Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Crusty, post: 911193, member: 2265"]
Thanks. I guess this is the sentence:
[INDENT]"Further, the decision precedent would also apply only to private colleges. Athletes at state universities are subject to state laws, and 24 of them do not support unions."[/INDENT]

Since there are 24 right-to-work states it appears that he is referencing Taft Hartley.

That simply means that the union could not be a closed shop. As a practical matter this union only needs the minimum number and the most important athletes who presumable have the most to gain by joining. I am not sure that Taft-Hartley will save public universities in this matter.

The SCOTUS has already decided that the predominant job situs controls the state law that applies. This applies to the NFL players union. You don't see anybody opting out of that union and I doubt the college players would be any different.

Looming in the background is, of course, the Anti-Trust issue. Schools recruit across state lines, have broadcast contacts and conference affiliations that also cross state line so it is clearly interstate commerce. The power grab by the P5 is going to expose them to adverse politics by the have-nots which are more numerous than the haves.

I just don't see how the NCAA/P5 paradigm is going to survive unscathed and unchanged over the next decade.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?