College football if O'Bannon wins the lawsuit

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

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.

That’s interesting; I did not know that. Which agencies are responsible for drawing up and enforcing the safety standards at state levels? And does the tort extend to training, transit to and from games, etc. or is it just to injuries on the field?

I ask because my perception has been that colleges and universities are under little or no legal obligation regarding the safety or healthcare of their athletes. Numerous news stories over the past decade or so have given me this impression. A quick google for “college athlete injury” includes these on the first page, for instance:

'I Trusted ‘Em’: When NCAA Schools Abandon Their Injured Athletes

College Athletes Stuck With the Bill After Injuries

For college scholarship athletes, injury can spell financial disaster

If these athletes were employees, they would at least have a shot at being covered under worker’s comp laws and if their injury occurred because of shoddy and dangerous practices, OSHA could step in.

And that’s why I’m curious about what regulations and protections are in place at the state level; AFAIK there really aren’t any. It seems that this is due to my ignorance rather than a lack of regs, so I look forward to your info.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@etv78

Agreed! If a superstar player wants to sell his autograph or game worn jersey, yeah capitalism!

Well, not the jersey, since that likely belongs to the school.

[Red_Wiggler]

@Snowboarder_Bo

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.

All during this process I have been wondering what defense the NCAA intends to mount and the SI.com story in the link points to what I consider a fairly weak strategy. The NCAA says that the abolition of strict amateurism “would damage and possibly destroy fan interest in college sports.”

And what proof do they offer for this prediction? Why, sworn statements from college presidents, conference commissioners and athletic directors attesting that they* believe this is what will happen!*

That one is not as far out there as the NCAA’s ludicrous First Amendment reach but it’s pretty funny when you think about it.

Don’t we have something similar on this board, “my post is my cite” or something like that?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Red_Wiggler

All during this process I have been wondering what defense the NCAA intends to mount and the SI.com story in the link points to what I consider a fairly weak strategy. The NCAA says that the abolition of strict amateurism “would damage and possibly destroy fan interest in college sports.”

And what proof do they offer for this prediction? Why, sworn statements from college presidents, conference commissioners and athletic directors attesting that they* believe this is what will happen!*

That one is not as far out there as the NCAA’s ludicrous First Amendment reach but it’s pretty funny when you think about it.

Don’t we have something similar on this board, “my post is my cite” or something like that?

Aye, I think that’s a ridiculous argument too, since we could make similar arguments about all kinds of things:

“Banning slavery would make it harder to produce the goods we sell and drive up prices, which would be bad for consumers.”

“Restricting children from employment will hurt families’ bottom line.”

Really the list of such arguments would be both endless and baseless (and wholly repugnant, IMO).

[Zakalwe]

Wow. I had forgotten about this thread.

To all concerned,

While I still have concerns about the overall impact on an institution that I thoroughly enjoy (specifically college football), I have come to conclusion that I was wrong. It has become apparent to me that the NCAA and its member institutions are modern day robber-barons. The amount of money involved has simply become too large to justify the use of unpaid and unprotected labor. A scholarship to get a degree is a lofty ideal and may benefit some cases, but it’s hardly sufficient considering the largess that showers down due to these kids’ abilities and sacrifices.

What needs to happen is that the entire package needs to be revisited with a balance of compensation (including that scholarship) and a recognition of the school’s long-term responsibility to those athletes harmed in the school’s service.

[Red_Wiggler]

Yesterday Judge Claudia Wilken denied both parties’ request for summary judgment, pretty much guaranteeing that the case is going to trial in June.

She was not very friendly to the NCAA’s arguments about paid athletes adversely affecting the competitive environment of college sports, suggesting instead that “Maybe you could enforce more competitive balance by having coaches’ salaries addressed.” The NCAA actually tried to impose salary limitations on assistant coaches a few years back but the schools were successfully sued by the coaches and the rule overturned. Ironic if that decision plays into this one.

Nor was she very amenable to the NCAA’s talk of the importance of amateurism to its system. More precisely, “I don’t think amateurism is going to be a useful word here.” Which sounds to me like she has already accepted that scholarship athletes are treated differently than other students (and citizens) and has decided to make the schools defend their practices. The schools were hoping instead for O’Bannon’s team to have to prove their case.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140220/ed-obannon-lawsuit-proceeds-to-trial/index.html

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I wouldn’t put a great deal of weight into the proceedings at the trial level. The (stupid) amateurism argument has worked fine for the NCAA before every federal appellate court to date.

Which agencies are responsible for drawing up and enforcing the safety standards at state levels?

Depends on the state. In some cases, it’s the universities themselves, in others, the Department of Education or subdivisions like boards of regents.

And does the tort extend to training, transit to and from games, etc. or is it just to injuries on the field?

It extends to any injury resulting from the college’s negligence. The tricky part is proving that the college was negligent, but it does happen.

[HubZilla]

I always hear how the players bring in zillions and don’t see a penny… but do they?

1. Not all athletic departments bring in money. Locally, the Univ of Hawaii’s AD is in the red, even after a write-off by the Chancellor. I imagine they have the same fate as over half the football programs out there. They certainly can’t afford to pay like Texas and Nebraska.
2. When players/teams go on probation, it’s usually for things like cars, homes, jewelry, or high-end tattoos. I’m fairly certain the NCAA won’t pay off enough to purchase those items. They don’t go on probation for taking a few hundred to help out Mom’s rent.
3. Players in other sports practice just as much as football players, and even play more games. Those sports (aside from mens hoops) don’t bring in money. Where will you get the money to pay them?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

You don’t have to pay them. All the NCAA has to do is allow college athletes to accept benefits from boosters and the problem is solved. The only casualty would be the fiction of amateurism that the NCAA still desperately clings to regarding major football and basketball programs.

[Red_Wiggler]

Once again, for people new to the thread, O’Bannon’s suit is not about colleges paying athletes (unless you count a share of the tv revenues as pay by the colleges). It’s about athletes being allowed to market themselves individually without endangering their eligibility to compete.

The colleges are attempting to make the argument that college football’s best interests (which rides on the shoulders of the “amateur” model) trumps the students’ rights to the greatest individual gain they can negotiate. So far, Judge Wilkin has not been the least bit sympathetic to the schools’ contention that fans will only support college teams if they believe that the athletes are not being compensated beyond a scholarship. Worse (for supporters of the status quo), she doesn’t give the impression that she cares if it’s true or not.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Depends on the state. In some cases, it’s the universities themselves, in others, the Department of Education or subdivisions like boards of regents.

Ok well, if it’s the universities themselves, that’s not “at the state level”. And I’m unaware of any state DoE safety regulations that would even come close to something like OSHA regs.

I appreciate your reply, but it doesn’t do much to alleviate my impression that there really aren’t any safety regs for these athletes beyond the most vague “don’t kill them or purposely harm them”.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It extends to any injury resulting from the college’s negligence. The tricky part is proving that the college was negligent, but it does happen.

It looks like it does happen, but it doesn’t hurt all that much in the end: [Cite:

A Florida appeal court released rulings in the Ereck Plancher case on Friday, reducing the amount in damages that must be paid in the Ereck Plancher wrongful death case from $10 million to $200,000.

The trial court initially ruled that the UCF Athletics Association was a private corporation not subject to special protections for state agencies capping the amount of liability for the March 2008 death of a football player whose distress was ignored and who was prevented from receiving aid, according to the jury.

That decision was appealed, and Friday’s ruling means that damages are capped at $200,000 instead of UCF having to pay he award at trial which was $10 million.
The court wrote, in part, that the UCF Athletics Association “is wholly controlled by and intertwined with UCF, in that UCF created it, funded it and can dissolve it, in addition to oversee its day-to-day operations.”

Additionally, the court reversed awarding the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees of $1,897,720 and costs of $524,931.22. The ruling means that the UCF Athletics Association will not have to pay these costs.

](Appeal Court Overturns $10M Ruling in UCF, Ereck Plancher Case — KnightNews.com)
I do note that the judge still gave UCF a bunch of shit for Plancher’s death and that the Planchers are appealing the decision, but still, being held accountable for basically the same amount as his tuition, room & board is a pretty soft slap on the wrist for UCF. Imagine if this was a real football powerhouse school; I know FSU could afford to pay that as easily as I can buy a gumball. Oh, and negating the attorney’s fees essentially means that the Planchers are on the hook for about $2.4 million. Hopefully they have decent people representing them and the fees will be reduced or waived; otherwise it’s likely that the entire award will go to the lawyers, leaving the Planchers even worse off than they were with just losing their son.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

The latest development: Northwestern University football players can unionize, says the Feds.

Not much info at that link yet, so I’ll look around for other stories about this.

ETA: Chicago Tribune article.

[wolfman]

Interesting.
I wonder if as employees they will have to pay income taxes on their “compensation”. Tuition and room and board at Northwestern is around 60k, which is a pretty good hit.

[etv78]

@HubZilla

I always hear how the players bring in zillions and don’t see a penny… but do they?

1. Not all athletic departments bring in money. Locally, the Univ of Hawaii’s AD is in the red, even after a write-off by the Chancellor. I imagine they have the same fate as over half the football programs out there. They certainly can’t afford to pay like Texas and Nebraska.
2. When players/teams go on probation, it’s usually for things like cars, homes, jewelry, or high-end tattoos. I’m fairly certain the NCAA won’t pay off enough to purchase those items. They don’t go on probation for taking a few hundred to help out Mom’s rent.
3. Players in other sports practice just as much as football players, and even play more games. Those sports (aside from mens hoops) don’t bring in money. Where will you get the money to pay them?

Precisely!!! Which is why I think it’s TERRIBLE they’ve won union rights! Sends terrible message. Athletics is a privilige, not a right!

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Lemme just get this outta the way: I asked a mod to merge PastTense’s new thread about NWU football players winning the right to form a CBU since the topic is already under discussion here.

The AP story I linked to earlier has plenty of content now, including this gem from the NCAA:

In a written statement, the NCAA said it was disappointed with the NLRB decision.

“We strongly disagree with the notion that student-athletes are employees,” the NCAA said. “We frequently hear from student-athletes, across all sports, that they participate to enhance their overall college experience and for the love of their sport, not to be paid.”

Is that hilarious or what?

[etv78]

No, not at all! Why do you find it “hilarious”?

[Enginerd]

Because, at least for football and men’s basketball, it’s patently false.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Because so many of the people who play sports in college wouldn’t be in college if they didn’t play sports.

I keep trying to come up with a good analogy to illustrate how stupid the NCAA’s statement is, but coming up with an analogous situation is more difficult than I initially thought it would be. It would be like saying that astronauts find that being able to withstand G-forces and having the ability to function in zero-G really enhances the “astronaut experience”… an experience they wouldn’t have were it not for the skills and abilities they possess, which caused their employer to seek them out to perform a specific set of tasks. Much like athletes are sought out for their athleticism, not for their academic inclinations. They are in college to play sports, not playing sports because they happen to find themselves in college.

[Carmady]

Some numbers from an NCAA report:

FBS: The median negative net generated revenue for all schools,
representing expenses in excess of generated revenues, moved from
$10,164,000 in 2009 to $9,446,000 in 2010.

FCS: The median negative net generated revenue, representing expenses
in excess of generated revenues moved from $7,121,000 in 2006 to
$7,441,000 in 2007, $7,937,000 in 2008, $8,643,000 in 2009 and
$9,189,000 in 2010.

According to the report the median school was losing about 10 million a year on athletics in 2010.

Sports is also an inherently dangerous business. A school could splurge on an expensive coach and players, but still wind up not being good, losing a huge amount of money in excess of the usual loss. That kind of gamble is fine for a professional team, but not for an educational institution using student fees.

At the same time, it is blatantly unfair for schools to exploit the most profitable athletes (more than half of FBS football programs do make money), and also unfair in my opinion for professional leagues to have college requirements (let the individual teams decide if they want to hire someone).

What it really comes down to is that big business college sports are, as notfrommensa said, a house of cards. There may well be no solution because the fundamental concept is flawed. Students should not be paying more for athletes who already cost the school millions. Schools should not be gambling on sports with the students’ money. Athletes should not be essentially forced into college and then denied the opportunity to profit from their skills. But where does that leave us? Throwing the whole thing out. Junior leagues, which won’t have this problem partially because they will be much, much less popular in the first place.

[Rick_Kitchen]

Is this the end of college sports? Will all collegiate athletes be able to unionize now? Will they have to garner salaries as well as, or in place of scholarships?