Brickbacon is about the only one in this thread zeroing in on the meat of the issue. Remove the pay restrictions currently imposed by the NCAA (and under attack by Jeffrey Kessler) and all of the play for pay issues will sort themselves out. Some schools will value success on the football field or basketball court more than others and the financial rewards they and their supporters offer will reflect those values.
The “competitive balance” argument is a smokescreen.
Did you read the lawsuit? The reasoning goes mostly like this:
I can’t find any part of the lawsuit that actually shows a definition of an employee from the FLSA and applies it to what a student athlete does. As far as I can tell – and I’m open to correction – the lawsuit “backs in” to the assertion that athletes are employees because students in the cafeteria are employees, and athletes should be treated like those students because athletes work hard at what they do.
To me, this is a really, really poor argument. It seems to be saying that any student who does something that benefits the school is entitled to either academic credit or pay. If I organize a study or tutoring group at a college, am I entitled to pay or academic credit for the time I spend doing that?
Semi-pro leagues are irrelevant. Nobody who is any good plays in them because college has become the default developmental league. And yes, athletes may care about education later in life, but that doesn’t mean they should be forced to get one (especially since a lot of major sports programs only pretend to educate their players anyway).
You don’t have to claim it; you likely were in fact an employee.
Part of the lawsuit is that the NCAA and it’s member bodies conspire to deprive athletes of their rights, including the right to be paid for their work. This would include conspiring to keep the athletes from knowing what their rights are. The NCAA lies about what they do and why they do it, in other words.
Once Miss Sackos realized she was being taken advantage of, she filed suit. This is similar to what prompted the O’Bannon case, btw.
I think it’s pretty fair to guess that not a single school is going to opt to run a professional woman’s soccer team. There’s little doubt in my that if successful this will kill most college sports programs. Now many in this thread don’t give a crap but I doubt Sackos feels that way. I just don’t understand how she thinks this will work out in a positive way at the end of the day.
I’m pretty sure that about 99% of student who work in the cafeteria do so for no other reason than that they get paid for doing so. I’m also pretty sure that this is not true of student athletes.
If Samantha Sackos believes the only reason to play soccer in college is for the pay, she’s perfectly free to not play soccer.
You can claim whatever you want. It’s your business; who are you going to demand payment from?
The organization that helped file the lawsuit uses as part of its argument this set of regulations.
On page -2 of the document, paragraph (e) reads, with some edits, “As part of their overall educational program, public or private schools … may permit or require students to engage in… interscholastic athletics and other similar endeavors. Activities of students in such programs … are not “work” of the kind contemplated by Sec 3(a) of the Act and do not result in an employer-employee relationship between the student and the school or institution.”
Are we to believe that Ms Sackos was not engaged in “interscholastic athletics” in her position on the University of Houston soccer team?
That would seem to undercut their argument, rather than bolster it.
The Uber business model depends on not having to obey all the rules, restrictions, and regulations that licensed taxi companies have to obey. This lets Uber provide its service at a much lower cost than taxi companies. Labor laws and regulations are part of the reason, though certainly not the entire reason. If Uber were required to treat its drivers like employees, costs would skyrocket and drivers wouldn’t get as much business; this would be bad for drivers. It’s possible that the entire company and its business model would collapse; this would be very bad for drivers.
That’s a bad analogy. My employer and I signed a contract, stipulating that I must work 40 hours a week and they must pay me a certain amount. That makes me an employee; I can’t choose to not work during a certain week, or to only work 3 hours per week.
An Uber driver gets to decide when, where, and how much he or she “works” for Uber, which riders he or she picks up, and so forth. Since it’s the driver who makes all the decisions rather than the company, it’s not an employer-employee relationship.
I’d suggest that one of your …'s is fairly important
I can’t say this definitively for women’s soccer, but big time football and basketball is clearly NOT primarily for the benefit of the football and basketball players, it’s for the benefit of the school at large. It’s rather more murky the lower down the totem pole you go.
The driver is still the one under contract. It’s not the vehicle. You can’t send your friend out to drive your car for Uber for the night, which is one of the key aspects of any independent contractor relationship.
There are over 900 student athletes at Ohio State. You’re not asking to pay one women’s soccer player, you’re asking Ohio State to hire 900 new employees.
Ticket takers and parking lot ushers get $50 per game at universities I’m aware of.
My real point was that if Title IX no longer applies, universities will cut programs that lose money.
So you want universities to cut ties with their biggest revenue winners, football and basketball, and spin them off into private corporations? I’m 100% sure this will never, ever happen.
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.
I don’t see how this lawsuit can be successful since she’s already getting “paid” a wage at the market rate (or maybe even more than market). 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.” In the absence of any scandal involving inappropriate benefits received by women’s college soccer players, we can probably deduce that no better market for her skills exists.
This is not the same thing as being the Texas High School Football Player of the Year. People want to give you lots of good shit if you own that particular title.
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.
If being considered an employee is so bad for Uber drivers, then why are they suing to be considered employees?
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?
If that were the case (which I don’t submit is at all), I think that could lead someone to the conclusion that football players ought to be paid, but field hockey players need not be paid because they are playing primarily for their own benefit. This is to say nothing of ambiguous cases – is baseball for the university’s benefit? What about soccer? And how about swimming?
Alternatively, if the sports are not for the students’ benefit, maybe universities can just go out and recruit athletes who will not be students. They’ll only be athletes, take no classes, etc.
If the sport doesn’t bring $$$ to the school then it is 100% for the athletes own benifit
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.”