The future of Division I sports

[ottodaorange]

It's a good read regardless of which side of the fence you are on. I think it is more relevant to football than basketball so I posted it here.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/student-athlete-mythncaacollegesports.html

 

[RCDICK44]

It's a good read regardless of which side of the fence you are on. I think it is more relevant to football than basketball so I posted it here.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/student-athlete-mythncaacollegesports.html

If the division 1 college players decide to form a union and demand stipends what's to stop the federal government from deciding that all their scholarships and stipends become taxable income.??They might be opening a can of worms.

 

[ottodaorange]

If the division 1 college players decide to form a union and demand stipends what's to stop the federal government from deciding that all their scholarships and stipends become taxable income.??They might be opening a can of worms.

I'm not an attorney, but I suspect that it will be seen as taxable income by the IRS since it will be some form of unionization with collective bargaining rights. I don't see how this can be viewed as anything other than income from work, which I believe meets the definition of taxable income. However, it is moot since, as the article says, it will mean the end of major college sports as we know it, and quite possibly the end, period!

 

[Hoo's That]

If the division 1 college players decide to form a union and demand stipends what's to stop the federal government from deciding that all their scholarships and stipends become taxable income.??They might be opening a can of worms.

I'm not an attorney, but I suspect that it will be seen as taxable income by the IRS since it will be some form of unionization with collective bargaining rights. I don't see how this can be viewed as anything other than income from work, which I believe meets the definition of taxable income. However, it is moot since, as the article says, it will mean the end of major college sports as we know it, and quite possibly the end, period!

I believe I read on another board that the parts of any type of scholarship that pay for tuition, fees, room, board, and books are not taxable under the current law (i.e., it specifically states scholarships are not taxable rather than having it be someone's interpretation of the tax law). If the NCAA does allow stipends in the future, I would assume the tax situation would be the same as academics who now get stipends as part of their scholarships/fellowships. If in the future someone at IRS said the scholarship is now income from working for the school, I'm sure that the defense argument would be that it's really the same as employer-paid/-reimbursed educational expenses that many companies offer as a benefit. I'll defer to a tax attorney regarding the tax status for that situation.

 

[CU44SE]

People wont like this take, but the players have a choice to go to college or not just like everyone else in the world. If they dont value a free education costing roughly a hundred thousand dollars or want to play college without getting paid then dont go to college. Obviously this is more feasible for college basketball players, but there are leagues all over the world they can go play and get paid while they wait to become eligible. No one is demanding them to play college basketball, its their own choice.

 

[HtownOrange]

I believe I read on another board that the parts of any type of scholarship that pay for tuition, fees, room, board, and books are not taxable under the current law (i.e., it specifically states scholarships are not taxable rather than having it be someone's interpretation of the tax law). If the NCAA does allow stipends in the future, I would assume the tax situation would be the same as academics who now get stipends as part of their scholarships/fellowships. If in the future someone at IRS said the scholarship is now income from working for the school, I'm sure that the defense argument would be that it's really the same as employer-paid/-reimbursed educational expenses that many companies offer as a benefit. I'll defer to a tax attorney regarding the tax status for that situation.

I am NOT a tax attorney but I offer this argument, if the student athletes are represented by a labor union then what they receive in return for their labor is a form of remuneration and thus it is taxable.

The kids are much better off working out a deal for a better stipend under the auspices of the NCAA than to jeopardize the free ride.

 

[Full_Rebar]

I believe the Northwestern group and the NCPA group working with them want to get the NCAA to come to the table. The Northwestern group wasn't looking for pay for play as a priority, but from Emmert's (and others) comments this weekend, they are going to push forward the separate rules for the P5 including the "Cost of Attendance" stipend. You would think that a group of incredibly education college presidents would realize that spending millions in litigation instead of giving students a voice in their treatment would be the right choice.

Of course the NCAA folks used the typical "this would ruin college athletics" and "what about the gymnastics team- do they get paid" arguments at the same time saying the Final 4 will never move back to an arena because of the lost ticket sales. Blow it up. Let schools decide if they want to play on the big boy/big girl level.

I mean if this is accurate, how can schools continue to claim that it's "amateur sports"...

Alabama's athletic revenues last year (143 million) exceeded all 30 NHL teams and 25/30 NBA teams (via @AP)

 

[texascpa]

People wont like this take, but the players have a choice to go to college or not just like everyone else in the world. If they dont value a free education costing roughly a hundred thousand dollars or want to play college without getting paid then dont go to college. Obviously this is more feasible for college basketball players, but there are leagues all over the world they can go play and get paid while they wait to become eligible. No one is demanding them to play college basketball, its their own choice.

Not only do I like this, I love it. I have been making the same point since the beginning.

Lately, I've been wondering if this issue trickles down to High Schools. They have adults (18 year olds) playing and many schools down here in Texas make millions off of radio, tv, merchandising and ticket sales, as well there are some high-paid coaches. I don't see how the same argument doesn't apply to high school football players.

 

[retro44]

I believe I read on another board that the parts of any type of scholarship that pay for tuition, fees, room, board, and books are not taxable under the current law (i.e., it specifically states scholarships are not taxable rather than having it be someone's interpretation of the tax law). If the NCAA does allow stipends in the future, I would assume the tax situation would be the same as academics who now get stipends as part of their scholarships/fellowships. If in the future someone at IRS said the scholarship is now income from working for the school, I'm sure that the defense argument would be that it's really the same as employer-paid/-reimbursed educational expenses that many companies offer as a benefit. I'll defer to a tax attorney regarding the tax status for that situation.

I think the ruling that allows them to unionize changes everything,plus I believe the benefits can outway the pay package that some schools charge as tuition.

The tax codes would be all over the place from state to state. The courts would all be clogged up with some very valid challenges and others would be off the wall nuts.

Then if Emmert caves into the power conferences I would not to want to be in the NCAA shoes or be in the power conferences as all documents would have to be released in discovery that pertains to this issue.

 

[javadoc]

I am NOT a tax attorney but I offer this argument, if the student athletes are represented by a labor union then what they receive in return for their labor is a form of remuneration and thus it is taxable.

The kids are much better off working out a deal for a better stipend under the auspices of the NCAA than to jeopardize the free ride.

If I recall, there had to be some manner of determination by the NLRB board that the athletes do qualify as employees, at least enough so that they fall within collective bargaining provisions.

So how many hours do they "work"? What is considered their salary - only the stipend? Tuition? Room & board? I wonder if there is any problem with minimum wage laws, if they try to treat only the stipend as taxable. Would a typical stipend represent at least minimum wage for the number of hours that athletes "work"?

 

[HtownOrange]

If I recall, there had to be some manner of determination by the NLRB board that the athletes do qualify as employees, at least enough so that they fall within collective bargaining provisions.

So how many hours do they "work"? What is considered their salary - only the stipend? Tuition? Room & board? I wonder if there is any problem with minimum wage laws, if they try to treat only the stipend as taxable. Would a typical stipend represent at least minimum wage for the number of hours that athletes "work"?

If the IRS has a say in it, every penny the student receives will be taxable: tuition, room, board, medical, stipend, gear buying necessary uniforms plus any cut from jersey sales and such as proposed by speculators.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Not only do I like this, I love it. I have been making the same point since the beginning.

Lately, I've been wondering if this issue trickles down to High Schools. They have adults (18 year olds) playing and many schools down here in Texas make millions off of radio, tv, merchandising and ticket sales, as well there are some high-paid coaches. I don't see how the same argument doesn't apply to high school football players.

One difference is that going to HS is mandatory.