National Labor Relations Board gives Northwestern players the right to unionize

[chasa]

I think the issue now becomes how do you keep certain colleges from buying all the best players.

Previously Each school had a set number of scholarships, which allowed all the schools to only recruit X number of players for free rides.

If you allow schools to pay, or allow players to get paid via "sponsors" you will have schools like USC paying these kids huge sums of money, while smaller schools will be stuck with second tier players.

So do you give schools a salary cap now?

Sports scholarships will be done away with since that will no longer be the deciding factor, since these kids will be getting paid tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, the schools will build tuition into the contract.

Its an interesting situation, but one i think will ultimately blow up in everyone's faces since the spirit of competition will need to be taken care of before anything else happens

 

[primetime]

I'll add this. Grad instructors are a lot more profitable for universities than athletes in revenue sports are.

With some exceptions (Johnny Manziel is definitely more profitable than any Texas A&M grad student), but on average this is 100% correct. Same goes for adjunct faculty, which is a model many departments, especially in the humanities (where PhDs have no real options outside academia, so there's a huge glut of qualified instructors so schools can pay them substandard wages rather than bring them in as tenure-track faculty), are moving towards. Adjunct faculty are also beginning to organize in some schools.

 

[primetime]

I think the issue now becomes how do you keep certain colleges from buying all the best players.

Previously Each school had a set number of scholarships, which allowed all the schools to only recruit X number of players for free rides.

If you allow schools to pay, or allow players to get paid via "sponsors" you will have schools like USC paying these kids huge sums of money, while smaller schools will be stuck with second tier players.

So do you give schools a salary cap now?

Sports scholarships will be done away with since that will no longer be the deciding factor, since these kids will be getting paid tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, the schools will build tuition into the contract.

Its an interesting situation, but one i think will ultimately blow up in everyone's faces since the spirit of competition will need to be taken care of before anything else happens

This already happens. If schools aren't spending under the table on players (they are), then they're doing things like spending for amenities to attract recruits. College sports aren't exactly a bastion of parity in any sense, regardless, so I'm not sure what would change.

 

[ivanvamp]

The abuse of college athletes in the revenue producing sports of football and basketball is endemic. That institutions like Northwestern (and Duke and Stanford, etc.) are full participants in this exploitation of athletes, a majority of whom are black, calls into question their supposed liberal values. At a minimum, every university that plays big time football should be required to pay for extended medical coverage, perhaps for a lifetime, for players who suffer serious injury on the gridiron while representing said institution.

How are scholarship athletes in the revenue producing sports of football and basketball being *abused*? I work at a major Division I institution, and I work with athletes. The athletes on the non-revenue producing teams put in just as many hours as the football players. They work just as hard. They're just not as famous. Are they "abused" too? Or are they not abused just because their sport doesn't make money?

 

[primetime]

How are scholarship athletes in the revenue producing sports of football and basketball being *abused*? I work at a major Division I institution, and I work with athletes. The athletes on the non-revenue producing teams put in just as many hours as the football players. They work just as hard. They're just not as famous. Are they "abused" too? Or are they not abused just because their sport doesn't make money?

Abused is the wrong word. But it's textbook exploitation and theft of economic power. The athletes on non revenue producing teams are also required to do non-academic activities to maintain their scholarships for enrollment at an academic institution. It's all in the decision.

 

[ivanvamp]

Abused is the wrong word. But it's textbook exploitation and theft of economic power. The athletes on non revenue producing teams are also required to do non-academic activities to maintain their scholarships for enrollment at an academic institution. It's all in the decision.

At a school like Syracuse (my alma mater), a football player works incredibly hard for his scholarship. But he also earns about $60,000 worth of goods and services each year for his labor. Not bad for a 19-year old kid who also, by virtue of being on the football team, gets a certain elevated status on campus that few others get, AND he gets to show his stuff for prospective employees on television every week, something your typical student does not get.

 

[TomPatriot]

Most of the discussion here has nothing to do with the right to bargain collectively. That is really what the decision is about. Whether or not the players should join a union, or what that union should bargain for if and when it is formed, weighing all of the factors expressed here, is for them to decide. Not you and not me.

 

[primetime]

At a school like Syracuse (my alma mater), a football player works incredibly hard for his scholarship. But he also earns about $60,000 worth of goods and services each year for his labor. Not bad for a 19-year old kid who also, by virtue of being on the football team, gets a certain elevated status on campus that few others get, AND he gets to show his stuff for prospective employees on television every week, something your typical student does not get.

This assumes that the player is NFL-caliber. The overwhelmingly vast majority of college football players - even those in programs much stronger than Syracuse - will never sign an NFL contract. Will never hope to sign an NFL contract.

Yet the program and the NCAA alike are making money off that player's labor and their likeness. The player serves as an advertising billboard for the institution and the NCAA. And that scholarship can be revoked at any time.

The player receives an education, but given the amount of time that must be dedicated to their labor as a football player (and how this normally takes on a much more pressing priority), how much is that education truly worth (especially when education is largely self-driven)? This leads to the question of why private universities are so expensive, and why higher education and athletics are linked.

 

[primetime]

Most of the discussion here has nothing to do with the right to bargain collectively. That is really what the decision is about. Whether or not the players should join a union, or what that union should bargain for if and when it is formed, weighing all of the factors expressed here, is for them to decide. Not you and not me.

Right. It's an interpretation of law, not a referendum on the future of the NCAA. The NLRB found the Northwestern football team to be employees of the university as well as students and that entitles them, by law, to organize and bargain collectively.

 

[Stylez]

Getting way off topic, Detroit's auto industry decline was bad management, not the unions. Auto manufacturing in other countries actually has much stronger unionization but remains strong because management is creative and dynamic and does not rest on their laurels, assuming they'll remain strong.

We have the most expensive higher education in the free world. Gwedd, in his previous post, made a good point about the fact that higher education doesn't need to be for everyone, but I think he got the details wrong. The growth of cost is due to demand, because the Boomer generation was so large and education did actually help them establish strong productivity growth (and unionization helped ensure the gains of that growth were more evenly distributed) and a strong middle class. When they had children, they insisted that higher education would in turn work for them the same way.

With so much demand, you had a huge number of institutions arise to meet the demand. And they compete for students not by improving their education for the most part, but by improving amenities (student centers, high-tech dorms, and - frankly - varsity sports all fall into this category). These are massively costly. As the demand for higher education decreases due to demographic factors and structural weakness in the labor market, you have institutions that have to charge exorbitant prices to make up for declining enrollment and the prices paid for their amenities.

Of course, enrollment still remains high due to cultural factors. College has become a necessary good, and vocational apprenticeships are actually looked upon with disdain in America rather than as a viable and in fact often better alternative to college like they are in Germany and elsewhere (for an example of the "culture", take the fact that you see student discounts all the time but almost certainly have never seen an "apprentice discount"). And student loans, while onerous, are still fairly forgiving, especially now that the private market for student loans has been done away with.

But in a perfect world we'd have fewer institutions (this is going to happen anyways - estimates are that something like half of private universities in the country will be forced to close in the next decade), much lower costs of tuition (or free education!), and so on. Then you could have club sports (no need for scholarships) and you could have what would essentially be minor league professional teams in basketball and football that could be sponsored by schools such as FSU, Alabama, or Notre Dame. Or, heck, Harvard. But the players wouldn't necessarily need to be students at the school.

That's so far off topic, it could be another thread. Actually, probably another forum.

 

[ivanvamp]

This assumes that the player is NFL-caliber. The overwhelmingly vast majority of college football players - even those in programs much stronger than Syracuse - will never sign an NFL contract. Will never hope to sign an NFL contract.

They *still* get $60,000 worth of goods and services a year in exchange for their labor for the university. That's pretty good money for an 18-22 year old kid.

Yet the program and the NCAA alike are making money off that player's labor and their likeness. The player serves as an advertising billboard for the institution and the NCAA. And that scholarship can be revoked at any time.

To the first part I say, so what? The school *should* make money off the student's labor and likeness. They are, after all, "paying" them $60,000 a year at a school like SU. To your second part, I agree fully - it's totally wrong that they can revoke the scholarship. Totally wrong.

The player receives an education, but given the amount of time that must be dedicated to their labor as a football player (and how this normally takes on a much more pressing priority), how much is that education truly worth (especially when education is largely self-driven)? This leads to the question of why private universities are so expensive, and why higher education and athletics are linked.

Yep, those are bigger questions for sure. But remember: the student-athlete does not have to participate in sports. If he wants the free education he might have to, and then it's up to him to decide how seriously he wants to take that education. There are PLENTY of student-athletes who give max time to the sports program but who also take their education very seriously. They take full advantage of their time in college. Others don't. How is that any different from the average non-athlete, some of whom make the most of their education and some who don't? BTW, one advantage the student-athlete has over the regular student is that the student-athlete gets all kinds of academic support (i.e., free tutoring). The non-athlete doesn't have that kind of resource at his disposal.

 

[upstater1]

by the way, primetime, Michigan was the B!G AAU school whose budget I know intimately, having had a closehand look at it. People don't know this but the school has $250+ million in debt from the stadium and ice arena, and it is serviced by the academic side (ADs can't bond out) to the tune of $18.5m a year. There are several other anomalies in that budget as well. Such as UM counting all royalty and branding income as sports income.

I will say this. In Ann Arbor, the $12k R&B is not inflated at all. School is in session 9 months there, so 9 months of rent (Aug-May) are required. You get 8 1/2 months of food (except 3 weeks in Dec./Jan. and 1 week of Spring Break).

Rents in the area would be $800-1000 for students who double up in one bedroom. Then there's the cost of heat and electricity. Another $200 a month. $9k would be housing alone. Food at the university is 3 meals a day x 7 days a week + extras. In this respect, it's better to receive R&B than it is a stipend.

 

[primetime]

Upstater1: TAs are actually unionized at Michigan (RA stipends are not), but the lowest stipend for a grad student at UM is still at least $15k (in 08-09, likely higher now) per CHE.

Yep, those are bigger questions for sure. But remember: the student-athlete does not have to participate in sports. If he wants the free education he might have to, and then it's up to him to decide how seriously he wants to take that education. There are PLENTY of student-athletes who give max time to the sports program but who also take their education very seriously. They take full advantage of their time in college. Others don't. How is that any different from the average non-athlete, some of whom make the most of their education and some who don't? BTW, one advantage the student-athlete has over the regular student is that the student-athlete gets all kinds of academic support (i.e., free tutoring). The non-athlete doesn't have that kind of resource at his disposal.

Most schools have free tutoring for non-athletes, they just have to seek it out rather than having it handed to them. Universities have an incentive to prevent dropouts since rankings are often based on 4-year graduation rates so they provide services like tutoring to anyone who needs it.

Your point about the price of a scholarship is a valid one, but graduate students likewise have their tuition paid for and then receive a stipend that is in excess of room and board as I showed above (in UM's case, at least $3k greater). The money is also unrestricted - a grad student, unlike a student-athlete, is free to choose where to live and where to eat using their money. You work for a scholarship that remits tuition and then you are paid on top of that based on your contribution to the university (again, in UM's case, this stipend for TAs is collectively bargained - just as it would be for Northwestern football players). Work-study students are also compensated for their labor, while student-athletes are not.

Simply put, it's substantially harder to take advantage of education when you're required to work a full-time job during your post-secondary education. I was a work-study kid and was unable to do everything my peers could because I had to work. Yes, I still took advantage of college, but not nearly as much as I should.

Your larger point that not everyone takes advantage of higher education is true, but it speaks to other larger facts about the academy that I mentioned before - that it's become a necessary good rather than something for intellectual development, and that nearly everyone (or at least everyone with parents who went to college, which is quite a large number of Boomers) sees college as 'required' of them when they turn 18 even if they would be better served by vocational apprenticeship or delaying their higher education until they know what they want to do with it (I would say most 18 year olds don't belong in college, even the smartest ones - it's one reason I think a year of Americorps-type national service would be beneficial).

 

[Jack Handy]

Then why have the sports if the schools are losing money? How much of a 70 k tuition for non-sport playing students goes into subsidizing the schools athletics?

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

They *still* get $60,000 worth of goods and services a year in exchange for their labor for the university. That's pretty good money for an 18-22 year old kid.

.

Actually over 4 or 5 years, that's $240-300K at a private school. To the student who is a non-athlete paying that tuition at the same school, those students are receiving a benefit, a free education in exchange for their athlete participation. Nobody is forcing them to play ball there, they can quit the team and pay tuition like other students. I don't begrudge them benefits they receive but let's not fool ourselves, they are receiving a free education in exchange for it. When people complain that they (the athletes) have no money, they can take out a loan like many of the students who are taking loans to pay for tuition...
I can sympathize with the time commitment involved but on the other side of the scale, they are receiving a huge monetary benefit.

 

[upstater1]

Upstater1: TAs are actually unionized at Michigan (RA stipends are not), but the lowest stipend for a grad student at UM is still at least $15k (in 08-09, likely higher now) per CHE.

For the purposes of our discussion, however, I would argue that the compensation is similar. If rent + utilities is $1k a month, that leave $5k left over for food.

It's similar. I think the two classes of "students" are quite similar. While this official claims they are different.

I'd also add that stipends are taxable locally and by the state in many instances. up until a few years ago, the federal gov't actually deducted payroll taxes from them, and it could do so again if a few bills pass through congress.

 

[upstater1]

Then why have the sports if the schools are losing money? How much of a 70 k tuition for non-sport playing students goes into subsidizing the schools athletics?

It's pretty easy to figure out. First, we don't have to talk about 70k tuitions since 98% of the football schools are public. So let's talk about $7.5k tuitions, because the rest of the $30k cost of attendance is covered by endowments (15%), faculty grants (30%), taxpayers (15%). So ignore how much of that tuition money is used to help the losses in athletics. If the average loss is $15-20 million a year when you include facilities, that's about 1.5-2% of the entire budget, or $100 per student.

The real harm to students who pay to attend comes in the form of student fees. These fees are often $2k a year. What I've done is take the total amount of student fees given to the AD by many of these universities, and divided them by the number of students paying the fee. The result? Students subsidize the AD in the amount of $1k a year per student. The rest of their $1k a year fee goes to campus clubs, entertainment, recreation, etc.

 

[primetime]

For the purposes of our discussion, however, I would argue that the compensation is similar. If rent + utilities is $1k a month, that leave $5k left over for food.

It's similar. I think the two classes of "students" are quite similar. While this official claims they are different.

I'd also add that stipends are taxable locally and by the state in many instances. up until a few years ago, the federal gov't actually deducted payroll taxes from them, and it could do so again if a few bills pass through congress.

This is true, though keep in mind graduate students are also free to take other employment to supplement their stipends (be it freelance writing, teaching SAT classes, tutoring students, or working as a barista) and are also often funded through department fellowships while student-athletes are prohibited from holding even summer jobs.

I think the key was academic vs non-academic labor - it's a technicality, but an important one for the jurist. That said, I also fully expect Brown (a decision made a decade ago by a Bush-appointed NLRB, though this NLRB is fairly moderate because it only reached quorum as part of the agreement to end the shutdown) to be challenged and overturned in short order, and I suspect the decision was made to wink at that.

 

[SB39]

This assumes that the player is NFL-caliber. The overwhelmingly vast majority of college football players - even those in programs much stronger than Syracuse - will never sign an NFL contract. Will never hope to sign an NFL contract.

That's absolutely correct - and those are the people who will benefit the most from their scholarship and the actual education.

The player receives an education, but given the amount of time that must be dedicated to their labor as a football player (and how this normally takes on a much more pressing priority), how much is that education truly worth (especially when education is largely self-driven)? This leads to the question of why private universities are so expensive, and why higher education and athletics are linked.

How much is it actually worth? In some top tier universities, it's approaching being worth a quarter million dollars.

Not bad for playing a kids game for a couple years.

 

[upstater1]

This is true, though keep in mind graduate students are also free to take other employment to supplement their stipends (be it freelance writing, teaching SAT classes, tutoring students, or working as a barista) and are also often funded through department fellowships while student-athletes are prohibited from holding even summer jobs.

I think the key was academic vs non-academic labor - it's a technicality, but an important one for the jurist. That said, I also fully expect Brown (a decision made a decade ago by a Bush-appointed NLRB, though this NLRB is fairly moderate because it only reached quorum as part of the agreement to end the shutdown) to be challenged and overturned in short order, and I suspect the decision was made to wink at that.

Contractually, graduate students are forbidden from taking other employment during the school year. Like athletes, they are allowed to work in summers.