National Labor Relations Board gives Northwestern players the right to unionize

[primetime]

Re: OT: NLRB gives Northwestern players the right to unionize

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

There's nothing "kids game" about football. The entire high school-to-NFL pipeline is professionalized and commercialized, and there are real and pressing health concerns in this "kid's game." It's a multi-billion dollar industry with massive lobbies in government.

The idea that players must be compensated with education is paternalistic. They should be able to choose what they spend their wages on like any other worker. Some may prefer not to spend their money on education, especially when they do not have the time necessary to dedicate to their intellectual development while working a full-time job as college football players.

What's interesting is this is an issue that both libertarians and socialists agree on, given that the NCAA is a cartel and therefore a "market inefficiency." The means to the end is where the differing opinion lies - libertarians would say each player should negotiate their own worth based on demand for their talent, socialists would say workers have more power collectively.

 

[primetime]

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

Must depend on the school, possibly even the department. I was allowed to teach SAT classes while on a fellowship and an assistantship. Many students (especially in engineering and hard science) do contract consulting, even.

 

[NormZauchin]

If you think the Union is some big benevolent entity only looking out for the little guy then your ignorance is the truly impressive beast.

It is interesting how someone deliberately misstates my post in order to ridicule it. I NEVER said unions were "some big benevolent entity." I NEVER said "they only look out for the little guy." What I did say was that considerable social progress did not come about from the beneficence of employers, but from the efforts of unions. If you cannot accept this statement, so be it. The historical record says otherwise.

 

[Deus Irae]

Good. There's no reason higher education and athletics should be combined. If you want to keep tradition, players can be employees of the school but not necessarily students.

As a former college athlete who was originally on a partial eductional scholarship, I have to say that is one of the sillier things ever posted.


anywhere

 

[primetime]

As a former college athlete who was originally on a partial eductional scholarship, I have to say that is one of the sillier things ever posted.


anywhere

Except it's the exact model used literally everywhere else in the world.

University 'club' sports in other parts of the world are professional if the given sport can support a professional team. See, for example, University College Dublin's soccer team, which competes in the top Irish professional league, has the school's sponsorship, but whose players are not necessarily enrolled in the university.

I'm not even certain what you being a "former college athlete" has to do with that, other than an awkward attempt to shoehorn some bragging.

 

[Aßßynormal]

Except it's the exact model used literally everywhere else in the world.

University 'club' sports in other parts of the world are professional if the given sport can support a professional team. See, for example, University College Dublin's soccer team, which competes in the top Irish professional league, has the school's sponsorship, but whose players are not necessarily enrolled in the university.

I'm not even certain what you being a "former college athlete" has to do with that, other than an awkward attempt to shoehorn some bragging.

What? Who cares about Ireland. "not necessarily enrolled in the university" is bizarre. The 'World' model isn't an American model. I smell politics all over this filthy decision.

 

[TB=TD]

What? Who cares about Ireland. The 'World' model isn't an American model. I smell politics all over this filthy decision.

Why can't the world model be an American model? As an American I can admit when the world gets it right.

Healthcare
Education
Murder Rates
Poverty....

 

[Aßßynormal]

Why can't the world model be an American model? As an American I can admit when the world gets it right.

Healthcare
Education
Murder Rates
Poverty....

Politics, that's most of your wrong answer.

 

[primetime]

"not necessarily enrolled in the university" is bizarre.

Yes, because there's something inherently correct about the fact that 18 to 22 year old athletes must be amateurs and must be students.

You can take that up with the majority of hockey players, who come through major juniors (for which they are paid) or in European professional leagues (for which they are paid). Or basketball players from outside the US, who are paid before they come over and sign an NBA contract.

 

[NormZauchin]

Except it's the exact model used literally everywhere else in the world.

University 'club' sports in other parts of the world are professional if the given sport can support a professional team. See, for example, University College Dublin's soccer team, which competes in the top Irish professional league, has the school's sponsorship, but whose players are not necessarily enrolled in the university.

I'm not even certain what you being a "former college athlete" has to do with that, other than an awkward attempt to shoehorn some bragging.

For many posters on this board, the fact that athletics has little or no relation to a university education in the rest of the world is not an indictment of the American model. Probably a majority of college-educated Americans take greater pride in their alma mater as a result of the performance of a group of young men in football or basketball uniforms than they do from illustrious alumni in fields such as law, medicine, and engineering or from faculty winning Nobel Prizes. In this country, sports trumps intellectual achievement, even in the ivory tower.

 

[primetime]

For many posters on this board, the fact that athletics has little or no relation to a university education in the rest of the world is not an indictment of the American model. Probably a majority of college-educated Americans take greater pride in their alma mater as a result of the performance of a group of young men in football or basketball uniforms than they do from illustrious alumni in fields such as law, medicine, and engineering or from faculty winning Nobel Prizes. In this country, sports trumps intellectual achievement, even in the ivory tower.

I completely agree, but there's also nothing to say that you can't have your cake and let the players eat it too. Unless there's some necessity for athletes representing an institution as employees to actually be students at an institution that I am missing, but I haven't seen a compelling argument for that yet.

 

[ivanvamp]

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.

Well so what if it's harder? I worked a lot of hours and helped put myself through school. For many, playing a sport actually makes their academic life easier because so much of their schedule is regimented, and they really need that regiment in order to be the most time efficient. Having played a sport in college and having worked with college athletes for 20+ years, this is a common refrain.

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).

That's fine. And maybe we should have minor leagues for football and basketball (like baseball) so athletes have a choice as to which route they would prefer to take. I'm no fan of the NCAA, don't get me wrong. I just think that scholarship athletes do get compensated a lot for their labor. Again, at a place like SU, it's about $60k a year. That's a lot of value.

 

[IllegalContact]

it's hard to care from either side of this.......rich schools against kids getting something for nothing

the hope here is that they do unionize, and then lose their scholarships.....

the entire way the NCAA commences things needs to be destroyed and restarted from scratch

 

[primetime]

And maybe we should have minor leagues for football and basketball (like baseball) so athletes have a choice as to which route they would prefer to take. I'm no fan of the NCAA, don't get me wrong. I just think that scholarship athletes do get compensated a lot for their labor. Again, at a place like SU, it's about $60k a year. That's a lot of value.

I think that's the key. Hockey has juniors and baseball has the minor leagues. The NFL and NBA have these crony agreements with the NCAA that force athletes into college where they do not necessarily need or want to be. That requirement and that student-athletes are required to be amateurs is the key. But the truth is the NFL is unlikely to fund its own farm system because it would be obscenely expensive (not that the NFL couldn't manage) but right now it has colleges to do it for free.

it's hard to care from either side of this.......rich schools against kids getting something for nothing

Most of the schools are not even remotely rich (any of us who have been in or around higher education can tell you about slashed departmental budgets), and the student-athletes are in no way "getting something for nothing." The truth is this arrangement is bad for both sides excepting a very small number of schools, and - I think - is bad for the academy in general.

 

[upstater1]

I think that's the key. Hockey has juniors and baseball has the minor leagues. The NFL and NBA have these crony agreements with the NCAA that force athletes into college where they do not necessarily need or want to be. That requirement and that student-athletes are required to be amateurs is the key. But the truth is the NFL is unlikely to fund its own farm system because it would be obscenely expensive (not that the NFL couldn't manage) but right now it has colleges to do it for free.



Most of the schools are not even remotely rich (any of us who have been in or around higher education can tell you about slashed departmental budgets), and the student-athletes are in no way "getting something for nothing." The truth is this arrangement is bad for both sides excepting a very small number of schools, and - I think - is bad for the academy in general.

As a college sports fan, I completed a study of budgets that gutted so many of the suppositions of even the faculty senate at 2 schools. I was thanked for this work, and then I said to all of them that the information is readily available not only at the DOE but in online databases such as at USA Today. And, universities actually publish their athletic budgets as part of the overall budge. This was work anyone could do, but academics took very little interest in it before, save for a few (Andrew Zimbalist at Amherst and a Biologist, David Hillis at U. Texas). This is because sports have always been sacred cows, the darling of alumni, boosters, politicians and yes, the Board of trustees. Presidents are only too happy to take home their half a million a year and leave well enough alone. When a President pipes up and complains about a $20 million sports loss in one budget year, she is promptly fired, as Elsa Benitez was at Texas A&M. When the costs of a stadium shut down the building of research facilities tied to a hundred million dollar DOD grant as at Oklahoma St, no one says much.

This is why we are where we are. Because the stakeholders are alumni, boosters, BOT, while the academics that run the academic side don't want to upset the applecart too much.

 

[upstater1]

Except it's the exact model used literally everywhere else in the world.

University 'club' sports in other parts of the world are professional if the given sport can support a professional team. See, for example, University College Dublin's soccer team, which competes in the top Irish professional league, has the school's sponsorship, but whose players are not necessarily enrolled in the university.

I'm not even certain what you being a "former college athlete" has to do with that, other than an awkward attempt to shoehorn some bragging.

Pay him no mind. He writes that same line every two days.

 

[upstater1]

For many posters on this board, the fact that athletics has little or no relation to a university education in the rest of the world is not an indictment of the American model. Probably a majority of college-educated Americans take greater pride in their alma mater as a result of the performance of a group of young men in football or basketball uniforms than they do from illustrious alumni in fields such as law, medicine, and engineering or from faculty winning Nobel Prizes. In this country, sports trumps intellectual achievement, even in the ivory tower.

Every time someone takes pride in a victory by their school, someone else is disappointed. Someone must win, someone must lose. Andrew Zimbalist has actually studied what he calls the Loser factor. He believes that a really good school like Rutgers actually loses applicants and donations from alumni because the football team carries with it the sheen of perpetual losing.

 

[NormZauchin]

Every time someone takes pride in a victory by their school, someone else is disappointed. Someone must win, someone must lose. Andrew Zimbalist has actually studied what he calls the Loser factor. He believes that a really good school like Rutgers actually loses applicants and donations from alumni because the football team carries with it the sheen of perpetual losing.

On the other hand, Georgetown saw an increase in both the absolute number of applicants and the quality of its applicants during the years when John Thompson (senior) coached its basketball team, which was then competing for national championships. I think some at the university admitted that this was a 'cheap' way to build national academic standing (student body SAT scores being part of the calculus), as opposed to major expenditures for labs, libraries, and eminent faculty. If Zimbalist is right, athletic failure may harm a school's reputation, yet lacking the resources to slowly build its academic standing, a college may gamble on a quick fix of a winning athletic program in basketball or football.

 

[primetime]

Also known as the Flutie Effect since BC went from local commuter school to national academic powerhouse in large part because of the glut of applications due to Flutie and resulting selectivity allowed by that glut which perpetuates itself.

Amenities, which includes athletics, are certainly one way schools try to attract students. Except nowadays schools slash academic departments in order to build cafeterias and student centers.

 

[patsfan13]

Well looks like the law of unintended consequences goes into effect:

Articles: College Athletes may Regret Unionization


So when they unionize and become 'employees' their compensation which is currently tax free would be subject to taxation just like the rest of us.....

Currently the compensation from their efforts are not taxed Tuition books Room and board, that can change when they are employees rather than student athletes...

Northwestern U. student athletes initiated the lawsuit and their financial situation provides a good example of what these athletes have to face in the near future. Should the student athletes at NU become employees, they will face the prospect of having to pay taxes on their incomes. Currently they enjoy a unique and privileged tax status: while their free college tuition is technically income they do not pay income taxes on it. They are not only receiving a free ride on tuition but a free ride on the taxes.

Should they have to pay taxes here’s a thumbnail sketch of how their finances will change. At NU the tuition is about $65,000 per year. If the student athletes receive this as pay, then they will have to pay Federal income tax, state income tax, local income taxes, and payroll taxes; which include social security and Medicare. These are taxes paid by other residents of Evanston, Illinois where Northwestern U. is located.

These amounts are not trivial and will add up to approximately one third of the value of the scholarship, roughly $22,000 per year. Then they will also no longer receive free health care. Currently most universities with big football programs also have medical schools and it is economical for them to provide free health care to their student athletes. In the near future NU athletes may have to pay for their own ObamaCare health premiums. But given that President Obama is fond of college basketball their union may receive an exemption from participating in ObamaCare.

Be careful what you wish for.