Georgia:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/08/us/georgia-college-athletes-compensation/index.html
Sounds good, right? But there’s always a “but”:
This new law allows schools to require athletes to give up 74.999% of their earnings to be pooled and distributed to all other athletes at the school; I don’t see how that survives the first legal challenge.
And how particularly evil: “Okay, you can earn money… you just can’t have any of it.”
It’s hard to imagine Georgia schools employing this weird redistribution as it would put them at a competitive disadvantage with their biggest rivals.
Actually, the version that was sent to the Governor allows each athlete to keep 25% of what they make. It’s only the pool money that can’t be accessed until the athlete is gone from the school for at least a year; also, the amount received depends on how long the athlete was a student at the school.
However, as written, the pool money distributions are not limited to athletes who put money into it. Since the pool is mandated, and maintained, by the school, this is clearly “pay for play” and the NCAA would never accept it. Something tells me the reason athletes have to wait until they leave the school before receiving the money is that some legislator is under the impression that the athlete would have used up their eligibility anyway, unaware that the NCAA would almost certainly impose postseason bans on the school (remember what happened to USC with Reggie Bush).
Missouri has a bill but it is loaded with other, less-palatable items in what is, IMO, a blatant attempt to curry disfavor by association.
Senators Chris Murphy and Bernie Sanders, along with Representatives Jamaal Bowman, Andy Levin, and Lori Trahan, have introduced legislation allowing college athletes to organize into unions. Naturally, the NCAA has responded.
Great news from the Senators and Representatives!
I find the NCAA’s retort unpersuasive.
I know very little about labor law. But regardless of the employee designation or lack thereof, what would prevent any group of college students from organizing into any kind of association that they wish?
A labor union by definition involves employees. The legislation makes it clear that student athletes will be considered employees, and declares that describing them as amateurs is a “false veil”. That is what the NCAA is specifically objecting to in their response, “College athletes are students and not employees of their college or university.” That is the entire crux of the matter.
I don’t believe that the NCAA cares much if students form a support group or club based on their interests. It’s when they organize as a union of employees and demand compensation, that is when they object.
So what would and should a school do in the event the athletes organized themselves into a support group and started asking for stuff, otherwise some of them might be late for Tuesday practice?
The NCAA and the schools can object all they want but let’s keep in mind where ultimate power is shifting to. Define the group however one wants.
If they are asking for any sort of material compensation, that is clearly a demand to be paid and establishes an employee/employer relationship. If they withhold their labor (fully or in part) unless they receive that compensation, well that’s what labor unions often do.
I look forward to the day when universities can no longer exploit athletes.
At some point in time the schools may want them to be employees to make negotiations on many issues more organized. They might otherwise be surrendering a terrific amount of control over an activity that is effectively voluntary, especially when the ability to collude with all of the other schools is removed.
First of all, I’d be willing to bet that the sporting scholarships provided to the athletes contain some sort of clause that connects the money to proper participation in team activities. If you refuse to train, or to play, they can probably just yank your scholarship, which for many players might be effectively the same as kicking them out of the university. And while the administration probably would try cajoling and threats first, the fact that they have this stick available gives them quite a bit of power.
Also, as it currently stands, even if the school wanted to accede to the student demands, NCAA rules would prohibit it, on pain of school suspension from competition, expulsion, loss of NCAA revenue sharing, etc., etc. It’s the power of the NCAA here that is really driving this. If the NCAA released its strictures today, then you can be sure that tomorrow some schools (either openly or in secret) would start offering all sorts of incentives for top football and basketball players to join their programs.
Ok, I can’t do multi-quoting worth a goddam. Back later with my response to mhendo.
Some things I noticed in the proposed bill:
Section (3)(a)(2) says that scholarship athletes are considered employees, but walk-ons aren’t.
(3)(b) says that athletes from the same conference can form a single bargaining unit.
One thing I don’t understand; while the NCAA seems to be the target, and is mentioned a number of times in the bill, the schools are the employers, so what are the schools supposed to do if the athletes demand direct pay? Threaten to leave the NCAA if it doesn’t allow the athletes to be paid?
The big news is that the NCAA is losing its power to demand that all schools play by the same rules regarding compensation. Very soon each school will be on its own as to how athletes are treated (especially wrt NIL rights). A school that takes a hard stance against its athletes organizing themselves, I don’t care if you call it a union or not – it probably isn’t one technically if there’s no direct salaries paid from the school – will risk losing talent to other schools which take a more cooperative approach with its players.
It was interesting to read this ESPN piece a couple of days ago where coaches were complaining about other schools opening contacts with their players before they entered the transfer portal. A hidden gem in that story: transfers and HS recruits are already using social media to contact other top players about teaming up at the same schools and forming “super teams,” which I think LeBron James has been criticized for in the past.
The power and leverage is shifting dramatically.
Somebody tweeted yesterday that schools are caught a little flatfooted by recent events, never believing that state legislatures would side with the athletes. I have to admit that, when O’Bannon first challenged the system seven years ago, I didn’t see things shaking down like this, either.
If this is true, then the schools are more idiotic than I thought they were (and that was already a high bar). It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that once one big (or even big-ish) state went, the rest would fall like dominos. This is a whole lot less ‘let’s do what’s right’ and a whole lot more ‘holy shit, they’re going to take all the good players’.
I have a feeling the NCAA is waiting for the court to decide in NCAA v. Alston whether it is entitled to an inherent anti-trust exemption of some sort - and if it doesn’t get one, and realizes that it won’t get one from Congress, then it will finally come up with NIL rules of its own that are pretty much in line with what the states have, although it will try to include rules that make sure none of the NIL money is coming from the schools themselves. While most states with NIL laws say that the schools can’t be the licensers, none of them prevent the schools from giving benefits (cash or otherwise) to the “businesses” that do pay for the rights (and I do put that in quotes - I fully expect some cases where the licensers won’t actually do anything with the rights, but use it as an excuse to pay the players on their own).
[quote=“That_Don_Guy, post:219, topic:765958, full:true”]
I have a feeling the NCAA is waiting for the court to decide in NCAA v. Alston whether it is entitled to an inherent anti-trust exemption of some sort[/quote]
And it didn’t get one (by unanimous decision, with Kavanaugh adding, “I’m not entirely sure a lot of the NCAA’s remaining restrictions are legal either, but we weren’t allowed to discuss those”), although the court did clarify a few things the NCAA claimed were problems:
“Boosters and sneaker companies are going to be allowed to give ‘paid internships’ after the athletes use up their eligibility - i.e. they will be promised pay once they leave college”; the court said that only schools and conferences can offer the benefits - not outside companies; also, the NCAA, and conferences, can decide what is an “education-related benefit.”
"Athletes will demand luxury cars ‘so I can get to class, so it’s an educational benefit’ " - again, the NCAA still has some leeway in restricting benefits not strictly limited to education; as the court put it, “nothing stops it from enforcing a ‘no Lamborghini’ rule.”
Yep, Texas passed NIL legislation earlier this year. All it took was the Athletic Directors from the University of Texas and Texas A&M testifying that they were at a recruiting disadvantage and suddenly state legislators were falling all over themselves to pass it.