactics as the old line auto unions, teamsters etc. Universities depend on sports revenue. Don't play, block the ability of "scabs" to be recruited in your place, stop games from happening, etc and you dry up university revenue from football. That's applying pressure.

As for the tax angle, I'm sure that the players will figure it out.

sure go strike your scholarship is dependent on you playing football if you choose to void that contract then you lose your scholarship.
i didn't dismiss anything. THEY are not employee's they are students that play football.

since you lose your scholarship you can no longer afford the tuition therefore you have no ability to be on campus and therefore are trespassing so you can't block anyone without being arrested for such things.

yeah they fill figure it out when they get a 33k bill from the IRS for owed taxes.
 
Scholarships are generally non-taxable. Use of a gym is certainly not a taxable 'benefit', since it's like a workplace, and their travel is also not taxed.

you are incorrect. if they are employee's. therefore any income is considered taxable under IRS rules. you are right scholarships are not taxable now.
please read the link i posted it explains a great deal and the consequences of said actions.

actually it is as a typical gym membership runs about 20-50 dollars a month.
that doesn't include the cost of the physical trainers and therapy that these kids get either.

all of that is considered taxable by the IRS.
they don't have to pay it now because they are students. employee's not so much.
also the school doesn't have to treat it as a benefit anymore and could start charging them for the use of said gym.


just like these kids don't know you don't know the can of worms that they are opening if they become employee's.
more the likely the appeals court will strike down like they have struck it down before.
 
you are incorrect. if they are employee's. therefore any income is considered taxable under IRS rules. you are right scholarships are not taxable now.
please read the link i posted it explains a great deal and the consequences of said actions.

actually it is as a typical gym membership runs about 20-50 dollars a month.
that doesn't include the cost of the physical trainers and therapy that these kids get either.

all of that is considered taxable by the IRS.
they don't have to pay it now because they are students. employee's not so much.
also the school doesn't have to treat it as a benefit anymore and could start charging them for the use of said gym.


just like these kids don't know you don't know the can of worms that they are opening if they become employee's.
more the likely the appeals court will strike down like they have struck it down before.

You are entitled to your opinion.

But generally, those scholarships are tax free.

And a gym membership is NOT taxable, anymore than NFL players would pay for their gyms they practice in....
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Look for 7-8 years of appeals and then the face of college sports will be changes forever. I can see all colleges dropping athletics and they will be replaced by club level sports.

Oh please. College athletics has been proven to be a billion dollar industry. It can generate tens of millions of dollars in profit for colleges themselves. Neither companies nor colleges are going to squander the money to be made there just because the athletes start demanding a cut. Have some faith in the Almighty Dollar.
 
You are entitled to your opinion.

But generally, those scholarships are tax free.

And a gym membership is NOT taxable, anymore than NFL players would pay for their gyms they practice in....

not if they are considered income. also if they get a stipend that is taxable as well.
i think will take the IRS over you saying my opinion is wrong.

plus i already posted a link that deals with this very subject which you ignored of course.

here is another article for you.

The new pay-for-play: CFB union could get slammed with tax bill

Hannon cited Sec. 117 of the “Current Internal Revenue Code,” which essentially states that though a “qualified scholarship” is not considered gross income, that can change if the scholarship money “represents payment for teaching, research or other services by the student required as a condition for receiving the qualified scholarship or qualified tuition reduction.”

so please tell me how a RB position relates to a computer science degree or something other than physical education?
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Oh please. College athletics has been proven to be a billion dollar industry. It can generate tens of millions of dollars in profit for colleges themselves. Neither companies nor colleges are going to squander the money to be made there just because the athletes start demanding a cut. Have some faith in the Almighty Dollar.

no they generate 10 of millions in revenue that is not all profit. in fact most athletics run on the edge as they have to fund a ton of sports that do not make money.
like the volleyball and soccer teams. football and basketball sometimes pays for almost all of the funding the athletic department uses.

football revenue isn't just used for football but all the sports programs.
 
Re: NLRB rules NW University footballers can unionize

Look at the expenses

Alabama had $123,370,004 in expenses for a whopping profit of $399,837 or $4,703 per player

That data's from 2008. Revenues (and profits) have grown substantially since then.

USA Today | Sports | COLLEGE

Profits for 2012:

Texas - $25million

tOSU - $18million

Michigan - $25million

Alabama - $17million

....
 
Back
Top Bottom