Northwestern Football Ruling May Change U.S. College Sports

[SUMBA]

How many schools will drop football if this is upheld?

Gotta have a union card to carry the pigskin

 

[FAL]

Very complex issue here for sure. But why does the ruling only apply to private institutions--Syracuse, Northwestern, Duke, etc--and not the big state institutions--PedState, 'Bama, OSU, etc? A little clarification by some of our law scholars out there would be appreciated.

 

[upperdeck]

I suspect it will be a long time thru many appeals before anything can happen with this

 

[City of Cuse]

No lawyer, but I heard it is because non private universities are under state law so it would have to be approved on a state by state basis.

 

[McNabb2Brominski]

Do these players realize that once they're considered "employees" of the university, their $50k-75k/year scholarships are going to be taxed?

 

[xc84]

Maybe this is why Miner but up her stadium roadblock.

 

[longtimefan]

Do these players realize that once they're considered "employees" of the university, their $50k-75k/year scholarships are going to be taxed?

If they tax the players, the colleges will also be subject to taxation.

I think the question of salaries is not of immediate concern. Workmen's Comp is the real issue.

 

[xc84]

If they tax the players, the colleges will also be subject to taxation.

I think the question of salaries is not of immediate concern. Workmen's Comp is the real issue.

Why is that? Employees of universities are subject to income tax already. Why would calling football players "employees" change the tax-exempt status of the university?

 

[HtownOrange]

If they tax the players, the colleges will also be subject to taxation.

I think the question of salaries is not of immediate concern. Workmen's Comp is the real issue.

Salaries and wages of a non-proof it are taxable, a CPA can better explain this. However, the nonprofit does not lose its tax exempt status. Every employee at SU pays income and other taxes.

As to the Workers Compensation issue, this is a minimal issue to drive a wedge into the system. Everything becomes part of the negotiating if one party wants it in the agreement. Wages/other forms of financial remuneration will be in there.

 

[blizz]

Do these players realize that once they're considered "employees" of the university, their $50k-75k/year scholarships are going to be taxed?

If they tax the players, the colleges will also be subject to taxation.

I think the question of salaries is not of immediate concern. Workmen's Comp is the real issue.

The whole thing is a mess. I started to reply to you guys but I'd much rather save you the dissertation.

Basically everyone is screwed if this is upheld. What is scholarship and what is compensation becomes a mess. And then Universities and the NCAA are going to have a hell of a time defending the notion that athletics are a core activity and not unrelated business activity which is taxable.

I applaud the players for pushing the envelope on this issue but I don't see how this is upheld in the long run.

 

[All4SU]

If this holds up, Title IX is obsolete.

 

[FAL]

No lawyer, but I heard it is because non private universities are under state law so it would have to be approved on a state by state basis.

Thanks for the reply, but I'm still confused--not hard for me. But what the hell is the difference state-by-state whether you are a private or a state university? One set of rules for private and another set for state run institutions? Makes no sense to me--but then again, that's why we have lawyers.

 

[CuseOnly]

If this holds up, Title IX is obsolete.

I was thinking that myself...if all college athletes are paid employees based on athletics as a profit center. Why keep non-profitable athletics around, especially Olympic sports.

This could cripple our Olympic teams and lead to the disbanding or "firing" of all female sports altogether.

 

[rundeal]

There was a great article in The Atlantic a few years back entitled The Shame of College Sports

If you don't read the whole article (it's rather lengthy -- but worth the read), the excerpt below highlights the primary issue:

“We crafted the term student-athlete,” Walter Byers himself wrote, “and soon it was embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations.” The term came into play in the 1950s, when the widow of Ray Dennison, who had died from a head injury received while playing football in Colorado for the Fort Lewis A&M Aggies, filed for workmen’s-compensation death benefits. Did his football scholarship make the fatal collision a “work-related” accident? Was he a school employee, like his peers who worked part-time as teaching assistants and bookstore cashiers? Or was he a fluke victim of extracurricular pursuits? Given the hundreds of incapacitating injuries to college athletes each year, the answers to these questions had enormous consequences. The Colorado Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the school’s contention that he was not eligible for benefits, since the college was “not in the football business.”

The term student-athlete was deliberately ambiguous. College players were not students at play (which might understate their athletic obligations), nor were they just athletes in college (which might imply they were professionals). That they were high-performance athletes meant they could be forgiven for not meeting the academic standards of their peers; that they were students meant they did not have to be compensated, ever, for anything more than the cost of their studies. Student-athlete became the NCAA’s signature term, repeated constantly in and out of courtrooms.

Using the “student-athlete” defense, colleges have compiled a string of victories in liability cases. On the afternoon of October 26, 1974, the Texas Christian University Horned Frogs were playing the Alabama Crimson Tide in Birmingham, Alabama. Kent Waldrep, a TCU running back, carried the ball on a “Red Right 28” sweep toward the Crimson Tide’s sideline, where he was met by a swarm of tacklers. When Waldrep regained consciousness, Bear Bryant, the storied Crimson Tide coach, was standing over his hospital bed. “It was like talking to God, if you’re a young football player,” Waldrep recalled.

Waldrep was paralyzed: he had lost all movement and feeling below his neck. After nine months of paying his medical bills, Texas Christian refused to pay any more, so the Waldrep family coped for years on dwindling charity.

Through the 1990s, from his wheelchair, Waldrep pressed a lawsuit for workers’ compensation. (He also, through heroic rehabilitation efforts, recovered feeling in his arms, and eventually learned to drive a specially rigged van. “I can brush my teeth,” he told me last year, “but I still need help to bathe and dress.”) His attorneys haggled with TCU and the state worker-compensation fund over what constituted employment. Clearly, TCU had provided football players with equipment for the job, as a typical employer would—but did the university pay wages, withhold income taxes on his financial aid, or control work conditions and performance? The appeals court finally rejected Waldrep’s claim in June of 2000, ruling that he was not an employee because he had not paid taxes on financial aid that he could have kept even if he quit football. (Waldrep told me school officials “said they recruited me as a student, not an athlete,” which he says was absurd.)

The long saga vindicated the power of the NCAA’s “student-athlete” formulation as a shield, and the organization continues to invoke it as both a legalistic defense and a noble ideal. Indeed, such is the term’s rhetorical power that it is increasingly used as a sort of reflexive mantra against charges of rabid hypocrisy.

 

[javadoc]

There was a great article in The Atlantic a few years back entitled The Shame of College Sports

If you don't read the whole article (it's rather lengthy -- but worth the read), the excerpt below highlights the primary issue:

The last highlit section, dealing with taxation, is an issue that the players need to keep in mind.

 

[longtimefan]

The last highlit section, dealing with taxation, is an issue that the players need to keep in mind.

Would he have kept his financial aid even if he had quit football?

 

[javadoc]

Would he have kept his financial aid even if he had quit football?

That would depend on the terms of any new collective bargaining agreement. I presume that even if they implemented multi-year scholarships, those would be conditional on remaining in the sports program in good standing.

Except when players decided to go on strike, miss an entire year of sports, but keep going to class.

 

[xc84]

There was a great article in The Atlantic a few years back entitled The Shame of College Sports

If you don't read the whole article (it's rather lengthy -- but worth the read), the excerpt below highlights the primary issue:

Ok...so make the colleges responsible for treatment injuries... e.g. keep paying for medical insurance. I am not sure workers comp. is appropriate. It ignores the fact that athletes choose their sports and they choose to participate. No one makes them do this. They like do it. It's that way for athletes on scholarships and even more for those who are not. If it applies to all athletes, then it will even include D3 athletes who face the same risks but get no scholarships. I don't see a reason why rules like this would not apply to all athletes if the rule is implemented. Essentially, that will the be end of college sports. I imagine some will say good riddance.

 

[longtimefan]

That would depend on the terms of any new collective bargaining agreement. I presume that even if they implemented multi-year scholarships, those would be conditional on remaining in the sports program in good standing.

Except when players decided to go on strike, miss an entire year of sports, but keep going to class.

I'm not talking about some future world, in which college athletes have been determined to be employees. Rather, the specific case of Waldrep, the paralyzed TCU player. Would he have been allowed to keep his scholarship if he had quit before being injured?

 

[longtimefan]

Ok...so make the colleges responsible for treatment injuries... e.g. keep paying for medical insurance. I am not sure workers comp. is appropriate. It ignores the fact that athletes choose their sports and they choose to participate. No one makes them do this. They like do it. It's that way for athletes on scholarships and even more for those who are not. If it applies to all athletes, then it will even include D3 athletes who face the same risks but get no scholarships. I don't see a reason why rules like this would not apply to all athletes if the rule is implemented. Essentially, that will the be end of college sports. I imagine some will say good riddance.

Does this mean that the athlete should, alone, shoulder the burden of risk, none of it shared by the entities--colleges, conferences, NCAA--that sponsor the athletic activities?

 

[xc84]

Does this mean that the athlete should, alone, shoulder the burden of risk, none of it shared by the entities--colleges, conferences, NCAA--that sponsor the athletic activities?

Read my post again. I said the insurance should be continued (paid by the college) until the medical condition is cleared up.

 

[xc84]

I'm not talking about some future world, in which college athletes have been determined to be employees. Rather, the specific case of Waldrep, the paralyzed TCU player. Would he have been allowed to keep his scholarship if he had quit before being injured?

Apparently he could have according to the proof of the ruling.

 

[longtimefan]

Read my post again. I said the insurance should be continued (paid by the college) until the medical condition is cleared up.

Perhaps I am confused by the antecedent of "it", as in "If it applies to all athletes. . ." If you are referring to medical insurance, as opposed to worker's comp, the implication is that carrying insurance that would be continued for the length of the medical condition would be the end of college athletics. And, as you're on a sports board, I expect you would be against that, and thus against the expansion of the insurance coverage requirement.

 

[longtimefan]

Apparently he could have according to the proof of the ruling.

Not talking about the NLRB ruling. I speak of the situation in 1974, when the player was paralyzed. And, actually of the present day also, as there is a distinct possibility that the recent ruling will never be affirmed or implemented.

 

[xc84]

Not talking about the NLRB ruling. I speak of the situation in 1974, when the player was paralyzed. And, actually of the present day also, as there is a distinct possibility that the recent ruling will never be affirmed or implemented.

Yes, the court ruling you posted said he could have kept his aid back in 1974. "ruling that he was not an employee because he had not paid taxes on financial aid that he could have kept even if he quit football"