The End? Unions in college sports.

[DoubleA]

May see tougher regs over hours worked. NCAA contends "student-athletes" are students first and athletes second, even so far as to say athletics are an extra-curricular activity. 30-40 hours per week on a sport clearly goes beyond "extra-curricular" and places greater emphasis on the sport over classes. Telling athletes what they can and can't major in, de-emphasizes the educational experience. Maybe it's time to dial the sports component back a bit. What the Northwestern QB is saying is that athletes want a seat at the table for discussions regarding their health and welfare.

[WataugaMan]

This could cause the schools to start looking at 'scholarships' as more of the one-year contracts they are, and they may become a little more discriminating about their renewal.

Thus, they may be fired for poor performance?

Yes, or not renewed (based on your perspective)

[clayton]

There's a decent chance this will get overturned and it currently only applies to private schools.

It's going to be an ongoing debate.

I really think the whole "they get a free education" argument holds little water when football players have to beat their heads against a wall for four years to get it. This specific story is more about protecting players who deal with that impact than it is about getting cash.

[Maddog1956]

There's a decent chance this will get overturned and it currently only applies to private schools.

It's going to be an ongoing debate.

I really think the whole "they get a free education" argument holds little water when football players have to beat their heads against a wall for four years to get it. This specific story is more about protecting players who deal with that impact than it is about getting cash.

You could be right, but I think it will be decided by ESPN and the SEC to a certain degree. College football is big business to them and they want to keep the product flowing. If it gets too distracting, ESPN/NCAA will just tell the schools to provide some level of insurance, done deal, let's play some football. That's takes most of the wind out of the union sails, fairly quickly.

[moehler]

this argument that they want a union for medical compensation is just the excuse to get their "foot in the door" for a bigger piece of the pie, I think you are being extremely naïve if you think they are going to stop there. I guarantee they are already discussing how to get a percentage of ticket revenues, merchandising, tv revenues etc.

[Maddog1956]

this argument that they want a union for medical compensation is just the excuse to get their "foot in the door" for a bigger piece of the pie, I think you are being extremely naïve if you think they are going to stop there. I guarantee they are already discussing how to get a percentage of ticket revenues, merchandising, tv revenues etc.

That's always the possibility and you can't disprove a negative, but business has been dealing fairly successful with unions in the past, mainly by providing the same benefits without union membership. Play for pay is on the table regardless of union status and the line of kids waiting for a chance to play college ball far exceeds the available positions.

The majority of people in the US could be in a union if they desired and are not, so just because they "can" join a union doesn't mean they will. I would expect it would have to be voted in at each school.

I'm not sure how many players would want to pay dues and maybe give up playing time, just to make it better for the guys replacing them in 4 years.

It will be an interesting development, but maybe the biggest change in the immediate future is medical compensation union or not.

[APPARJ]

There's a decent chance this will get overturned and it currently only applies to private schools.

It's going to be an ongoing debate.

I really think the whole "they get a free education" argument holds little water when football players have to beat their heads against a wall for four years to get it. This specific story is more about protecting players who deal with that impact than it is about getting cash.

I really don't think it's more complicated than this:

A University has a football team.

High School player wants to play in college.

University tells the student "Hey, if you agree to play football with us, you can go to school for free."

The student replies: "Sounds great!"

End of discussion. If he's worried about his health, get an insurance policy (like several college players do) or don't play the most violent game in sports. Period.

Also, whatever happened to football being a privilege? Go surf Twitter on Saturday morning and tell me that the majority of these kids don't absolutely love playing football. College gives them an opportunity to continue to play the game they love.

Can we please stop pretending that football is being forced upon them? It's voluntary.

[Yosef10]

He probably came off that way because, well, they get basically nothing.

The athletes get nothing? Seriously?

Wow that is a foolish statement.

What do they get beau? Besides an "education" and that's a whole different topic in itself.

They can get an education, should they so choose. Plus tutoring, meals, room, board, books, clothing, life experience, etc. Just because some choose to not take advantage does not mean all get nothing. My roommate played football. I know what they get and don't.

In most cases it's not whether or not they "choose to take advantage of an education" because they don't get to CHOOSE. More times than not top recruits are funneled into the program seen as the most likely to keep the kid on the field. So when you talk about "educations" I laugh. ADs and chancellors have been getting rich for decades off the idea of selling "education" to the athletes while these scholarships cost the schools NOTHING. What irks me most is not exactly not financially compensating players, but that the administrations get richer and richer behind this slave-like and hypocritical system.

[clayton]

"I really don't think it's more complicated than this..."


The reason its more complicated is because more than one school wants the player. If only one school told me that they'd pay for my education, I'd definitely be on board.

But, when another school calls and offers me something, I have options. That's when it can get complicated.

Because, not only will that other school offer me a better chance to start sooner, this old guy just dropped off a sack of cash in this car he's letting me drive.

People care enough about college football to spend a lot of money on college football. If nobody cared, we wouldn't be having this debate (obviously). College athletes wouldn't get paid for playing college sports, but they'd also be free to play arena football in the spring for $200 a game. Because, the school wouldn't need to protect their financial asset.

And if a lot more college football players get together on this, it's going to happen. I don't care how many slow 5'8" guys the school signs up.

[JTApps1]

He probably came off that way because, well, they get basically nothing.

So a free education to Northwestern which is one of the best schools in the US is nothing? What about free meals, free clothes, free publicity of their skills, free strength training, free medical care, free housing, academic advisors, traveling all over the nation, and the list goes on. Yea, poor athletes...

[huskie3]

It will be an interesting development, but maybe the biggest change in the immediate future is medical compensation union or not.
In light of long-term medical issues the pros have dealt with the last few years, I think this probably has more to do with it than 'playing for pay'. Some of the injuries take years to manifest the effects on the health of the individual (joint injuries and arthritis: concos and brain damage). How many schools follow up on the health of players years later? I haven't received a questionnaire in the last 40 years about how my knee is doing.

[Yosef10]

He probably came off that way because, well, they get basically nothing.

So a free education to Northwestern which is one of the best schools in the US is nothing? What about free meals, free clothes, free publicity of their skills, free strength training, free medical care, free housing, academic advisors, traveling all over the nation, and the list goes on. Yea, poor athletes...

Most of those athletes can't do the work expected of a northwestern student so in the end their interdisciplinary studies degree they were forced into taking isn't helping them in the real world. They don't get free medical care, one of the main reasons of them trying to form a union. The "free clothes" they get are athletic jumpsuits, I have an academic advisor and I don't play football. Musicians that go to app also get free publicity of their skills but they also get to cash in while still in school, unlike athletes


"Or consider the plight of Aaron Adair, a third baseman for the University of Oklahoma who also happens to have survived brain cancer. He wrote a book about his recovery intended to help others with the disease, only to receive a call from a compliance officer informing him that his college baseball career was over because his name was attached to a ''corporate product.''"

"It prohibits us from having sponsors or appearing in advertisements, even if the products have no relation to the intercollegiate sports we play. In my case, to be allowed to play wide receiver for the University of Colorado football team, I had to give up endorsement opportunities I had garnered as an Olympic moguls skier."

[APPARJ]

"I really don't think it's more complicated than this..."


The reason its more complicated is because more than one school wants the player. If only one school told me that they'd pay for my education, I'd definitely be on board.

But, when another school calls and offers me something, I have options. That's when it can get complicated.

Because, not only will that other school offer me a better chance to start sooner, this old guy just dropped off a sack of cash in this car he's letting me drive.

People care enough about college football to spend a lot of money on college football. If nobody cared, we wouldn't be having this debate (obviously). College athletes wouldn't get paid for playing college sports, but they'd also be free to play arena football in the spring for $200 a game. Because, the school wouldn't need to protect their financial asset.

And if a lot more college football players get together on this, it's going to happen. I don't care how many slow 5'8" guys the school signs up.

Look, I hate the NCAA. Make no mistake, most of the NCAA rules are simply bureaucratic nonsense. I agree.

But the idea that players aren't getting their fair share of the pie is asinine. Most college players are in no way shape or form worth more than their scholarship and I don't care how much the program generates in revenue.

AJ McCarron won 3 national titles for Alabama. Arguably one of the best QBs to come out of the greatest program in college football history. Guess what? Alabama will still sellout every single game and make a bazillion dollars without him next year.

Why?

Because the brand and history of the program is what generates the money. Not an individual player.

Yes, yes... a "program" is a collection of individuals, true. But except in specific cases, they are completely and totally replaceable. The sum is greater than the parts.

This is why the idea of unionizing players is INSANE!!! Most of the time the PROGRAM benefits the PLAYERS more than the PLAYERS benefit the PROGRAM!

I mean, Nick Saban is worth 1,000x more to Alabama than any one of the players on the field. Period.

But there are times when really special talents come through and really make an undeniable impact. Think of our own Armanti Edwards, Johnny Football or Peyton Manning etc... Those guys really did put butts in the seats for their programs because they were that talented.

Would you pay more for a Johnny Manziel autograph or his 5 Star left tackle? A union would argue that both are valuable. Reality couldn't argue anything because they don't know who the left tackle is.

"Oh! These players are getting screwed! Look how much money this greedy program is making!"

If these players unionize it will be the opposite. The universities will be getting screwed because they'll end up having to pay a lot to individuals that aren't worth that much. But what about the players that are? Let them make money on their own.

I have no problem with Armanti Edwards making money signing jersey's or doing a local car commercial. I have a problem pretending that a university is making money off the backs individuals like a backup safety and that backup safety should be compensated for his "worth".

[Saint3333]

If we're looking at the entire population of student athletes the change that is coming is going to hurt a very large percentage of them (I'd wager over 80%).

Plus no matter how the rules change they people that are currently "winning" in this realm will continue to "win". That is the way this game is played.

As a capitalist, I can understand the concept, but the softer side of me knows this is a very bad thing for college athletics and the majority of over 100,000 student athletes on scholarship nationwide.

[HeffnerIV]

I say let'em unionize if they want. They'll become the minor league of top level, professional athletics and I'll stop caring because it'll be about development instead of winning. Also, I'd wager that schools will sponsor fewer sports than they do now which will result in fewer scholarships and less opportunities. If you hate Title IX now, wait until the opportunities to play college athletics for a free or reduced price dwindle. If I'm not mistaken, only 30-40 programs even finish with a surplus each year. From Where' is all this money going to come?

[clayton]

Again. It's worth noting that this specific case is more about the right to negotiate.

This could lead to a chaotic world where 5-star recruits get million dollar bonuses and backup linemen and have to buy their own helmets. Maybe small schools will shutter their athletic departments because they can't afford to pay every field hockey player $50,000 a year?

Of course, that's not how it will happen.

There will be a lot of stuff to sort through if this continues. I don't think there will ever be a true "college athlete union." But, this heat could change some things that need to be changed.

[havefunkc]

OK - question for any tax 'experts' out there... On the radio this morning (ESPN/Mike&Mike) a legal expert was stating that the financial compensation issue with taxes will not really be an issue. He stated that scholarships are "Grants in Aid" and that laws governing grants are well established and are exempt from any tax issues.

I have learned (through hard lessons) that the IRS has incredible guidelines on "what" compensation is (and in turn what is taxed). Since college athletes could be considered employees, scholarships do not become a form of compensation?

If it was that easy to define compensation as a "Grant in Aid", why wouldn't private businesses do that?

(Man - the questions and epiphanies that are starting to hit the NCAA and college sports...)

[APPARJ]

Again. It's worth noting that this specific case is more about the right to negotiate.

This could lead to a chaotic world where 5-star recruits get million dollar bonuses and backup linemen and have to buy their own helmets. Maybe small schools will shutter their athletic departments because they can't afford to pay every field hockey player $50,000 a year?

Of course, that's not how it will happen.

There will be a lot of stuff to sort through if this continues. I don't think there will ever be a true "college athlete union." But, this heat could change some things that need to be changed.

Collective bargaining is a very slippery slope. I don't see how this ends well. Seeing the very high demand now, Universities should compete to attract students. University X will provide 100% healthcare coverage vs. University Y.

Just my thoughts.

[DoubleA]

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014 ... _isnt.html

The plot thickens. Will Congress get involved?

[appst89]

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014 ... _isnt.html

The plot thickens. Will Congress get involved?

The future of college athletics looks dimmer by the minute.