Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 4500729, member: 622"]
Exactly.  The first side to flinch wins the upper hand...for a short while.  Neither the athletes (as a whole) nor the schools want the athletes to be employees.  However, the athletes want collective bargaining.  I interpret the court's position as not liking the special class of student/athlete receiving benefits without being declared employees, courts generally dislike legal fictions.  Even if the players are deemed "contractors", the issue of income and taxation are easily addressed.

There are many issues to address: how to calculate the cost of education.  I would expect the IRS arguing the private school prices as there are no hidden factors, private schools must generate enough income to pay the bills.  We know it costs around $70K/year for private school.  We also know that players receive other benefits and that taxes would push the value to more than $100K/year.

Then there is the issue that most athletes are not in revenue sports.  Each of these athletes are not likely to be able to pay taxes on their scholarship (assuming a full ride) as they generally have no income - let's be honest, only a few NIL dollars will trickle into the non-revenue sports.

There are many other issues, too.  It's easy to see why the courts would want both sides to reach an understanding, and easy enough to see why the court may lean towards collective bargaining,. The unspoken truth is that we all know the kids are playing in exchange for their education, they are either employees or contractors and should be treated as such on all fronts (insurance, workers comp, taxes, etc.) and schools should face the music that they cannot create a special category of pseudo employees.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?