Are we assuming that the NFL would have to do away with their 3-year rule?
Why is that? Honest question.
If I’m following your thought processes here, and I’m not sure that I do, then your concern is that NFL teams might change their draft rules and draft the rights of underclassmen? Underclassmen who would remain in school after being drafted?
I think the NFL draft is another abortion of a practice that needs to be abolished and I hadn’t thought of things the NFL might do but I fail to see why this would be a particularly big concern. One kid on the team may be getting a stipend from the Packers, another from the Ravens, a third from the Cowboys, and so on. As long as they’re not getting paid by gamblers to throw games, I don’t really care who gives them money. Boy Scouts can give up picking trash along highways and “Adopt a Tennessee Player” instead if they want.
What’s the problem here, how much they might make?
This assumes two things will happen: (1) O’Bannon will lose the court case and the status quo is retained and (2) if No. 1 happens, that will be the end of it.
The first could happen, the NCAA and its members have lots of friends in Congress and will pressure them into a sweet exemption of some kind even if it loses. But sometimes the courts still do the right thing and protect the rights of individuals, even if they are individuals who are destined to become millionaires anyway.
But no way the second event happens. Does anyone really think that the athletes will just roll over and concede defeat should the NCAA win? They will never accept a ruling of that sort and there will be plenty of people urging them on (public opinion is shifting rapidly on this as it is on bigger social issues). The next thing they’ll do is a form of civil disobedience, where thousands of football and basketball players announce that they’ll be holding an autograph signing session at the local Piggly Wiggly, $1 a pop. And what will the NCAA do if that happens? Eh? EH?
Big news, apparently one of the assertations made by the NCAA in court is that they do not profit from the player image, the value is in the team product. Fast forward to yesterday, and Jay Bilas tweeted a bunch of screen shots from the NCAA store, showing that you could search for a particular player, and be returned an appropriate jersey, correct team and number and nickname.
In response the NCAA first disabled their search function, then shut down the store entirely.
More here. I wonder if this will impact anything about the case.
Ummm…that all happened about three weeks ago. The article you linked to is dated August 6th.
oops…
The second barrel of the shotgun pointed at the NCAA was loaded yesterday when Northwestern football players announced plans to form a players union.
I believe this puts the schools in an even more precarious position. If the players win certification of their union and gain employee status, they will earn a seat at the table when tv rights are negotiated and they will be able to forcefully demand that opportunities to earn other professional income not jeopardize their eligibility.
However, if the players are not recognized as employees, then the courts will raise the question of why the schools are allowed to control the athletes’ time and cap their incomes in the manner that they do – since they’re not employees. That’s a rare Catch 22 that might work in favor of the players. If they’re not employees, then they must be students and accorded the same rights as every other student enrolled at the school.
This kind of systemic disruption to college sports really entertains me.
This is really a settled issue. I’ll pull the case when I get home.
I just read thru the whole thread and want to say thanks to those who presented their opinions and views last year; the thread is interesting and touches on many points of law and American values.
Also, I found this story from December 2013 that is relevant:
Two potentially game-changing developments in O’Bannon vs. NCAA
I’ll try and sum up the article:
#1. Judge Wilken denied the O’Bannon suit the right to sue for damages on behalf of all college athletes. The article speculates that this could be a good thing for the individual plaintiffs, as they could coordinate their case-filing to kind of overload the court systems, and they will prolly have a better chance of winning their cases, since it will remove the potential argument that lesser-known players gained more than they might have lost, which would hurt the plaintiffs arguments.
#2. Efforts to start a trade association for college athletes are underway, and this could seriously change the financial aspect of college athletics.
Then they break down three things that are potential factors/outcomes of having a CBU (collective bargaining unit) involved. #1 seems ludicrous and I can’t see any court in the nation agreeing with the NCAA. #2 & #3 seem less outlandish but I doubt that either problem would be insurmountable.
Here’s the thing tho: you also received compensation not only in the form of monetary compensation, but also access to retirement benefit programs, health insurance, worker’s compensation, OSHA laws, etc. Frankly, I’m not sure any of those things, including OSHA laws, apply to college athletes. Your attempt to draw an analogy between being an employee and the status of college athletes isn’t valid because the college athletes aren’t, AFAIK, employees in any sense of the word.
Red-I have ZERO problem with student-athletes having parttime jobs in the off-season. But they are NOT employees, they are students!
Nitpick: OSHA compliance and workers’ compensation are not “compensation” for employment, as a matter of law.
They enter an agreement to perform specific duties for the school in exchange for compensation from the school.
I don’t think they are, either. But the ensuing conclusion I draw is, because they’re not employees, that colleges have even less rights to control their incomes and outside behaviors wrt eligibility. Instead, they’re students participating in a school activity like every other student participating in a school activity and the college has no right to place greater restrictions on one group than the other.
Failing to win the right to unionize because they’re not employees opens up a whole new line of attack for the players, IMO. If it’s been determined that star RB is not your employee, Mr. Athletic Director, what gives you the right to tell star RB that he may not engage in legal economic activity with anyone he so chooses?
Under that reasoning, any scholarship recipient is an employee.
You could argue that. Of course, non-athletic scholarship recipients aren’t specifically barred from accepting gifts, nor are they prevented from discussing their futures with agents, nor are they prevented from accepting paying jobs, nor do their duties drive direct revenues for the school.
They are treated like customers who get a big discount. Athletes are treated like employees who are paid in scholarship instead of money.
All true, and well argued.
Yes, I know. I’m sorry I phrased it badly, but as an employee, these are things that apply. As a contractor, which AFAICT is the status that college athletes may enjoy, neither necessarily applies.
True, but it’s not like OSHA is the only body which regulates safety. Collegiate athletics programs must comply with stringent safety standards imposed at the state level, and are liable in tort (unlike employers) for injuries on the field.
Agreed! If a superstar player wants to sell his autograph or game worn jersey, yeah capitalism!