# Resolved: College athletes are employees (Sackos v. NCAA) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734 "2015-09-02T19:34:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/81 "2015-09-03T18:42:12Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > Perhaps she would have a better case if there was evidence of collusion among all the nation’s employers offering jobs in the field of “women’s college soccer player.” Evidence? The schools openly collude on limiting compensation to “women’s college soccer players”. They have an entire rulebook defining what each school is and isn’t allowed to offer the players for compensation. If a school gives a player too much compensation, there’s an investigation and the school is punished for the infraction. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/82 "2015-09-03T18:44:57Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > I mean, that’s pretty much what happens now in football and basketball. It’s just covered by a paper-thin fig leaf of “amateurism.” Not in the way I’m suggesting. If you want to play football for THE Ohio State University, you have to be an Ohio State student. If the team’s football players are employees, maybe John Smith, McDonald’s burger flipper, could be Ohio State’s next starting quarterback without ever becoming a college student. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/83 "2015-09-03T18:46:24Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > If the sport doesn’t bring $$$ to the school then it is 100% for the athletes own benifit So if a sport rakes in only $100 in gross (not net) ticket sales, is the sport not for the athlete’s benefit? ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/84 "2015-09-03T18:48:21Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > And if this wins, how does it apply to the sports teams of the Service Academies? In exchange for 4 years of school, room & board they owe 4 years of military service. Do the sports players get extra years of service, or reduced years in exchange for income? If they are injured, do they go out on a military disability plan? > > Either way - if you want to completely change university sports - this is how you do it. The schools will dump the teams, put them into separate farm league corporations, license their name, and look away. College teams will revert to the club style, and athletics will be disconnected for the majority of schools and sports teams (such as women’s soccer). This might be a good thing in the long run. > > Top schools that fill large stadiums will be fine, but the rest will just dump their teams due to an inability to pay and recruit. Lots of kids want to play college football. Exhibit: the 300+ schools in Division III. Just because a school can’t match dollars with U of Texas petrodollars doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for football on campus. I’m not particularly a fan of the sport and several mid-sized schools have already decided that life goes on quite nicely without a football program. My boss here at my DIII employer started the football program a short while back because it attracts paying students. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/85 "2015-09-03T18:55:49Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Evidence? The schools openly collude on limiting compensation to “women’s college soccer players”. They have an entire rulebook defining what each school is and isn’t allowed to offer the players for compensation. If a school gives a player too much compensation, there’s an investigation and the school is punished for the infraction. Yes, technically the whole scam is collusion and a windmill I need no urging at which to tilt. But whereas it’s a relevant form of collusion in the revenue sports, it’s not particularly an issue if there is no one chomping at the bit to pay more than a scholly to women’s soccer players. Now, maybe there is and all of the booster payment scandals in women’s college soccer have heretofore been successfully hushed up but I think it more likely that no one really cares all that much to “cheat.” ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/86 "2015-09-03T19:03:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Okay, so does that mean that athletes in popular sports, like football and basketball, are doing it for the benefit of the university; but athletes in sports that don’t have TV contracts or sell lots of tickets, like maybe field hockey or something, are doing it for themselves? I’m thinking of it more from the other side. The school isn’t paying a coach millions of dollars a year or building a 100,000 seat stadium because of the impact the activity has on 50 football players. It’s for the school, the alumni, the TV money. OTOH, Div III basketball played at the Gym with 50 students in attendance, is arguably as much for the benefit of the players as it is for the school as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/87 "2015-09-03T19:05:20Z")
> [@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. The way it applies to the rest of the university - nothing about Title IX is limited to athletics. If you pay a female employee less than a male employee, there’s a case for sex discrimination. (“But the men are better football players than the women!” “That’s why things like Affirmative Action exist in the first place - if the women are capable of playing football, you have to hire some, even if you can find men that can do it better.”) Meanwhile, most schools won’t drop women’s soccer for one very simple reason; every Division 1 school must have at least seven women’s sports, or they don’t get any of the Division 1 football or basketball TV money. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/88 "2015-09-03T19:12:05Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I’m thinking of it more from the other side. The school isn’t paying a coach millions of dollars a year or building a 100,000 seat stadium because of the impact the activity has on 50 football players. It’s for the school, the alumni, the TV money. OTOH, Div III basketball played at the Gym with 50 students in attendance, is arguably as much for the benefit of the players as it is for the school as a whole. Okay, so let’s walk down that line of thinking. Does that mean that student athletes in unpopular sports, whether the coach may make $50,000 instead of millions, are not employees because the students are doing it for their own benefit? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/89 "2015-09-03T19:13:45Z")
More than just the money, schools need to be forced to treat their students better by allowing students to have choices and options that are normal with other, non-sport scholarships. I’ve heard that schools can prevent a player from transferring to play at another school. That’s bullshit, if a chem major wants to leave one school for another one, no one bats an eye. It should be the same if Ohio State’s star quarterback wants to go to Michigan to play. No restrictions, just transfer and that’s it. I’d also eliminate the ability for coaches to simply cancel someone’s scholarship by cutting them. If the school promised a scholarship, then the kid should get the full amount unless he breaks the law or something. I’ll admit to some ignorance of how scholarships work, but I don’t believe there’s much precedence of schools cutting academic scholarships and switching out a math guy for a better math guy. ---
**Author:** ![Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barkis_is_Willin)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/90 "2015-09-03T19:19:14Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > I did specifically call for a licensing agreement between the universities and the sports corporations. It would have to include not just the logos and trademarks, but a cut of merchandise, broadcasting rights, etc., as well as rental of facilities and equipment. It would be huge agreement - it’s not like the schools would be just giving away their moneymakers for nothing. > > I mean, I’m 100% sure it’ll never happen either, but it’s not going to fail on that basis. It just seems to me like a workable plan that would (again, IMO) result in a much more equitable (from both the players’ standpoint and a competitive balance perspective) system. What you’re proposing is a professional minor league football organization that is only very loosely tied to universities. Those ties would sever soon enough and the universities would be shit outta luck. That’s why they’d never do it. ---
**Author:** ![Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barkis_is_Willin)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/91 "2015-09-03T19:27:30Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > The way it applies to the rest of the university - nothing about Title IX is limited to athletics. If you pay a female employee less than a male employee, there’s a case for sex discrimination. (“But the men are better football players than the women!” “That’s why things like Affirmative Action exist in the first place - if the women are capable of playing football, you have to hire some, even if you can find men that can do it better.”) > > Meanwhile, most schools won’t drop women’s soccer for one very simple reason; every Division 1 school must have at least seven women’s sports, or they don’t get any of the Division 1 football or basketball TV money. Title IX applies to educational activities, which currently includes sports. If the athletes are employees, they should be treated like other student employees. There are student employees working in the cafeterias, the library, etc. and Title IX does not dictate that a certain percentage of them be women. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/92 "2015-09-03T19:32:40Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I’d also eliminate the ability for coaches to simply cancel someone’s scholarship by cutting them. If the school promised a scholarship, then the kid should get the full amount unless he breaks the law or something. I’ll admit to some ignorance of how scholarships work, but I don’t believe there’s much precedence of schools cutting academic scholarships and switching out a math guy for a better math guy. Well, athletic scholarships are on a year-by-year basis and that’s clearly spelled out up front. The problem is the student’s can’t negotiate for a guaranteed scholarship because the NCAA prohibits it. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/93 "2015-09-03T19:32:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Okay, so let’s walk down that line of thinking. Does that mean that student athletes in unpopular sports, whether the coach may make $50,000 instead of millions, are not employees because the students are doing it for their own benefit? I would say they are employees if they are getting a scholarship that calls for them to participate in the sport in order to receive the scholarship. If there’s no scholarship then it’s just an activity that the school makes available to hem. But just because I may label them an employee does not automatically mean that they are underpaid. In some instances, an athletic scholarship may comprise an overpayment in and of itself. In the case of an Ohio State tackle, his scholarship may render him seriously underpaid if that is all the remuneration he is allowed. Hence Kessler. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/94 "2015-09-03T19:56:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Okay, so let’s walk down that line of thinking. Does that mean that student athletes in unpopular sports, whether the coach may make $50,000 instead of millions, are not employees because the students are doing it for their own benefit? At least in relation to the linked guidelines, it’s arguable that the unpopular sport is conducted primarily for the benefit of the participants, rather than primarily for the benefit of the institution, since the institution gains so little from it. But again, it’s not about why the student is doing it\*, it’s about why the institution is conducting the activity. If the school sets up the activity in order to benefit the school directly, it’s work. If the school sets up the activity to benefit the participants (as part of a well rounded education), it’s not work. \*I assume the student does it for their own benefit, regardless of whether it’s Div 1 football or competitive basket weaving. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/95 "2015-09-03T20:12:59Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > But again, it’s not about why the student is doing it\*, it’s about why the institution is conducting the activity. If the school sets up the activity in order to benefit the school directly, it’s work. If the school sets up the activity to benefit the participants (as part of a well rounded education), it’s not work. How can one establish whether a sport is created to benefit the school rather than the student? Under your scheme, is it possible that, say, Stanford established its football program primarily for the benefit of the students, but Oklahoma State established its football program primarily to benefit the university? Aside from my opinion that you’re reading the regulations wrong, you’re headed down a road that makes the inequities among college students worse, not better. If all or some college athletes are to be paid wages, it’s got to come out of someone’s pocket, and my guess is that tuition will probably go up. Great, now smart kids are taking out student loans so football players can be paid to go lift weights at 6am. And for the university that hires a distinguished professor who makes his students work hard and study all night? Well, those students have to pay for the honor of all that schoolwork. That’s fucked up. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/96 "2015-09-03T20:19:52Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > More than just the money, schools need to be forced to treat their students better by allowing students to have choices and options that are normal with other, non-sport scholarships. I’ve heard that schools can prevent a player from transferring to play at another school. That’s bullshit, if a chem major wants to leave one school for another one, no one bats an eye. It should be the same if Ohio State’s star quarterback wants to go to Michigan to play. No restrictions, just transfer and that’s it. > > I’d also eliminate the ability for coaches to simply cancel someone’s scholarship by cutting them. If the school promised a scholarship, then the kid should get the full amount unless he breaks the law or something. I’ll admit to some ignorance of how scholarships work, but I don’t believe there’s much precedence of schools cutting academic scholarships and switching out a math guy for a better math guy. Yes to all this but the restriction against transferring is particularly heinous and another target of Kessler’s. Retaining the right to nullify the scholarship after any year is one thing, prohibiting a student’s freedom to change venues and retain the same rights is quite another. I think just about any scholarship can be terminated at the end of its duration and awarded to another deserving student instead. But the math prodigy who loses a scholly at one school is not prohibited from finding his way to a grant at another. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/97 "2015-09-03T20:30:10Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > How can one establish whether a sport is created to benefit the school rather than the student? Under your scheme, is it possible that, say, Stanford established its football program primarily for the benefit of the students, but Oklahoma State established its football program primarily to benefit the university? > > Aside from my opinion that you’re reading the regulations wrong, you’re headed down a road that makes the inequities among college students worse, not better. If all or some college athletes are to be paid wages, it’s got to come out of someone’s pocket, and my guess is that tuition will probably go up. Great, now smart kids are taking out student loans so football players can be paid to go lift weights at 6am. > > And for the university that hires a distinguished professor who makes his students work hard and study all night? Well, those students have to pay for the honor of all that schoolwork. > > That’s fucked up. If that’s the way it actually went down, it certainly would be fucked up and smart students should avoid such a school like the plague. But it’s not the athletes’ fault that the school valued their services enough to tender them a monthly paycheck – it would be on the schools for elevating athletics so highly that enrollments and academic achievements declined. Maybe a school could strike a balance. But if I were evaluating prospective colleges and I saw Enormous State U. paying the football team $30,000 a year each and sky high activity fees, I would take a hard look at Lesser State College which has no D1 football program and no student activity fees. What’s really really fucked up are the schools being allowed – thus far – to run an illegal wage fixing scam. That is bullshit of the highest level and our institutions of higher learning should be ashamed of much of what has transpired. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/98 "2015-09-03T20:35:07Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > How can one establish whether a sport is created to benefit the school rather than the student? Under your scheme, is it possible that, say, Stanford established its football program primarily for the benefit of the students, but Oklahoma State established its football program primarily to benefit the university? Yes, theoretically. > [@](#): > > Aside from my opinion that you’re reading the regulations wrong, you’re headed down a road that makes the inequities among college students worse, not better. If all or some college athletes are to be paid wages, it’s got to come out of someone’s pocket, and my guess is that tuition will probably go up. Great, now smart kids are taking out student loans so football players can be paid to go lift weights at 6am. Yep. Just like they have to pay for the awesome student center. They want to go to a school with a top notch football team for them to cheer, pony up some dough for the folks working an extra 40hrs a week on top of their course load to make it possible. Or, do the players have to donate that time so the rest of the student body, who enjoy being entertained by their work, don’t have to pay at all. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/99 "2015-09-03T20:50:11Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Yes, theoretically. So, how does one show that a school’s football program is for the benefit of students or for the school? You suggested something earlier – that hiring an expensive coach may be evidence that the football program is for the benefit of the school. Jim Harbaugh, a very successful NFL coach, was just hired by Michigan. I’m sure he has a very large contract. Don’t you think that Michigan students want to play under the best coach they can, just like students want the best professors? Is is simply what the market demands for a top-flight coach – who is more or less the football equivalent of a Nobel Prize winner – for his salary that determines in your mind that Harbaugh isn’t really there to teach the football players everything he’s learned over his career in football? To say it another way, you seem to presume that having a national championship football team is about the school, not the players. I reject the idea that a team of whatever sport probably has to be unpopular losers in order to be of greater benefit to the student athletes rather than the school. > [@](#): > > Or, do the players have to donate that time so the rest of the student body, who enjoy being entertained by their work, don’t have to pay at all. I’d say they volunteer their time. If I go volunteer for my local school, to pick up garbage or paint a fence or whatever, I don’t get to come back later and say, “Hey, you owe me money for what I agreed to do for nothing! If you had hired a maintenance company to do what I did, I’m owed $15 a hour!” No, that isn’t how anything works. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734/100 "2015-09-03T20:56:47Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > What’s really really fucked up are the schools being allowed – thus far – to run an illegal wage fixing scam. That is bullshit of the highest level and our institutions of higher learning should be ashamed of much of what has transpired. It isn’t an illegal wage fixing scam. The Department of Labor clearly says interscholastic sports isn’t a job. End of story. The clear bullshit of the highest level is for someone to do something for four years for free and then come back and say, “Hey! You owe me money!” Someone has to have hammers in their noggin to do something for four years, with no promise of payment, and then expect payment for it. If you think something is worth getting paid for, you establish the pay BEFORE the work begins, not after. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-college-athletes-are-employees-sackos-v-ncaa/729734.md?page=6)