Here’s the one that really got me. Remember this whenever you hear the term “Student-Athlete”.The shysters. :dubious:
The NCAA Invented The Term Student-Athlete To Get Out Of Paying Worker’s Comp
The contract is with the NCAA, not with the member schools. The NCAA does not employ the students in any way.
Of course, a large chunk of that money does go to the schools (and note that Division I Men’s Basketball is the only NCAA-run tournament where the NCAA doesn’t keep all of the TV contract money). Insert my usual comment about the schools having to worry about paying the football/men’s basketball players without running headfirst into Title IX here.
I guess it’s possible that this will be a problem, but when the NLRB decided that the players were employees, and could therefore unionize, the decision was explicitly based on an evaluation of the recruiting system, the training schedules of the players, the financial motivations of the schools in putting the team together, and the balance between the sporting activities and the academic activities of the players.
If sports other than football and basketball (whether men’s or women’s) have the same combination of factors, then the students in those sports should be considered employees also. If other sports don’t meet those same criteria, then the students aren’t employees. In principle, at least, it seems reasonably straightforward. A Division 1A (or whatever the top level is called) football player is probably an employee; a Division 3 baseball or softball player probably isn’t. As in many other areas of law, though, there will likely be borderline cases that are harder to evaluate.
O’Bannon is arguing that the athletes’ likenesses have been sold without their permission, or at least their permission without benefit of competent advice and competing offers. It’s a strong argument if you think college athletes should have the same rights as every other citizen, not so much if you think they’re in a “special class” that gives everything away by accepting a scholarship. A scholarship that, by a miracle of circumstance, is the top of the market according to all of the schools.
This past Monday I heard an 18 minute interview with Mark Emmert, the Commissioner of the NCAA Monday morning on the Dan Patrick Show (Dan Patrick interviewing) and it was difficult listening to the telling pauses, the twists and turns the NCAA commissioner took to explaining that it is OK for Johnny Manziel to not own his face while trying not to say that it is OK for Johnny Manziel to not own his face. I think at one time Dan says (paraphrased) “But you’re born with your face. How is it not yours?”
At one time, Dan Patrick asks him a question and, after a five second pause, Emmert responds “I’m going to leave it up to you to answer that question.”
It’s hard to accept the “student athlete” myth any more, and to me Mr. Emmert sounds like a man who knows in his heart-of-hearts that he is fighting a losing cause. While I don’t think unionization and employment is the way to go, a system where a player was guaranteed a 4.5 year scholarship regardless of his experiences on the field and where players get health insurance for 5 years after school (or until covered by a comparable employer plan) strikes me as more fair than one where the “paid for education” is yanked away because of injury or, worse, the player just sucks.
Suppose an athlete does own the rights to his own face. Then a booster can offer a top recruit $100,000 for those rights on the condition that the recruit play at his alma mater. The NCAA doesn’t want there to be any financial incentives either by the colleges or by boosters to attract recruits.
whoa, that’s like 25 grand a year. Let’s make it rain!
If the rules for recruiting and governing scholarship athletes are more or less eliminated, then much of the NCAA’s reason for existence is, too.
The schools’ resistance is a little more reasonable, imho. They fear an arms race in which the competitive balance gap grows even wider (with a resulting loss of revenues for those who fall further behind) and a diversion of booster money from the schools directly to the athletes. But while those are understandable objections, they are simply not reason enough to deny what more and more people see as a student’s fundamental economic liberties.
It has become ingrained in us over the decades to see booster money given to athletes as something tawdry and unbecoming to an institution of higher learning. But I think we’ll see things differently in a few short years and that everything Reggie Bush did at USC will seem perfectly acceptable instead of “cheating.”
Every time one of the NCAA reps, especially Emmert, makes any public pronouncement on this issue, they just end up making themselves and their cause look worse. I listened to that interview a couple of days ago, and Emmert’s contortions were truly pathetic to behold.
I think the most hilarious thing is the way he trumpets the provision of health insurance as some fantastic benefit. As the folks at Deadspin noted, football programs provide health insurance to players not out of some sense of obligation to the players themselves, but “for the same reason they keep the bolts tightened and the gears greased down at the cracker factory.”
I think that there are a variety of ways that this could be settled, but the absolute, bottom-line minimum for me would be:
[ol]
[li]scholarship guaranteed for the duration of the degree, whether or not the player remains on the team[/li][li]health insurance guaranteed for the duration of the degree, whether or not the player remains on the team[/li][li]players allowed to take regular employment to supplement their income[/li][li]players get a cut of the income from using their likenesses on merchandise, video games, etc. while they are in college[/li][li]the right to use player likenesses on merchandise, video games, etc., reverts to players themselves once they leave college, and the NCAA has to ask players’ permission, and negotiate royalties, for such use[/li][/ol]
I’d modify your second bullet to include insurance for life for any health-related problems that have a nontrivial connection to their history as a ‘student-athlete,’ unless they go on to play their sport professionally for at least as much playing time as they experienced in college (at which point primary responsibility should lie with the professional league).
I’d be completely on-board with that. My list was intended as an absolute minimum, starting point.
Oh, this is fine I think. I’m sure music students will love the fact that this will open things up for them to get paid for marching band and pep band services, including non-athletic appearances like parades.
It’s a slippery slope…
It’s a slippery slope if you haven’t read anything about the NLRB decision, and if you don’t know anything at all about the reasoning behind that decision.
It’s a slippery slope if you’re content to post in ignorance about the differences between college football and college band.
As i said in an earlier post, and as has been explained very clearly in a bunch of news articles about this issue, when the NLRB decided that the players were employees, and could therefore unionize, the decision was explicitly based on an evaluation of the recruiting system, the training schedules of the players, the financial motivations of the schools in putting the team together, and the balance between the sporting activities and the academic activities of the players.
Perhaps you could enlighten us about the ways in which the recruitment and scholarships and practices of music students at a typical university.
Are music students actively and openly recruited for the specific purpose of playing music, with no attention paid to their scholarly abilities?
Are music students recruited primarily to ensure financial gain for the university?
Are music students provided scholarships that are contingent only upon their musical abilities, and that are withdrawn if the student quits the band?
Are music students required to practice their instruments up to 60 hours a week, and expected to prioritize band over their classes in all cases where the two might conflict?
Are music students prohibited from taking ANY outside employment, whether related to their musical abilities or not, on pain of losing their scholarship?
Are music students’ names and likenesses used on merchandise that makes millions of dollars for the universities?
And are they given waivers to come aboard anyway, even if they scored a 800 combined SAT and had a 2.1 GPA at a school that requires non-musicians to score at least a 1,200 and with a 3.4+ GPA?
Before I overreact, what is the slippery slope leading to that concerns you?
I’m still fighting in my own head on this. I can imagine scenarios where unionized student athletes can make things worse, but I’m it’s hard to argue that the students aren’t getting shafted now.
I do want to clarify your proposal, are you saying an athlete can sign up, go to practice one day, quit and still get a full scholarship and health insurance for the next 4 years?
What makes you think they can’t do that already?
Or let me simplify that for you — they already can do that. The difference is, of course, that school bands don’t generate a lot of revenue, so there’s nothing for them to strike over.
On the other hand, there’s nothing preventing a school band member from taking a paying job, either as a musician or something else. And the NCAA is certainly not colluding to limit his or her options.
I too believe your proposal is a reasonable alternative to “unionization”.
Unionization might be the best – perhaps sole – path to that result. Why shouldn’t they try it? Every other professional team sport is unionized. That’s how they get the result.
Acsenray-These are amateurs!!! IMO, these changes should be part of the terms of their scholarship.