NLRB: College athletes can unionize

[bendog]

Are you saying athletes are more important than teachers and scientists?

No, that is not what he said. He said the athletes are more financially valuable to the university than regular students.

Not all schools make a profit. But some make considerable money. In 2012, the University of Alabama athletic dept posted a net profit $31.68 million.

Texas football had an income of $109 million in 2013. Show me another group of 100 students that generate that kind of income.

First of all, you might want to get your sarcasm detector checked out, it isn't working.

So, what are you proposing exactly? That government should force universities to pay them? That they should just be able to ask for payment? I'm not clear what the proposal is.

read the OP. Not to be a jerk. But, the issue is whether the kids can unionize and collectively bargain ... or withhold their labor.

 

[Unkotare]

They may not be on full rides, but they get all of the benefits of being a D1 athlete at their institution, and those benefits are many

For the vast majority of D1 athletes, they get the "benefit" of doing more and working harder than most of their fellow students.

They also get the benefit of coming out of school with a degree and no debt.

Only if they are on full scholarships. The vast majority are not.

 

[Unkotare]

You're talking about the very few athletes on full rides at the biggest programs of the most well-funded sports. Most college athletes (even at the D1 level) are not on scholarships, and of those that are, even fewer have the whole 'full ride' package going. It's a gripe about a very, very small population.

They may not be on full rides, but they get all of the benefits of being a D1 athlete at their institution, and those benefits are many

Possibly, but the fact is that many never will graduate, and the Univ knows that when they recruit the kids. So, the "scholar athlete" notion is largely a fiction. Some kids benefit, but it's not really a norm.

Most college athletes are excellent students and graduate on time.

 

[kaz]

No, that is not what he said. He said the athletes are more financially valuable to the university than regular students.

Not all schools make a profit. But some make considerable money. In 2012, the University of Alabama athletic dept posted a net profit $31.68 million.

Texas football had an income of $109 million in 2013. Show me another group of 100 students that generate that kind of income.

First of all, you might want to get your sarcasm detector checked out, it isn't working.

So, what are you proposing exactly? That government should force universities to pay them? That they should just be able to ask for payment? I'm not clear what the proposal is.

read the OP. Not to be a jerk. But, the issue is whether the kids can unionize and collectively bargain ... or withhold their labor.

I remember the op, and that doesn't answer the question, I want to know what powers come with it. Is government going to give them artificial power like they do unions in the market place? Is it a government union? Can schools dump them and replace them? There are a lot of regulation that goes with unions. How can you have a union for unpaid workers anyway? If they are a union, how would regulations like minimum wage, workers comp, unemployment and health care mandates not apply?

 

[kaz]

For the vast majority of D1 athletes, they get the "benefit" of doing more and working harder than most of their fellow students.

They also get the benefit of coming out of school with a degree and no debt.

Only if they are on full scholarships. The vast majority are not.

Fair enough, but I doubt the ones not on full scholarships are generating much of the revenue the op is about. Most of the money is generated by few sports at relatively few schools.

 

[Unkotare]

Most of the money is generated by few sports at relatively few schools.

True.

 

[Nutz]

Most college athletes have to do all that too, even at the D1 level.

NCAA rules for D1 athletes prevent them from working, I believe.

Nope. Any such restrictions are only for those on the aforementioned full rides.

2k in a year...gross. That's not working

http://www.stanford.edu/~islander/jobrules.html

Full Scholarship Student-Athletes
Full scholarship student-athletes who have met the above criteria may earn $2,000 gross during any academic year and are prohibited from working for the Department of Athletics or in athletics facilities. You may work for the institutionís recreational sports unit.

Partial Scholarship Student-Athletes
Partial scholarship student-athletes who have met the above criteria may earn up to $2,000 gross in combination with other financial aid included in their individual limit up to the value of a full grant. You may work for the institutionís recreational sports unit.

Entering Freshmen and
First-Year Transfer Student-Athletes
All entering freshmen and first-year transfer student-athletes may receive legitimate employment earnings during the academic year in combination with other financial aid included in the student-athleteís limit only up to the value of a full grant-in-aid. You may work for the institutionís recreational sports unit.

 

[Leweman]

They also get the benefit of coming out of school with a degree and no debt.

Only if they are on full scholarships. The vast majority are not.

Fair enough, but I doubt the ones not on full scholarships are generating much of the revenue the op is about. Most of the money is generated by few sports at relatively few schools.

You also have the measure the value of publicity of a successful program in terms of getting students to go there. It also increases donations from boosters when programs are successful. In 2013 Texas A&M received 750 million dollars more in donations after Johnny Manziels Heisman run. Baylor experience similar recognition when Robert Griffin won the Heisman a year earlier. So we aren't just talking about direct revenue from the sports. Its hundreds of millions of dollars. You are right though most of the recognition that raises money come from men's basketball and football.

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you saying athletes are more important than teachers and scientists?

No, that is not what he said. He said the athletes are more financially valuable to the university than regular students.

Not all schools make a profit. But some make considerable money. In 2012, the University of Alabama athletic dept posted a net profit $31.68 million.

Texas football had an income of $109 million in 2013. Show me another group of 100 students that generate that kind of income.

First of all, you might want to get your sarcasm detector checked out, it isn't working.

So, what are you proposing exactly? That government should force universities to pay them? That they should just be able to ask for payment? I'm not clear what the proposal is.

I am against this union thing for the athletes. I dislike the way the NCAA rules prevent the athletes from profiting from their labor, but a union is not the answer.

And BTW, I was not being sarcastic in my post.

 

[kaz]

Only if they are on full scholarships. The vast majority are not.

Fair enough, but I doubt the ones not on full scholarships are generating much of the revenue the op is about. Most of the money is generated by few sports at relatively few schools.

You also have the measure the value of publicity of a successful program in terms of getting students to go there. It also increases donations from boosters when programs are successful. In 2013 Texas A&M received 750 million dollars more in donations after Johnny Manziels Heisman run. Baylor experience similar recognition when Robert Griffin won the Heisman a year earlier. So we aren't just talking about direct revenue from the sports. Its hundreds of millions of dollars. You are right though most of the recognition that raises money come from men's basketball and football.

The schools are non-profit. I don't have a problem at all with athletes forming a union as long as the union is not given any artificial government power. The fact that the NLRB is involved makes that impossible, they are the most pure capitalist hating socialist government agency in existence, and that's quite an achievement as they are up against some stiff competition.

But at places like Michigan (one of my alma maters), football pays for all their sports programs, men and women. No one is forced to play sports, and they get free rides. I'm not seeing how it's a better system to pay a few kids a lot of money and then not have the money to fund other sports and give a lot more people that opportunity.

 

[Leweman]

Fair enough, but I doubt the ones not on full scholarships are generating much of the revenue the op is about. Most of the money is generated by few sports at relatively few schools.

You also have the measure the value of publicity of a successful program in terms of getting students to go there. It also increases donations from boosters when programs are successful. In 2013 Texas A&M received 750 million dollars more in donations after Johnny Manziels Heisman run. Baylor experience similar recognition when Robert Griffin won the Heisman a year earlier. So we aren't just talking about direct revenue from the sports. Its hundreds of millions of dollars. You are right though most of the recognition that raises money come from men's basketball and football.

The schools are non-profit. I don't have a problem at all with athletes forming a union as long as the union is not given any artificial government power. The fact that the NLRB is involved makes that impossible, they are the most pure capitalist hating socialist government agency in existence, and that's quite an achievement as they are up against some stiff competition.

But at places like Michigan (one of my alma maters), football pays for all their sports programs, men and women. No one is forced to play sports, and they get free rides. I'm not seeing how it's a better system to pay a few kids a lot of money and then not have the money to fund other sports and give a lot more people that opportunity.

This is most likely the case for almost all schools. Mens Basketball and Football are paying for all other scholarship sports. I'm not saying athletes should be getting paid. I'm just saying their value or the value of a successful football or basketball program is a lot more than just the revenue the athletic department takes in.

 

[Unkotare]

You also have the measure the value of publicity of a successful program in terms of getting students to go there. It also increases donations from boosters when programs are successful. In 2013 Texas A&M received 750 million dollars more in donations after Johnny Manziels Heisman run. Baylor experience similar recognition when Robert Griffin won the Heisman a year earlier. So we aren't just talking about direct revenue from the sports. Its hundreds of millions of dollars. You are right though most of the recognition that raises money come from men's basketball and football.

The schools are non-profit. I don't have a problem at all with athletes forming a union as long as the union is not given any artificial government power. The fact that the NLRB is involved makes that impossible, they are the most pure capitalist hating socialist government agency in existence, and that's quite an achievement as they are up against some stiff competition.

But at places like Michigan (one of my alma maters), football pays for all their sports programs, men and women. No one is forced to play sports, and they get free rides. I'm not seeing how it's a better system to pay a few kids a lot of money and then not have the money to fund other sports and give a lot more people that opportunity.

This is most likely the case for almost all schools. Mens Basketball and Football are paying for all other scholarship sports. I'm not saying athletes should be getting paid. I'm just saying their value or the value of a successful football or basketball program is a lot more than just the revenue the athletic department takes in.

That's true. A lot of non-athletes are attracted to certain schools for reasons that have to do with successful sports programs and the image that carries.

 

[Mac1958]

.

We'd probably see smaller rosters and other cost-cutting measures, a natural decision.

Unless the schools are forced by law to not do so, which would not be a surprise.

,

 

[Nutz]

.

We'd probably see smaller rosters and other cost-cutting measures, a natural decision.

Unless the schools are forced by law to not do so, which would not be a surprise.

,

We definitely wouldn't see an NCAA BB Tournament like this year. My bracket is embarrassing. Go Louisville!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If they help generate the money, why shouldn't they get a portion of it.

They do, in the form of free tuition, room, and board, which at some of these schools can top $100k

 

[Zander]

The student athletes are free to form a union, but if they want to play NCAA sports, they will not be paid.

Unless they can convince the Big Conferences (SEC, BIG 10, etc..) to abandon the NCAA....Or convince the NCAA changes its rules.....

 

[Meister]

I think womens sports would become a thing of the past along with other lower tier sports that are losing financially

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The NCAA has only themselves to blame for this. They've been abusing college athletes for years and imposing nonsensical rules on them, even during the off season. It was just a matter of time the students started pushing back. I'm not the least bit surprised by this.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The student athletes are free to form a union, but if they want to play NCAA sports, they will not be paid.

Unless they can convince the Big Conferences (SEC, BIG 10, etc..) to abandon the NCAA....Or convince the NCAA changes its rules.....

As I mentioned before, many of them are paid, in the form of scholarships, but I agree that they shouldn't be getting any kind of base salary. I do, however, think if they want to sign autographs and memorabilia and make money off of their own name they should have every right to do so. This is where the NCAA has fucked up, in my opinion. They've imposed too many restrictions on the athletes, while they themselves have gotten incredibly greedy.

 

[boilermaker55]

They need their "FAIR" share of the money they help generate.

If they help generate the money, why shouldn't they get a portion of it.

They do, in the form of free tuition, room, and board, which at some of these schools can top $100k