Straight Dope Message Board

[Snowboarder Bo]

Samantha Sackos played soccer at the University of Houston. She has filed a lawsuit seeking restituition for unpaid wages, listing the NCAA and every signatory school at defendants (PDF!).

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.

Anyone disagree? Why? 1

[DinoR]

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. 2

[ITR champion]

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. 3

[marshmallow]

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. 4

[Ravenman]

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. 5

[Barkis is Willin']

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. 6

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin'

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? 7

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

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.

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? 8

[SpoilerVirgin]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

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?

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. 9

[Ruken]

Didn't the NRLB resolve this last week with the Northwestern decision? 10

[Really Not All That Bright]

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. 11

[Thudlow Boink]

If college athletes are employees of the college, are high school athletes employees of the high school?

Are college students who participate in other extracurricular activities also employees? 12

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

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.

Great, thanks. I see NW was an organizing question. 13

[Really Not All That Bright]

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).

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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.

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. 14

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by SpoilerVirgin

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.

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? 15

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

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.

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. 16

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

... the business that is college sports.

Why shouldn't the athletes, the primary generator of sports revenue, be paid as well?

In college sports as in so many other things, what you see on TV is not a complete reflection of reality.

Many college sports programs don't generate revenue. And I'm not so sure any of them should. 17

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

In college sports as in so many other things, what you see on TV is not a complete reflection of reality.

Many college sports programs don't generate revenue. And I'm not so sure any of them should.

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. 18

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Why shouldn't the athletes, the primary generator of sports revenue, be paid as well?

The athletes are paying for a service that the school provides. Customers typically don't get paid by the service provider. 19

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Ruken

The athletes are paying for a service that the school provides. Customers typically don't get paid by the service provider.

What service is that? 20

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

What service is that?

Playing on a sports team, among others. I've paid to play on sports teams too, but not in college. 21

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Ruken

Playing on a sports team, among others. I've paid to play on sports teams too, but not in college.

No, the players do not pay to be on a sports team. Do you have a cite to back up that assertion? 22

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by Ruken

I've paid to play on sports teams too, but not in college.

I take that back; I'd blocked out my brief soccer misadventure. Which I certainly paid for with my tuition money just like the majority of student athletes do. 23

[Robert163]

Originally Posted by DinoR

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.

Spoken like a true capitalist! 24

[Robert163]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

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?

It's a paradox, no? If all the people you mentioned are getting paid, then certainly the people, the players, the ones who actually "sell" tickets and popcorn, should get paid too. But, can girls soccer really sell enough tickets? Or, do they give those tickets away for free? 25

[Robert163]

I don't think they should be paid. But, I think they should have a cap of 20 hours a week, including game time and travel, beyond that, they are students and need to study/go to class. IDK about a girls soccer team at a medium sized college, how much time that takes up, but here is the approximate schedule for a top level college football team:

5:30 AM- Wake Up
6 AM- 8AM Weight Training
8 AM - Breakfast
9 AM, 10AM, 11AM class
12 Noon Lunch
1 PM to 6 PM practice (includes reviewing films, meetings with coaches, studying play book, and, practice)
6:15 PM Dinner
7 PM 8 PM 9 PM - study hall
10 PM Bed

that's 7 hours a day being an "athlete"
times 5 days a week is 35 hours
plus
travel time and game time

so basically it is a 40+ hour a week job
20 hours would be much more reasonable 26

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Robert163

It's a paradox, no? If all the people you mentioned are getting paid, then certainly the people, the players, the ones who actually "sell" tickets and popcorn, should get paid too. But, can girls soccer really sell enough tickets? Or, do they give those tickets away for free?

If they can't sell enough tickets, then they shouldn't be in the business of fielding a team. Why should professional sports be any different than any other business or industry?

ETA: Heading off the inevitable: how exactly is college athletics not professional sports? 27

[Robert163]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

If they can't sell enough tickets, then they shouldn't be in the business of fielding a team. Why should professional sports be any different than any other business or industry?

ETA: Heading off the inevitable: how exactly is college athletics not professional sports?

Then you are essentially dooming half the college sports programs to non existence.... I think it is better to provide an outlet for them to play, without pay, on a scholarship but limited to 20 hours a week. And to answer your question, they would be unpaid employees but I see no way around it.

Personally, I see no merit/value to at all to college sports. Playing basketball, volleyball or football has 0% to do with becoming an accountant or a civil engineer. I just know lots of people will want to keep going in their sport after high school is over. If that can be done at under 20 hours a week then I'm ok with it. 28

[Snowboarder Bo]

Well, that's a pertinent point, Robert: why in the world are college sports a thing at all? And why were they allowed to become what they are?

In our nominally capitalist society, does anyone really think they exist as they are for the benefit of the athletes?

For the record I have no problem with dooming even 100% of college sports, just as I have no problem with the country dooming cotton operations enabled by slavery.

An unethical business has no place in this world, IMO. 29

[madsircool]

Since students study hard to raise the academic reputation of universities, they should also get paid a proportion of grants, gifts and tuition that their studying generate. Lets also charge student athletes for training tables, medical care and private tutoring they receive. While we are at it, all volunteerism should be paid.

The foolishness of this suggestion is underscored by the fact that the majority of sport revenue comes from the involuntary payment of media subscribers like you and me, most who never watch. The collapse of the cable/satellite industries will sort this out. 30

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Well, that's a pertinent point, Robert: why in the world are college sports a thing at all? And why were they allowed to become what they are?

In our nominally capitalist society, does anyone really think they exist as they are for the benefit of the athletes?

For the record I have no problem with dooming even 100% of college sports, just as I have no problem with the country dooming cotton operations enabled by slavery.

An unethical business has no place in this world, IMO.

Because they raise money for other students. Your analogy is insane. 31

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by madsircool

Since students study hard to raise the academic reputation of universities, they should also get paid a proportion of grants, gifts and tuition that their studying generate. Lets also charge student athletes for training tables, medical care and private tutoring they receive. While we are at it, all volunteerism should be paid.

The foolishness of this suggestion is underscored by the fact that the majority of sport revenue comes from the involuntary payment of media subscribers like you and me, most who never watch. The collapse of the cable/satellite industries will sort this out.

The lawsuit specifically calls out that scholarships do not constitute payment for non-academic work and should not have any bearing on determining whether or not athletes are due at least a minimum wage for the work they do in their athletic endeavours. 32

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

The lawsuit specifically calls out that scholarships do not constitute payment for non-academic work and should not have any bearing on determining whether or not athletes are due at least a minimum wage for the work they do in their athletic endeavours.

Some doofus lawyer can call out whatever he or she wants. These students get to go to school free if they participate in a sport. No one forces them. 33

[madsircool]

BTW..SB seems to forget about the rsidual economic benefits of college athletics. At UCLA they are constructing new bb and fb training facilities that will likely run 100 mil. This benefits local contracters and construction workers and the gov gets to tax tix and media revenue. A win for all. 34

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by madsircool

BTW..SB seems to forget about the rsidual economic benefits of college athletics. At UCLA they are constructing new bb and fb training facilities that will likely run 100 mil. This benefits local contracters and construction workers and the gov gets to tax tix and media revenue. A win for all.

A win for all except the athletes, you mean.

ETA: You can call me Bo; it's my name. 35

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by madsircool

Some doofus lawyer can call out whatever he or she wants. These students get to go to school free if they participate in a sport. No one forces them.

A person who is awarded an academic scholarship is still paid for work they do that directly benefits the learning institution, even if it's a work-study job. Why shouldn't athletes be paid for their non-academic work?

From the lawsuit:

5. Student athletes engage in non-academic performance for no academic credit in athletic competition representing NCAA Division I Member Schools. By comparison to student participants in work study part-time employment programs, student athletes perform longer, more rigorous hours – nearer full-time as reported in the NCAA Growth, Opportunities, Aspirations and Learning of Students (GOALS) Study (2010);2 are subject to stricter, more exacting supervision by full-time staff of NCAA Division I Member Schools, e.g., coaches and NCAA compliance officers; and confer as many, if not more, tangible and intangible benefits on NCAA Division I Member Schools.

36

[madsircool]

Snowboarder Bo...what if we called these athletes interns? 37

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by madsircool

Some doofus lawyer can call out whatever he or she wants. These students get to go to school free if they participate in a sport. No one forces them.

I was gonna miss the edit window, but this isn't some lawyer's pipe dream; it comes directly fromt he NCAA's bylaws, as the lawsuit indicates:

9. Scholarships granted by NCAA Division I Member Schools to some student athletes, pursuant to NCAA bylaws, are not compensation for non-academic performance by student athletes because, among other things:
(i) scholarships are grants-in-aid and generally not treated as taxable income – to a student athlete, or to any student granted any scholarship;
(ii) scholarships are not offered, as a full or partial grant, to every student athlete engaged in non-academic performance; 4
(iii) scholarships are granted to defray the academic cost of attendance and facilitate maintenance of academic eligibility,5 including, among other things, full-time enrollment,6 and progress-toward degree requirements; 7
(iv) scholarship funds are not fungible, and cannot be granted for, or spent on, items other than the academic cost of attendance,8 as is generally the case for any scholarship granted to any student;
(v) scholarships cannot be reduced or cancelled on the basis of athletics ability or performance, nor because of injury or physical condition;9
(vi) scholarships can only be reduced or cancelled if the recipient becomes academically ineligible, engages in fraud or serious misconduct, or withdraws from the program to which the scholarship applies,10 as is generally the case for any scholarship granted to any student; and
(vii) any scholarship granted to any student, who also participates in work study, does not relieve the college employer from the obligation to pay at least the federal minimum-wage rate for non-academic performance in work study.

38

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

A win for all except the athletes, you mean.

ETA: You can call me Bo; it's my name.

No one forces them to go to school and I'll need a picture ID. 39

[PhillyGuy]

Originally Posted by DinoR

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.

True:
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Page...Cash-Cow2.aspx

For almost every other university, sports is a money-losing proposition. Only big-time college football has a chance of generating enough net revenue to cover not only its own costs but those of “Olympic” sports like field hockey, gymnastics, and swimming. Not even men’s basketball at places like Duke University or the University of Kansas can generate enough revenue to make programs profitable.

They waste millions on sports while often, even generally, paying college instructors much less than high school teachers:

http://www.buffalonews.com/business/...-jobs-20140414

Originally Posted by DinoR

If we apply those standards most student-athletes likely get fired and lose their scholarships.

I hope you are right. Then there will be more for scholarships overall.

State school leadership would probably tell me that without student/athlete entertainers, the legislature will reduce financial support. But cuts in state support for higher education are already happening at such a rapid rate that government support is only a small portion of most of these schools' income. I know there is also risk of decline in alumni contributions if sports are ended. But surely there are other alumni who would step up if their Alma mater stopped exploiting student labor. At least, I hope so. 40

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy

They waste millions on sports while often, even generally, paying college instructors much less than high school teachers:

You are refering to part time profs who work maybe a quarter of the hours of a high school teacher. And high school teachers cant gain tenure. 41

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by Robert163

Then you are essentially dooming half the college sports programs to non existence.

Not necessarily. We could scrap athletic scholarships and make everyone pay tuition (which most student athletes already do) then pay them minimum wage. You mentioned capping athletic activities to 20 h/w. 20 h/w * 40 w * $7.25/h = $5800, which is around the average per-athlete scholarship value if we include the hundreds of thousand of student athletes who are already paying tuition to play sports. So it comes out a wash, on average. YMMV when it comes to specific programs. 42

[Chronos]

Quoth madsircool:

Because they raise money for other students. Your analogy is insane.

If that were the case, then why does nearly every college in the country charge its students (all of them, not just the ones on the sports teams) an athletics fee? We're told that the athletics fee is necessary to support the athletics program, because it's not profitable, and then we're told that we have to have an athletic program, because it's so profitable. Just get rid of it all, or at least scale it back to a level that can be self-supporting. 43

[PhillyGuy]

Originally Posted by madsircool

You are refering to part time profs who work maybe a quarter of the hours of a high school teacher.

Where did you get that hours count?

Originally Posted by madsircool

And high school teachers cant gain tenure.

It depends where you live. See:

http://thehiddencostsoftenure.com/st...play&id=266539 44

[Saint Cad]

I know I'm an outlier but I think that athletes in the sports that actually make money like football and basketball get paid by the exposure they get to the professional leagues. Sure Podunk State University doesn't pay them but the do get paid when they sign their contract. If those athletes don't like the system, then don't play NCAA or NAIA sports and then try to get drafted.

For the other sports, ummmm ... they're not making money. The athletes get paid by having to opportunity to play a sport funded by the big money-makers (see above). 45

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

I know I'm an outlier but I think that athletes in the sports that actually make money like football and basketball get paid by the exposure they get to the professional leagues. Sure Podunk State University doesn't pay them but the do get paid when they sign their contract. If those athletes don't like the system, then don't play NCAA or NAIA sports and then try to get drafted.

For the other sports, ummmm ... they're not making money. The athletes get paid by having to opportunity to play a sport funded by the big money-makers (see above).

What about the other 98%+ of college athletes that do not play professionally after college? 46

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by madsircool

And high school teachers cant gain tenure.

Depends on the state/district. I still have my tenure from LAUSD although I havn't taught there in almost a decade. 47

[Enginerd]

Originally Posted by Ruken

Not necessarily. We could scrap athletic scholarships and make everyone pay tuition (which most student athletes already do) then pay them minimum wage. You mentioned capping athletic activities to 20 h/w. 20 h/w * 40 w * $7.25/h = $5800, which is around the average per-athlete scholarship value if we include the hundreds of thousand of student athletes who are already paying tuition to play sports. So it comes out a wash, on average. YMMV when it comes to specific programs.

What I'd like to see is for DI schools to spin off their big-budget football and basketball programs into separate (probably non-profit) corporations. Negotiate a licensing fee for using the school's name - this is the money that can support Title IX activities and the rest of the athletic department. The athletes who play for those teams become employees of that corporation; the corp leases the stadium, training facilities, etc. from the school. As a non-profit, the corp can still accept tax-deductible booster contributions, but its finances would exist separately and independently of the university's.

Those schools that adopted this structure could then form an NCAA-equivalent that could collectively bargain with their employees. Just like any other league, that CBA could include drug testing, salary caps, a fine/suspension/sanction structure, etc. The only thing it couldn't do is "compensate" the athletes with $60,000 worth of something they really didn't want in the first place.

Not all schools would go this route, obviously, but that's a feature rather than a bug. It means you have evenly matched teams playing against one another - Ohio State can't pad their schedule with a game against the Little Sisters of the Poor, because LSOP opted out of the paid athlete system. Athletes who want to attend college and play football go to schools that haven't set up those professional organizations; athletes who are going to college only as a stepping stone to the pros sign with the schools that have them. Everybody gets what they want out of the deal.

Originally Posted by madsircool

You are refering to part time profs who work maybe a quarter of the hours of a high school teacher. And high school teachers cant gain tenure.

Those part-time professors (and a lot of full time instructors) aren't eligible for tenure; high school teachers in many states are eligible for teunure, although it's a different kind of tenure than university faculty may have.. 48

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

What about the other 98%+ of college athletes that do not play professionally after college?

Again limiting it to sports that make money, they are playing to expose themselves for the chance to play professionally. No different than me starting a new business and working for free to get some exposure and references. If it doesn't turn into new jobs should I claim I was an employee because my plan didn't work out like I planned?

What I would like answered is what is the mindset for someone who knows the system and chooses to play women's lacrosse or men's water polo and THEN say they were taken advantage of. It's different when you have to work unpaid through breaks a la Walmart or hourly employees being classified as exempt to avoid paying overtime. Those workers are being taken advantage of after the fact. 49

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Depends on the state/district. I still have my tenure from LAUSD although I havn't taught there in almost a decade.

TY to you and the others who have educated me and fought ignorance. 50