Northwestern football players win bid to unionize

[xc84]

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

Are you suggesting a state where the athletes are no longer also students?

 

[Ottoble]

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.

Syracuse has an accounting setup where at the end of the fiscal year they donate any proceeds to the university. In return the University subsidizes the budget and builds and upgrades facilities for the next year as needed, really its break even in name only especially with ACC money, back in the late years of the big east it likely was closer to actual break even. There are several athletic programs that do operate at a loss though I believe the State University of NJ was one of these for awhile (maybe not anymore) which caused a lot of controversy since the professors had a pay freeze but the athletics programs received huge subsidies.

 

[NKR1978]

Are you suggesting a state where the athletes are no longer also students?

Gut response: if they're employees, it wouldn't be an educational program. As a liberal I feel comfortable saying that conservatives will sit back and get their popcorn watching unions and feminists go at each other over this.

If athletics, particularly football/basketball, are considered a business and the athletes are employees, then I don't see how that could fall under Title IX, but who knows.

This could touch so many things and negatively affect so many people that I bet the Northwestern athletes didn't consider. Unfortunately, the NCAA is so corrupt and resistant to change that this was likely the only option the athletes have to really shake things up. You can't go after the NCAA with a scalpel. You need a sledgehammer.

 

[xc84]

Gut response: if they're employees, it wouldn't be an educational program. As a liberal I feel comfortable saying that conservatives will sit back and get their popcorn watching unions and feminists go at each other over this.

If athletics, particularly football/basketball, are considered a business and the athletes are employees, then I don't see how that could fall under Title IX, but who knows.

I agree if they are employees. But if their pay is a scholarship and dependent on being student in good standing, it's access to an educational program. If simply an employee, they can either use their pay or not to pay their tuition, or not even enroll, etc. They would basically be an employee who gets paid to play a sport. I agree that would probably not fall under Title IX. Who knows how that would affect a fan's desire to watch them play games. To me, it's not as appealing. I like the fact that athletes are students too and come away with a degree if they do things the right way. If that goes away, I am not sure I would feel the same loyalty or interest toward them. Also, I imagine if that happens, there would be even more cries of how they are exploited.

 

[tbonezone]

i'm sensing a shift to the left in the big ten conference

 

[javadoc]

I agree if they are an employee. But if their pay is a scholarship and dependent on being student in good standing, it's access to an educational program. If simply an employee, they can either use their pay or not to pay their tuition, etc. They would basically be an employee who gets paid to play a sport. I agree that would probably not fall under Title IX. Who knows how that would affect a fan's desire to watch them play games. To me, it's not as appealing.

Would all the players at all schools be represented by the same union?

What happens when one team, via one union, decides to go on strike and games are affected for opponents in other unions?

Wasn't there some scuttle about wanting multi-year scholarships as part of the new deal? Hm.

I think the athletes are getting a pretty good deal right now. If they don't like it, go somewhere else and find something to do.

 

[HtownOrange]

Syracuse has an accounting setup where at the end of the fiscal year they donate any proceeds to the university. In return the University subsidizes the budget and builds and upgrades facilities for the next year as needed, really its break even in name only especially with ACC money, back in the late years of the big east it likely was closer to actual break even. There are several athletic programs that do operate at a loss though I believe the State University of NJ was one of these for awhile (maybe not anymore) which caused a lot of controversy since the professors had a pay freeze but the athletics programs received huge subsidies.

I understand that accounting games are plated but most are to hide the fact that big state s books are putting money into sports and that the sports are not self funding.

Jersey State Beauty College had been nearly $30MM short annually with nearly $50MM last year because of one off expenses.

The majority of schools run deficits to stay in D1. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

 

[NKR1978]

I agree if they are employees. But if their pay is a scholarship and dependent on being student in good standing, it's access to an educational program. If simply an employee, they can either use their pay or not to pay their tuition, or not even enroll, etc. They would basically be an employee who gets paid to play a sport. I agree that would probably not fall under Title IX. Who knows how that would affect a fan's desire to watch them play games. To me, it's not as appealing. I like the fact that athletes are students too and come away with a degree if they do things the right way. If that goes away, I am not sure I would feel the same loyalty or interest toward them. Also, I imagine if that happens, there would be even more cries of how they are exploited.

All these issues are fascinating to me. I would think that a condition of employment would be to be enrolled in the university and remain in good academic standing. With more to lose, I can see the athletes being even more motivated to finish those four years in good academic standing. The universities could collectively bargain that they pay 1/4 of the salary at the beginning and end of each semester with the provision that the athlete only gets paid if they finish in good academic standing. The employers could wield a lot of power to help motivate the athletes.

 

[tep624]

I think the only way this floats is if title IX goes away. How can you force collegiate institutions to effectively admit an employer/employee relationship and with that revenue sharing but not allow the employer to hire/fire employees based upon profitability and return on investment? Under this model, you'd have to think that institutions would consider scholarships only for programs that are revenue generating or that provide some sort of marketing/PR benefit.

I'd think that the basis of title IX completely conflicts with this line of thinking and I'm pretty curious to see how this all shakes out.

 

[xc84]

All these issues are fascinating to me. I would think that a condition of employment would be to be enrolled in the university and remain in good academic standing. With more to lose, I can see the athletes being even more motivated to finish those four years in good academic standing. The universities could collectively bargain that they pay 1/4 of the salary at the beginning and end of each semester with the provision that the athlete only gets paid if they finish in good academic standing. The employers could wield a lot of power to help motivate the athletes.

I think if you tie it to education then you tie it to Title IX and you are required to give the ladies the same thing. Right now, that's do-able because it is tuition, room, board, books. You add salary (equal for all of course) and you break the bank.

 

[texascpa]

Brian Kelly and those that think the private schools now have an advantage did not read my post about the Steelworkers Union Political Director commenting that they have eyes on the state schools next. Any "advantage" will be short-lived.

The other thing that convinces me that this will be more than medical coverage, but actual pay is that the union is not going to continue to represent, both politically and legally, the students for free forever. They want a return on their investment. Unions get it through union dues from the employees. This is going to be huge windfall for them in union membership and union dues.

 

[CuseOnly]

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.

SU's athletic budget was around $85 million last year.

 

[CU44SE]

Havent read the thread, but if athletes want to get paid fine. But then I think they should take away the free scholarships and just give them their stipends. What I wouldnt give to have a free scholarship, Im buried in debt right now from school.

 

[CuseCrew08]

Havent read the thread, but if athletes want to get paid fine. But then I think they should take away the free scholarships and just give them their stipends. What I wouldnt give to have a free scholarship, Im buried in debt right now from school.

I am thinking like this as well. "Sure, we will give you $50,000 a year to come play for Syracuse, pretty good chunk of change right? Oh and here is your tuition/room and board bill, it is $48,000. An education from Syracuse University is not cheap!"