College Football Players Are Employees and Entitled to Union Representation

One thing I wasn't aware of is this ruling (at the moment) applies only to private universities. Public Universities would have to change through state law and a number of states are right-to-work states.

Edit: I should say this ruling only applies to Northwestern right now but would basically cover all private universities.
 
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...

SF thanks me daily by PM. Trouble is he forgets all he's learned by morning.
 
Celticguy said:
you are wrong, it applies to teams. Want 10 boys teams ? Gotta have ten girls teams.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? I've never heard it described that way. My understanding is the sports participants must be proportional to the student body. If your University is 60% women your sports teams have to be close to 60% women participant. That's why if a school has a football team with its large numbers other men's teams often get cut to come into compliance.
 
cawacko said:
You sure about that? I've never heard it described that way. My understanding is the sports participants must be proportional to the student body. If your University is 60% women your sports teams have to be close to 60% women participant. That's why if a school has a football team with its large numbers other men's teams often get cut to come into compliance.
Click to expand...

You are correct, sir.

And, looking into the tax issue a bit, if a university provides tuition reduction to its employees it is not considered taxable income under the internal revenue code (which makes sense for non-athlete employees). So, no, scholarships likely would not be taxed. The code provision is 26 USC 117(d).
 
Bonestorm said:
You are correct, sir.

And, looking into the tax issue a bit, if a university provides tuition reduction to its employees it is not considered taxable income under the internal revenue code (which makes sense for non-athlete employees). So, no, scholarships likely would not be taxed. The code provision is 26 USC 117(d).
Click to expand...

Interesting to know that. Thank you. What are the chances it changes if the union situation changes?
 
cawacko said:
Interesting to know that. Thank you. What are the chances it changes if the union situation changes?
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical that this ruling will hold. If the NLRB doesn't reverse, an appellate court probably will. If it holds, though, I doubt anything happens on the tax issue but what the hell do I know.
 
Bonestorm said:
Quite the recruiting pitch.
Click to expand...

Like the current crop of contenders they have now? Besides, they'll entice enough guys in by having to "pay" them as employees. Then, when they realize that being student athletes is a better deal, they'll start asking to become student athletes, and begin spouting off about the virtues of character, discipline, collegiality, etc.
 
cawacko said:
You sure about that? I've never heard it described that way. My understanding is the sports participants must be proportional to the student body. If your University is 60% women your sports teams have to be close to 60% women participant. That's why if a school has a football team with its large numbers other men's teams often get cut to come into compliance.
Click to expand...

I would imagine those sets of numbers are looked at, but I think the Title IX people are mostly concerned with the number of full scholarships, partials, etc. And expenses.

I was discussing this with a friend yesterday, and a lot of people kind of look at the situation in a tunnel vision. He was describing the money Syracuse University would take in for its basketball and football teams, because in a city like Syracuse it's the only franchise in town. And that's true.

But if Syracuse has 10 guys on the team on full basketball scholarships making money for them, they conversely have 10 female athletes on full scholarships losing them money. If Syracuse pays for its mens basketball team to travel around for games and tournaments, they're also paying for their girls field hockey team to travel around for games and tournaments.

If the men players keep clamoring to be treated more for their financial worth, through whatever form of compensation, the female players are going to get the short end.
 
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...

Wrong
You get a check for wages
It's income
 
Taft2016 said:
I would imagine those sets of numbers are looked at, but I think the Title IX people are mostly concerned with the number of full scholarships, partials, etc. And expenses.

I was discussing this with a friend yesterday, and a lot of people kind of look at the situation in a tunnel vision. He was describing the money Syracuse University would take in for its basketball and football teams, because in a city like Syracuse it's the only franchise in town. And that's true.

But if Syracuse has 10 guys on the team on full basketball scholarships making money for them, they conversely have 10 female athletes on full scholarships losing them money. If Syracuse pays for its mens basketball team to travel around for games and tournaments, they're also paying for their girls field hockey team to travel around for games and tournaments.

If the men players keep clamoring to be treated more for their financial worth, through whatever form of compensation, the female players are going to get the short end.
Click to expand...


Again, it doesn't work that way.
 
Taft2016 said:
I would imagine those sets of numbers are looked at, but I think the Title IX people are mostly concerned with the number of full scholarships, partials, etc. And expenses.

I was discussing this with a friend yesterday, and a lot of people kind of look at the situation in a tunnel vision. He was describing the money Syracuse University would take in for its basketball and football teams, because in a city like Syracuse it's the only franchise in town. And that's true.

But if Syracuse has 10 guys on the team on full basketball scholarships making money for them, they conversely have 10 female athletes on full scholarships losing them money. If Syracuse pays for its mens basketball team to travel around for games and tournaments, they're also paying for their girls field hockey team to travel around for games and tournaments.

If the men players keep clamoring to be treated more for their financial worth, through whatever form of compensation, the female players are going to get the short end.
Click to expand...

If you look at almost any Div 1 University football and basketball are the two big revenue driving sports and football is the dominant of those two at most schools. The revenue from those two sports subsidizes all other athletic programs at the University (male and female).
 
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...

Yet another sad display for Darla. Nothing to add to a discussion, so she comes on to insult. Apparently in her rage she failed to see that we have simply been discussing the issue.
 
Celticguy said:
you are wrong, it applies to teams. Want 10 boys teams ? Gotta have ten girls teams.
Click to expand...

That is not true... which is why you see 1 Mens football program have to be balanced by multiple womens sports programs due to the fact that no womens teams have the number of athletes that football does.
 
cawacko said:
If you look at almost any Div 1 University football and basketball are the two big revenue driving sports and football is the dominant of those two at most schools. The revenue from those two sports subsidizes all other athletic programs at the University (male and female).
Click to expand...

No question about that.

But if this process starts down a road towards compensating athletes for their value, it's going to run face first into Title IX.
 
The key difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery is the ability to form a union to fight the thieves. Everything else is thieves' propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top