Northwestern football players win bid to unionize

[HtownOrange]

In NYS with workers' comp they would get lifetime care that they never have to pay for for injuries incurred. So that probably is a consideration.

They already get medical coverage as a student athlete, injuries are covered. As for indemnity, I was under the impression that these kids have insurance policies to cover them if they are permanently injured. Anyone with definitive knowledge, please chime in. If I am correct, then Worker's Comp would be a serious step backwards.

 

[NKR1978]

They get a piece of the pie. You mean a bigger piece.

They get crumbs compared to what coaches/administrators get. Ultimately, I don't think they'll end up being paid by the schools and they wont vote to unionize. But they will be allowed to make money off their fame. Might see a change in marketing as well. ESPN wont say: "Watch Tyler Ennis and Syracuse go up against Jabari Parker and Duke." If ESPN and the other networks continues to market their product by using the names and likeness of the athletes, the athletes should get a piece of that.

They'll also get a seat at the table and a vote on the rules that affect them.

 

[HtownOrange]

A key point being glossed over and completely ignored by many commentators is the simple fact that most D1 schools are operating at a loss. Syracuse is a break even status to my knowledge.

I have no issue with giving a kid a portion of the sales revenue generated by their name on a shirt, but a small portion as the school is the real name on the gear that fans are long term buying into.

Another issue not realized in the fantasy of pay for play is that the IRS will want its cut as will Albany or other State capital with an income tax.

This will be interesting to follow.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Student-athletes have medical coverage during their time on campus. Insurance policies are usually only taken out by those with strong professional potential (Clowney, Manziel, etc). Your backup OL isn't going to be helped when they need multiple shoulder/knee surgeries 5 or 10 years after they leave college. There is no rule which forces a school to honor the scholarship of an athlete who gets injured.

This entire process is about getting athletes a voice- right now they have none. Schools control their lives -as the report yesterday showed 35-50 hours per week for athletic obligations is normal. The 20 hour rule is a joke and everyone knows that- it's just another thing to make the NCAA look like they care. Restrictions on housing/cars/class schedules exist.

This article does a very good job breaking this down without the "gloom and doom, college football is ruined"- http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...0327/ncaa-athletes-union-ruling-northwestern/

 

[Full_Rebar]

I know some posters have mentioned this website before- http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/. Someone sent me there to take a look at the coaching salaries of SU and some of our comparable opponents. If you want to know why schools are losing money on D1 sports- look at the salaries of coaches/administrators. Should college football head coaches make more than NFL coaches? Should Marquette pay a guy like Buzz Williams more than 2 million per year?

Look at what SU pays the head coaches of women's sports- $188k? That's the average...

 

[SU2NASA]

If college football goes the way of college baseball, the fan following is going to significantly dry up and with it the TV, gate, and endorsement dollars as well. I'm admittedly ignorant on how much revenue college baseball generates, but I assume it doesn't even hold a candle to what college football generates right now. 82 scholarships at a school like Stanford is roughly $5M a year - nothing to sneeze at.

Look at the college basketball product today versus what it was when Pearl was here. You have so many players jumping to the NBA early that the product it watered down. However, it has never been as popular as it is today. If you go back to allowing players to jump directly from high school, it won't matter because people root for the name on the jersey. If they don't like their "employment" situation, go to the NBA, the D-league, or Europe.

Screw 'em.

 

[xc84]

They get crumbs compared to what coaches/administrators get. Ultimately, I don't think they'll end up being paid by the schools and they wont vote to unionize. But they will be allowed to make money off their fame. Might see a change in marketing as well. ESPN wont say: "Watch Tyler Ennis and Syracuse go up against Jabari Parker and Duke." If ESPN and the other networks continues to market their product by using the names and likeness of the athletes, the athletes should get a piece of that.

They'll also get a seat at the table and a vote on the rules that affect them.

They get crumbs compared to ___________. Like most of us. That does not mean they are not fairly compensated. The vast majority of D1 athletes on full scholarships will not make it to the next level. i.e. when they enter the post-college market and shop themselves around, most don't find buyers. I think that says something about what they are worth as athletes in the market.

As for making money from their fame. They have fame, in a great part, because they play at certain schools that get a lot of exposure. Yes, those with fame are usually the better players on these teams. However, does anyone think its not a train wreck to have the famous cashing in while the others on the team get nada? And for those who poo poo the educational aspect now, it will be come non-existent later when all these guys are concentrating on marketing themselves.

 

[texascpa]

Don't know that they will have to set up pensions, but workers' compensation should cover everything, and should be a huge money maker for most of these athletes.

I would hope that instead of cowering and fear that schools like Syracuse could look at this as an opportunity should our athletes decide to unionize. If this holds, and it probably will, and if our athletes vote to unionize (which I actually don't think they will end up doing), we will be able to offer so much more than the public schools possibly could. It could be great for us long term from a win/loss perspective.

The Steelworker's Union is involved in this. We are kidding ourselves if we don't thing they haven't already started discussing going after pensions and other benefits. Being labeled as employees means the sky is the limit.

 

[texascpa]

Student-athletes have medical coverage during their time on campus. Insurance policies are usually only taken out by those with strong professional potential (Clowney, Manziel, etc). Your backup OL isn't going to be helped when they need multiple shoulder/knee surgeries 5 or 10 years after they leave college. There is no rule which forces a school to honor the scholarship of an athlete who gets injured.

This entire process is about getting athletes a voice- right now they have none. Schools control their lives -as the report yesterday showed 35-50 hours per week for athletic obligations is normal. The 20 hour rule is a joke and everyone knows that- it's just another thing to make the NCAA look like they care. Restrictions on housing/cars/class schedules exist.

This article does a very good job breaking this down without the "gloom and doom, college football is ruined"- http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...0327/ncaa-athletes-union-ruling-northwestern/

Schools control their lives, if AND only if the student wants to play football. There is not law requiring them to play. There's this perception that the kids are being forced to play. No, they made a choice to play, knowing what was required. Now they want to change the rules.

 

[texascpa]

Just listened to Tim Water, United Steelworkers Political Director, on CNBC. He didn't say much other than he thought the ruling was a no-brainer and that eventually this is going to move to state schools which are regulated by state law. He also said they are hearing from many, many student athletes from many schools. This thing is going to explode. My predictions of pensions, compensation and retiree medical coverage, as well as other benefits is going to happen. Bank on it.

 

[javadoc]

Just listened to Tim Water, United Steelworkers Political Director, on CNBC. He didn't say much other than he thought the ruling was a no-brainer and that eventually this is going to move to state schools which are regulated by state law. He also said they are hearing from many, many student athletes from many schools. This thing is going to explode. My predictions of pensions, compensation and retiree medical coverage, as well as other benefits is going to happen. Bank on it.

Very disappointing. Going to enjoy college football while I can.

 

[TerryD]

Greed by whom, though? Millions of fans love the game and want to watch the games. ESPN, ABC and CBS want to reach those fans as part of their business model. Companies want to reach those fans in order to sell their products, and will spend a lot of money to do so because they know they will get a good return on their investment. ESPN will sell those spots to those companies at a rate that ESPN will make a profit and extract as much from those companies as the companies are willing to spend. ESPN then will need to pay for the content and production of that content to continue to attract those companies, and will do so at a rate to keep other broadcasters out. The schools want to extract as much as they can to cover the costs of their product, that ESPN/ABC/CBS is willing to pay for; a product that must be more than acceptable in order for future revenues to increase to keep up with future cost increases.

So, we can call it greed, but it really stems from the fact that this brand of product (college football) has a large following that others want to engage with. This is how all competitive, "free-market" enterprise models work. Where do we cut off the greed?

I guess maybe nowhere, now including (if this stands) the players.

 

[NKR1978]

They get crumbs compared to ___________. Like most of us. That does not mean they are not fairly compensated. The vast majority of D1 athletes on full scholarships will not make it to the next level. i.e. when they enter the post-college market and shop themselves around, most don't find buyers. I think that says something about what they are worth as athletes in the market.

As for making money from their fame. They have fame, in a great part, because they play at certain schools that get a lot of exposure. Yes, those with fame are usually the better players on these teams. However, does anyone think its not a train wreck to have the famous cashing in while the others on the team get nada? And for those who poo poo the educational aspect now, it will be come non-existent later when all these guys are concentrating on marketing themselves.

I think the great thing about this is the uncertainty. You're right - one star making $200,000 in marketing money while a bench player or starter with fewer accolades gets nothing will cause problems, but the idea that problems might occur within the team does not negate the fact that right now these athletes are not allowed to profit off their own celebrity. Is there any other class of people in the world that cannot make money off of their own likeness in the way that these athletes can't?

Gordon Gee said that the BTN will make more money than God. The ACC will hopefully start a network that will get us in the neighborhood of God. At this point, the athletic departments are clearly in the business of making profits. The notion that the athletes with their forced practice time, forced workouts, study halls, meals, etc. don't meet the statutory definition of employee is just wrong.

I don't know if the athletes have considered the unintended consequences, namely taxes. If they're employees and unionize I would imagine everything they receive could theoretically be taxable. But I like the idea of schools being forced to honor scholarships so long as they are maintaining their academics, I like the idea of lifetime medical coverage for injuries suffered on behalf of their university and I like the idea of full cost of attendance scholarships. Everything else can be bargained for, and if the private schools are able to come to something that works, we will be at a great advantage until the public schools follow suit.

Not to get into politics, but given the nature of their state governments, this could hurt the SEC and other schools from conservative states. Those state governments will have a hard time swallowing the notion of creating a public employee union when they're currently trying to crush those unions. Again, call me crazy, but this could be awesome from our perspective.

 

[TerryD]

Don't know that they will have to set up pensions, but workers' compensation should cover everything, and should be a huge money maker for most of these athletes.

I would hope that instead of cowering and fear that schools like Syracuse could look at this as an opportunity should our athletes decide to unionize. If this holds, and it probably will, and if our athletes vote to unionize (which I actually don't think they will end up doing), we will be able to offer so much more than the public schools possibly could. It could be great for us long term from a win/loss perspective.

This is what Brian Kelly said a month ago in an interview about this issue and ND:




"Last thing from me. I know it's somewhat of an older issue now, but the young man at Northwestern that was trying to get the union going, did you take the temperature of your team about the issues that he wanted to express with regard to the union? Do you feel like it's something that you need to be concerned about or need to talk to your team about at Notre Dame?


COACH KELLY: I chose not to talk about it with our team. I've talked about it with our staff and certainly our administration and Jack Swarbrick, we've had a conversation about it, because it's real; it would affect, in the national labor relations board finds that private universities that student athletes are workers, it has a substantial impact.

Now, my take is, if it turns out that way, we're going to have a significant advantage over every program in the country, because I don't think we're dropping football any time soon here. So we're going to pay compensation, we're going to pay all those things; I think our scholarship stands by itself, and add that to it, I think we're in a pretty good situation.

I don't think the NCAA is going to allow that to happen. I'm sure as heck Michigan is not going to allow that to happen. I think there's so many hurdles here that I didn't think it was the time or the place to bring it up to our team, because I just think it's‑‑ there's so many hurdles there before it gets to them.

But it was a discussion that I had with our athletic director and our staff, just because if it was brought up by a parent or if it was brought up by somebody, that we were all of the same opinion; and that is, as we stand right now, we believe that the value of a degree from Notre Dame stands by itself and that that should be just compensation for the time that a student athlete gives to Notre Dame."


So, yes, private schools, if this ruling stands, may see the opposite of gleeful predictions by fans of public universities that private universities may have to drop football.

 

[xc84]

I think the great thing about this is the uncertainty. You're right - one star making $200,000 in marketing money while a bench player or starter with fewer accolades gets nothing will cause problems, but the idea that problems might occur within the team does not negate the fact that right now these athletes are not allowed to profit off their own celebrity. Is there any other class of people in the world that cannot make money off of their own likeness in the way that these athletes can't?

Ok then. I agree, let them make money off of their "likeness". Their "likeness" does not include their team uniform or affiliation with that team which is the school's. Again, without the brand affiliation, their "likeness" probably won't sell much.

It's like if you were performing for Disney, you could not just go out there independently and profit off of self-promotion while including a Disney logo along with your likeness. Disney would sue the pants off of you.

 

[Madbiker]

I can't wait for women's volleyball collective bargaining.

That would be great...except there won't be any non-revenue sports. They will all be eliminated. The additional costs would have to be covered somewhere. There's no free lunch...amazing how many people actually believe there is such a thing as a free lunch.

 

[NKR1978]

Ok then. I agree, let them make money off of their "likeness". Their "likeness" does not include their team uniform or affiliation with that team which is the school's. Again, without the brand affiliation, their "likeness" probably won't sell much.

It's like if you were performing for Disney, you could not just go out there independently and profit off of self-promotion while including a Disney logo along with your likeness. Disney would sue the pants off of you.

I'm not disagreeing at all.

Honestly, this is one of my favorite discussion posts I've seen on this board in a while. I think there are a lot of good points on all sides and everyone is being reasonable.

The more I think about it, the more I think this could be a boon to Syracuse, and the more I love it. Ultimately there will be reform that will hopefully make the system more fair to the athletes.

 

[xc84]

That would be great...except there won't be any non-revenue sports. They will all be eliminated. The additional costs would have to be covered somewhere. There's no free lunch...amazing how many people actually believe there is such a thing as a free lunch.

If there are no non-revenue sports, there will be no revenue sports given the "revenue sports" are on the men's side and there is Title IX.

 

[NKR1978]

If there are no non-revenue sports, there will be no revenue sports given the "revenue sports" are on the men's side and there is Title IX.

Does Title IX apply to employees or just to "student athletes?"

 

[Madbiker]

If there are no non-revenue sports, there will be no revenue sports given the "revenue sports" are on the men's side and there is Title IX.

Yes that would have to be worked out. Maybe the number of football schollies are reduced and an equal number of women's schollies are continued in some combination of sports. The basic point is that there would have to be a drastic reduction in non revenue sports.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I'd wager that over 95% of college athletes do not bring in more revenue than they cost the university. And of those that do, it's because they're affiliated with the university.

$40,000 per year in tuition plus tutors, food, etc. How many players are responsible for generating that much revenue for SU?

SU brings in over $50M a year in sports revenue - I don't have the number handy, but that's in the ballpark. Only 3 sports make money and one of them (lax) is minimal. So there's more to the calculation than just jersey sales.

 

[cuseincincy]

The whole college selling their likeness thing is a flawed argument. No, they are not selling your likeness, they are selling the schools licensed property that you may just happen to wear for a year or more. That doesn't really entitle you a portion of the profit. When you buy a Batman t-shirt, does Christian Bale or Ben Affleck or any of the other Batmans get a cut? Doubtful. Does only the most recent or current Batman get licensing money? No none of them do because they only play role. Thats what college athletes are doing, playing a role that existed before them and will exist after them. And in my example, all those actors are actually in a union and they still aren't entitled to a cut of the profit from that portion of income.
I can see the medical coverage thing a little bit but only for players injured in college. There should be some type of continuing coverage if they are still injured when they graduate. No graduate or no eligibility? No coverage.

 

[FAL]

I think the possibility of a new stadium being built (or even considered) in the foreseeable future is nil until this situation is resolved. Hope they put than damn IPF up quick!

 

[xc84]

Does Title IX apply to employees or just to "student athletes?"

Title IX is a law passed in 1972 that requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding.

Many people have never heard of Title IX. Most people who know about Title IX think it applies only to sports, but athletics is only one of 10 key areas addressed by the law. These areas are: Access to Higher Education, Career Education, Education for Pregnant and Parenting Students, Employment, Learning Environment, Math and Science, Sexual Harassment, Standardized Testing and Technology.

 

[xc84]

Yes that would have to be worked out. Maybe the number of football schollies are reduced and an equal number of women's schollies are continued in some combination of sports. The basic point is that there would have to be a drastic reduction in non revenue sports.

I was responding to your statement that all non-revenue sports would have to be eliminated: "there won't be any non-revenue sports. They will all be eliminated'

If so, there are no revenue sports either due to Title IX. they could not give scholarships to men in revenue sports if there were no womens' sports.