College Football Players Are Employees and Entitled to Union Representation

Celticguy said:
NCAA says you cant pay student athletes. Pay is a nonissue as noted in the article in the op.
Click to expand...

which is the entire point of this case... the review board just stated that the scholarships are equal to 'pay' and thus the athletes are actually 'employees' and can form a union. So pay is an issue.
 
Taft2016 said:
Again, not too long on specifics, are ya?

In real life, quite often the only reason there are girls volleyball teams is for schools to comply with Title IX. It's not a money maker for the schools like mens basketball.

If you're going to start paying the basketball players, does Article IX mean that a school will have to start playing womens volleyballers equal pay? Because the way it works now, the scholarships have an equal value.
Click to expand...


That's not the way it works now, as has been pointed out to you.
 
Taft2016 said:
Again, not too long on specifics, are ya?

In real life, quite often the only reason there are girls volleyball teams is for schools to comply with Title IX. It's not a money maker for the schools like mens basketball.

If you're going to start paying the basketball players, does Article IX mean that a school will have to start playing womens volleyballers equal pay? Because the way it works now, the scholarships have an equal value.
Click to expand...
and the revenue sports pay for all the rest. And each scholarship that gets used to earn a degree will yield a million (on average) in lifetime income over just a highschool degree.
 
Superfreak said:
which is the entire point of this case... the review board just stated that the scholarships are equal to 'pay' and thus the athletes are actually 'employees' and can form a union. So pay is an issue.
Click to expand...

Read the article. If a school opts to pay then the program cannot compete against other NCAA programs. The kids know this and made it quite clear that this is not about pay. Mainly its about medical issues brought about from competing. You woukd kniw this if you read it.
 
Threedee said:
:3d:
Click to expand...

go_fuck_yourself.gif
 
Taft2016 said:
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/interath.html



The point I'm trying to bring up here is that, as usual, liberal ideas also reap unintended consequences.

What will happen to Title IX if athletes become employees as opposed to student athletes? Will a female softball player get paid the same as the star point guard on the men's basketball team? Because right now they are receiving equal pay for unequal work; the pay being the scholarship.

If compensation is converted from scholarships to cash, womens athletic programs will disappear, almost completely I'd imagine. With the exception of tennis, we can see what womens athletics are worth in the free market; virtually nil. Unless, of course, the government compels universities to keep all the teams and compensate all the athletes equally...

.... which is a valuable life lesson for.... I don't know, for what?

Real life pays athletes for their abilities and the sport's ability to attract paying fans.
Click to expand...

Once the liberals wake up to the reality of this, they'll scream and holler that the students are really students and not employees; because if you're an employee, then you have to pay taxes on those scholarships you're receiving.

:chesh:
 
Superfreak said:
I think they should simply abolish all athletic scholarships. If the NCAA wants to run as a minor league for the NBA and NCAA then let them run as a separate entity. Boosters from schools can decide if they want their school to participate and they can either provide funding or facilities etc...

In too many cases it is no longer about making sure the kids get educations while in school, so lets stop pretending that is what it is about.
Click to expand...

They must actually think that the education needs to take a back seat to the athletics; because it's well known that EVERY Collage basketball player is automatically going to play in the pros.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Once the liberals wake up to the reality of this, they'll scream and holler that the students are really students and not employees; because if you're an employee, then you have to pay taxes on those scholarships you're receiving.

:chesh:
Click to expand...

I was about to ask the same thing. If you are an employee and unionized are you subjected to taxes, union dues etc.?
 
cawacko said:
I was about to ask the same thing. If you are an employee and unionized are you subjected to taxes, union dues etc.?
Click to expand...

Just another example of something that FELT good; but in reality was never thought threw, before being promoted.
Kind of like the ACA. :D
 
cawacko said:
I was about to ask the same thing. If you are an employee and unionized are you subjected to taxes, union dues etc.?
Click to expand...


Income is income. If scholarships aren't taxed as income already, there's no reason why they would be if "student-athletes" were deemed to be employees. And, yes, they would likely have to pay dues, but I imagine whatever affiliate union they associate with would be more than accomodating.
 
Bonestorm said:
Income is income. If scholarships aren't taxed as income already, there's no reason why they would be if "student-athletes" were deemed to be employees. And, yes, they would likely have to pay dues, but I imagine whatever affiliate union they associate with would be more than accomodating.
Click to expand...

But the ruling determined that the scholarships were 'pay' did it not? That is how it turned it into the students were 'employees'
 
I hope Northwestern responds by dropping their scholarships, offering cheap contracts, and making them pay for classes out of their own pockets.
 
Superfreak said:
But the ruling determined that the scholarships were 'pay' did it not? That is how it turned it into the students were 'employees'
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the particulars are of the ruling. But (and I know this makes little sense but it's true) even if the NLRB construed scholarships as pay, the IRS doesn't have to see it that way. As I understand it, the IRS doesn't treat athletic scholarships as wages for services rendered under current rules and would have to change those rules for scholarships to be taxable income. So it's possible that scholarships could be taxed but it would require a rule change. And that's assuming the NLRB construed them as pay.
 
Bonestorm said:
Income is income. If scholarships aren't taxed as income already, there's no reason why they would be if "student-athletes" were deemed to be employees. And, yes, they would likely have to pay dues, but I imagine whatever affiliate union they associate with would be more than accomodating.
Click to expand...

Gee; it appears as if you're trying to say they shouldn't have to pay income taxes, as an employee. :dunno:
 
Bonestorm said:
I'm not sure what the particulars are of the ruling. But (and I know this makes little sense but it's true) even if the NLRB construed scholarships as pay, the IRS doesn't have to see it that way. As I understand it, the IRS doesn't treat athletic scholarships as wages for services rendered under current rules and would have to change those rules for scholarships to be taxable income. So it's possible that scholarships could be taxed but it would require a rule change. And that's assuming the NLRB construed them as pay.
Click to expand...

You should be charging them for this stuff.

You dummies should be paying DH for the education he so painstakingly gives you every day. At least I appreciate it. Do any of you ever say, gee thanks DH I didn't know that? No of course not.
 
Darla said:
You should be charging them for this stuff.

You dummies should be paying DH for the education he so painstakingly gives you every day. At least I appreciate it. Do any of you ever say, gee thanks DH I didn't know that? No of course not.
Click to expand...

Which parts would that be? The "I don't knows" or the "I'm not sures"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top