Well, the Olympics let athletes make whatever they could from their fame and abilities and they’ve hardly been harmed (financially, at least) by the change.
For your second question, it’s my understanding that only the athletes at private colleges (of which there are 17 playing major college football) or in union states (24 aren’t) can organize. Which leads to the previously discussed hilarious scenario of the powerhouses in right-to-work states being outrecruited by traditional doormats like Northwestern and Tulane who can pay their players (of course, there’s still that pesky old NCAA for them to deal with but more on that later).
Finally, compensation can only be collectively bargained. Just because you can collectively bargain doesn’t mean you’re going to win the negotiation.
Interesting times. And this may only be the tip of the iceberg with the O’Bannon trial scheduled to begin in June and the even more potentially damaging Kessler lawsuit just beginning its process through the system.
As “employees”, student/employee athletes should now be held responsible for paying for their own education.
They should also be expected to pay taxes on any and all compensation/gifts they receive from their school and alumni. Cars, bar tabs, pocket money, defense attorneys, hookers, drugs, etc. (The IRS will be more than happy to see to that.)
School employees/athletes should now also be able to change “jobs” at any time. This team sucks. That team is going to a bowl game. I’m offering my services to any team going to a bowl game. Or maybe I’ll turn pro tomorrow? Why take a chance of getting hurt in the big televised games?
Just curious about this, as I’ve seen this brought up a couple of times around the internet. Well, isn’t that of course what would happen if they’re employees? Is anyone suggesting they don’t pay taxes if they’re classified and paid as employees or independent contractors? I really don’t think the Northwestern kids are stupid enough not to realize the tax liability involved.
Why should they be taxed on gifts from alumni (assuming they are under the gift tax exemption)? Their employers will be their schools, not anyone anywhere who gives them stuff.
I missed the alumni part in the quoted sentence. Yeah, actually, that’s a good point. Gift tax is supposed to be paid by the donor, and there’s a lifetime exemption, currently, of over $5 million, I believe. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a bit more subtlety to it than that, though, so I’ll let a financial professional fill that in.
I don’t have any idea how ignorant/knowledgeable university/college employee/athletes are about tax law. I’ve worked with Northwestern graduates who were absolutely brilliant in their field but couldn’t manage to drive a car in rush hour traffic. Athletes aren’t chosen because they are CPA’s.
I went there, and (in my opinion) the students tend to be of the business-minded overachiever type, rather than the more theoretical abstract theoretical thinker type (although you get all kinds, of course. I’m painting with a very broad brush.) Regardless of what I think or don’t think the student-athlete population’s common sense intelligence level is, I’d be stunned if the financial and tax implications were not discussed at some point when deciding on whether to go ahead with a lawsuit or not.
Assume they are over the gift exemption. This is a relatively new application but I assume most existing tax law will apply. Maybe an alumni will be able to rewrite the tax law at some point?
I wonder if NFL, MLB, NBA teams will eventually stop saying - AND NOW. STARTING AS LEFT DEFENSIVE TACKLE/POINT GUARD/LEFT FIELD. FROM COMANAWANNA LEI U. BIG BAD BOB BECKEL. (the crowd goes wild). And start saying - AND NOW. FROM CWA LOCAL 5050. YOUR STARTING QUARTERBACK. JIMMY HOFFA! (yay!)
Then the donor is supposed to pay the taxes, not the person receiving the gift. (Although I believe there are provisions where the IRS could go after the giftee if the donor does not pay their taxes although, once again, any professionals chime in here?)
That’s fine with me. I personally don’t see why college affiliation should even be mentioned at the professional level, but I understand the economics behind desiring to do so.
University of Miami
Notre Dame
Stanford
Southern Methodist
Rutgers
Boston College
Temple
Rice
Wake Forest
Duke
Baylor
Texas Christian
Texas Tech
All of those, and many others, are private schools with popular and/or top-ranked football teams, in addition to teams in other sports.
This ruling affects prolly close to 50% of the major sports schools, so effects are going to be felt within every conference and region. Public schools aren’t affected directly, but I suspect that the number and quality of people who would accept a scholarship to a public school, knowing that the union contracts with private schools will get them at least the same quality education, but now they’ll also be able to afford a place to live and a car and clothes and whatever else they can buy with the salary that the union is able to negotiate with the employer(s)… well, I don’t think the public schools would be able to compete and would soon offer similar conditions to their players. Ya know, kinda like how it happened in various industries back in the 20th century in America with other types of work and unions.
I think that’s the full list of 17. You could make a halfway decent football conference out of that bunch, especially if they were all unionized and the alumni were coughing up some sweet stipends for the players. If the NCAA kicked them out, some nice TV network would pay a few shekels to televise the games. And if you were a 5-star recruit in the Deep South, all of a sudden Wake Forest and its $30,000 annual stipend measures up pretty nicely against what Alabama offers.
