She argues that college athletes meet the definition of “employee” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. She also makes the argument that scholarships are not compensation for non-academic work performed by the athletes and thus should not be considered at all when determining whether or not athletes are employees.
I agree with her arguments and think that athletes should be paid wages like any other employee. Further, I think that athletes should have the right to negotiate and to bargain collectively.
If we apply those standards most student-athletes likely get fired and lose their scholarships. The “business” most of them are in loses money. The University of Houston almost certainly lost money on women’s soccer even before considering scholarships. Aside from men’s football and basketball college sports generally lose money. Outside of the major conferences the extra money from revenue sports is mostly chewed up trying to make ends meet for the non-revenue sports. If costs go up then other cuts will have to follow.
I agree with DinoR. The government puts so many limitations on the employer-employee relationship that it’s generally bad for everyone to be considered an employee. Uber is another example.
If college athletics is supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game (the usual line) then the programs should just make enough money to cover their operating costs. No need to pay coaches or execs tons of money. You know, like an ad hoc YMCA or local rec league tournament that no one cares about. For fun.
I don’t know zip about these laws, but it seems to me as a general principle that one can be a college athlete or an employee, but the two ought to be mutually exclusive.
If athletes want to be considered employees, then I seriously wonder what happens to Title IX, which requires that women’s sports be treated equally to men’s. Can one really expect to profit from one’s investment of time into sports and then expect to be immunized against the market forces of how profitable your sport are?
If student athletes are to be considered employees, I wonder if that’s a great thing for football players and a terrible thing for women’s track and field.
The first response has it right. Will Sackos be happy when her sport is dropped by nearly every university as they aren’t able to afford to pay women’s soccer players? I can’t see how Title IX still applies if athletes are paid employees.
Why wouldn’t they be able to pay the players? As the lawsuit notes, the colleges and universities find the money to pay the ticket takers, concessionaires, groundskeepers, parking lot ushers, etc. Why wouldn’t they be able to find the money to pay another few dozen players per sport?
I think the hundreds (or is it thousands?) of Uber drivers that are parties to that lawsuit might differ with you on whether or not it’s bad to be considered an employee.
Would you take a job where you had to pay for your own desk, your cubicle rental, all your utilities, your office supplies, etc. in return for access to the telephone (that you also pay for) that your clients reach you on? ETA: And then pay a fee to the company that forwards calls to your telephone?
How many ticket takers, concessionaires, groundskeepers, parking lot ushers, etc. do they pay for sports that aren’t football or basketball? Do they even sell tickets for some of the less popular sports? I’t trying to remember when I attended a college cricket match (in the U.S.), for example. I think we just wandered up to the bleachers and sat down.
No. NLRB decisions are narrow and very rarely carry precedential value. The Northwestern decision only established that football players at NW are not employees subject to the NLRA. Sackos’ case is brought under the FLSA, anyway, which the NLRB has no jurisdiction to interpret.
Yes. Because of the differing standards involved, under the NLRA you can be an “employee” permitted to organize and collectively bargain, but not be an “employee” under the FLSA entitled to overtime and the like (or vice versa).
Well, not really. As it stands, college football largely hurts football players by forcing them into an academic-tied training program that most of them are not interested in or suited for. If college football actually became an amateur sport, those who want to turn pro would be able to play in minor leagues that could actually compete for revenue. Right now they are all being squeezed out by the NFL and NCAA.
I don’t know how many of each of those are employed for any sport, exactly, but yes, anyone working the concession stand is paid. Yes, there are maintenance people for the facilities and they are paid. The coaches are paid. The administrators are paid. The trainers are paid. The janitors are paid. And all contribute to the business that is college sports.
Why shouldn’t the athletes, the primary generator of sports revenue, be paid as well?
Actually, the NLRB decision was simply a denial to assert jurisdiction. It did not refute or invalidate the finding that the NW football players are employees.
I’d be willing to bet that most college athletics programs, regardless of which particular sport, generate revenue. Some (or even most) may ultimately lose money, but profits ≠ revenue.
ETA: Note that the NCAA is an unicorporated non-profit association, with revenue in the billions of dollars per year.