Northwestern players win suit - can now unionize

by **ponyinNC** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:36 pm

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/252499331.html

by **No Quarter** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:11 pm

Well, I guess it is time to hear from the lawyers on this board.

Can Congress legislate a continuation of the what is done today? Or the President say a few words that will do so?

If the ruling is upheld, will many schools give up the present traditions and programs and go to club sports?

Will the NLRB supercede the NCAA? If so, would that aspect be better or worse and more or less corrupt than the present situation?

And will someone post or repost articles that lay out the consequences that can be foreseen at present.

Maybe this is just six days early?

by **lwjr** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:43 pm

I'm shocked the NLRB ruled in favor of the Northwestern.
Isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by **birddogger** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:26 pm

I'm not shocked, but I am mildly surprised. The Court seemed to have applied the traditional multi-factor test to determine if a person (in this case a college athlete) is an "employee." Objectively speaking, scholarship athletes do seem to meet the definition. They are "paid" in the sense that they receive schollys, and they do report to managers. And I can't be convinced that they are independent contractors, so... if they don't fall into that category, they must be employees, right????

The issues are whether (1) this is the appropriate test, and (2) an exception should be carved out for them.

I think a shadow factor here is the massive $$$ that the NCAA schools receive as a result of their "labor". This will probably require a legislative fix.

by **Water Pony** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:36 pm

lwjr wrote:I'm shocked the NLRB ruled in favor of the Northwestern.
Isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, NLRB ruled against Northwestern and in favor of its' football players/student athletes.

I laugh when I read that NCAA pulls in "billions on dollars of profit", when the exception of a dozen or so programs, most schools loss money on athletics. So, do you spread the decision beyond FB and, presumably BB, or do non-revenue sports and women's athletics not qualify for greater benefits and payment? I suspect that Title IX advocates will have an answer to this question.

by **dbone** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:53 pm

I'm not sure this moves the ball forward. Seems they could always theoretically Unionize...and the NCAA does retain the right to define Amateurism and their own rules.

Players still have no standing or due process rights with the NCAA...so the first school that plays a unionized and paid player will be committing major infractions???

What a mess.

by **PoconoPony** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:17 pm

[quote="lwjr"]I'm shocked the NLRB ruled in favor of the Northwestern.
Isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black?

Not surprising as the President has stacked the NLRB with only union members or former union attorneys. Per executive order this week NLRB inspection of any non-union company must be accompanied by a union representative.

by **Water Pony** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:27 am

Implications:

How do you treat other sports, e.g. non-revenue, women, etc.?

As employees and the new position that tuition, room, board, etc. are not Grants, does the IRS now need to tax these payments? Oops.

Do these employees need to file these benefits on their tax returns?

by **MustangStealth** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:40 am

Water Pony wrote:Implications:

How do you treat other sports, e.g. non-revenue, women, etc.?

As employees and the new position that tuition, room, board, etc. are not Grants, does the IRS now need to tax these payments? Oops.

Do these employees need to file these benefits on their tax returns?

That's what I was wondering... if they are employees, will they be hit with a tax bill for $65K worth of "compensation" for cost of attendance at Northwestern?

by **SMU Section F** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:08 pm

Water Pony wrote:Do these employees need to file these benefits on their tax returns?

My understanding is that currently (and subject to change), scholarships are still considered grants in this argument. The claim that they are employees stems more from the nature of their required activities and other (non-cash) benefits received.

I believe to change the scholarships from grants to income in the eyes of the IRS would require action by the federal government unrelated to, albeit possibly inspired by, any actions of the athletes' union.

by **SMU 86** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:19 pm

The Northwestern players did not make this about pay for play but about medical benefits which was an intelligent move. But they are from Northwestern and they knew that a pay for play argument would get shot down. I am impressed by the strategy they used.

by **mrydel** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:28 pm

What happens when some players get upset and decide to strike?

by **SMU Section F** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:31 pm

mrydel wrote:What happens when some players get upset and decide to strike?

Exactly what happens during every strike in the modern area: everyone gets pissed off and yells at each other for a while, then both parties end up settling for the deal they originally had on the table with a couple of pointless concessions to soothe their bruised egos.

by **SMU 86** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:34 pm

This could allow colleges to have their own medical plans and not preclude colleges with major revenues from offering better medical benefits.

by **mrydel** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:47 pm

SMU Section F wrote:
mrydel wrote:What happens when some players get upset and decide to strike?

Exactly what happens during ever strike in the modern area: everyone gets [deleted] off and yells at each other for a while, then both parties end up settling for the deal they originally had on the table with a couple of pointless concessions to soothe their bruised egos.

Yep, and cancel football games while the bickering is going on and screwing up the whole balance of nature.