Another nail in the NCAA Coffin … Johnson vs. NCAA Federal Court Case

[The Public Enemy]

Brutal day for the NCAA …. More change is looming in College Athletics

PHILADELPHIA — At the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, a panel of three judges attacked the NCAA’s business model of amateurism during a hearing for the Johnson v. NCAA case. They asked searing questions about why athletes aren’t employees — and at some points drew laughter from the mostly filled courtroom. One judge flat-out said he didn’t agree with the NCAA.

The case was originally brought by a group of athletes who are suing several schools and the NCAA, alleging they should be classified as university employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, rather than amateurs. They claim they’re entitled to minimum wage in addition to scholarships.

Lawyers for the athletes told Front Office Sports they don’t believe that an NCAA loss would spell the end of college sports, as the NCAA seems to suggest. It would, however, effectively kill the governing body’s core principle of amateurism.

Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo added: “How are they not employees of the universities?” and referred to athletic departments as “regimes.”

Much of the conversation revolved around “whether there was an expectation of compensation,” Ehrlich noted — whether athletes expected to be paid, and if that could be evidence that they’re employees.

 

[zwynn10]

Brutal day for the NCAA …. More change is looming in College Athletics

PHILADELPHIA — At the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, a panel of three judges attacked the NCAA’s business model of amateurism during a hearing for the Johnson v. NCAA case. They asked searing questions about why athletes aren’t employees — and at some points drew laughter from the mostly filled courtroom. One judge flat-out said he didn’t agree with the NCAA.

The case was originally brought by a group of athletes who are suing several schools and the NCAA, alleging they should be classified as university employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, rather than amateurs. They claim they’re entitled to minimum wage in addition to scholarships.

Lawyers for the athletes told Front Office Sports they don’t believe that an NCAA loss would spell the end of college sports, as the NCAA seems to suggest. It would, however, effectively kill the governing body’s core principle of amateurism.

Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo added: “How are they not employees of the universities?” and referred to athletic departments as “regimes.”

Much of the conversation revolved around “whether there was an expectation of compensation,” Ehrlich noted — whether athletes expected to be paid, and if that could be evidence that they’re employees.

View embedded media

It’s hard to believe this is the state of college athletics. The NIL ruling is one thing, but this is entirely something different. College athletics are extra-curricular activities for college students. Play sports or don’t play sports and just go be a college student. Or, if you want to play sports for pay, go play in the G-League or other minor or semi-pro league. Members of the band on music scholarship that have to practice and perform as part of the scholarship, are they employees? What about academic scholarships where students have to participate in accelerated curriculum enrichment programs?

 

[azubuikefan]

It’s hard to believe this is the state of college athletics. The NIL ruling is one thing, but this is entirely something different. College athletics are extra-curricular activities for college students. Play sports or don’t play sports and just go be a college student. Or, if you want to play sports for pay, go play in the G-League or other minor or semi-pro league. Members of the band on music scholarship that have to practice and perform as part of the scholarship, are they employees? What about academic scholarships where students have to participate in accelerated curriculum enrichment programs?

Then they should stop charging money for admission or for jerseys or for advertising on television during college events.

 

[Ky grandpa]

I have not read about a certain college to being threatened if they don't play a sport at their college... How can they be an imployee of a school when tey are not forced to go there... Just asking a few questions to get your thought's on it...


GBB

 

[K_TIME]

I read this as not a ncaa in the wrong but the courts over step their bounds

1. So all that is and will happen to college sports isn’t the fault of NCAA..it is the supreme and lower courts in this case that have pushed into this era of pay for play
2. If charging admission to an event is grounds to automatically pay the athlete…I pay for admission to high school games…do those athletes deserve compensation as well? I actually pay for my middle school sons events as well..so does he deserve some $$$$ as well? I don’t get the logic here

We’re going to see smaller schools fold up their programs in years to come as they don’t have funding to support a program and pay players. If you’re not in sec or big 10 down the road….it’s going to get harder and harder to compete. I have no clue why kids would go to schools like UT Martin, northern Illinois, Austin peay, etc. I see those school folding up or tent eventually

 

[Glenn's take]

Sounds like sports programs at universities will be shutting down at a very rapid pace.

 

[Cat06]

So the position of the judge is that if a school charges for something a student athlete participates in, that makes them an employee of the school? Universities charge all students to attend. They make a profit from the school itself. Sounds like all students could be considered school employees, not just athletes.

Most schools Athletic departments are subsidized. If the standard is schools that make a profit off players need to pay them, will the players on those teams that lose money be required to pay the school to play?

Student athletes knew what they were signing up for, and it was not a paying athletic position.

 

[Perrin75]

For years the NCAA and their member institutions have held all the power in this relationship. Athletes were on year-to-year scholarships, but not allowed to transfer. They weren't allowed to hold a job. The schools and the leagues made tons of money off the players image and recognition, and never had to share a dime with the player. And, as we learned from North Carolina, this promise that at least they would receive an education in exchange for their effort was often a sham.

Personally, I am for the athlete in this fight. They have a commodity that is valuable, let the market decide its worth. If the schools want more control, then let it be a negotiation of equals. If these leagues would have committed to something as simple as paying the players minimum wage for their practice time at a point where they were prohibiting scholarship athletes from holding a part-time job then most of this could have been avoided. Greed is not good, and I am glad it is finally coming to an end.

 

[Glenn's take]

For years the NCAA and their member institutions have held all the power in this relationship. Athletes were on year-to-year scholarships, but not allowed to transfer. They weren't allowed to hold a job. The schools and the leagues made tons of money off the players image and recognition, and never had to share a dime with the player. And, as we learned from North Carolina, this promise that at least they would receive an education in exchange for their effort was often a sham.

Personally, I am for the athlete in this fight. They have a commodity that is valuable, let the market decide its worth. If the schools want more control, then let it be a negotiation of equals. If these leagues would have committed to something as simple as paying the players minimum wage for their practice time at a point where they were prohibiting scholarship athletes from holding a part-time job then most of this could have been avoided. Greed is not good, and I am glad it is finally coming to an end.

You can be right and still destroy something. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Perrin75]

Things change. Just because it is changing doesn't mean it will be worse or better. We won't know until we are on the other side of it. When I was a kid, College Football was a world that included the SWC. The SEC had 10 teams, the Big 12 had 8, the Big 10 had ten, and the Pac 12 had 8. Independent colleges like FSU, Notre Dame and Penn State dominated. The best teams rarely played each other, and national titles were decided by voters and not on the field.

The sport has evolved since then, some for the better and some for the worse. In the end, my opinion is that what we have now is better. Hopefully what we have in the future will be better as well.

 

[trueblujr2]

It’s hard to believe this is the state of college athletics. The NIL ruling is one thing, but this is entirely something different. College athletics are extra-curricular activities for college students. Play sports or don’t play sports and just go be a college student. Or, if you want to play sports for pay, go play in the G-League or other minor or semi-pro league. Members of the band on music scholarship that have to practice and perform as part of the scholarship, are they employees? What about academic scholarships where students have to participate in accelerated curriculum enrichment programs?

Actually, as someone who has a son in the band. Members do get paid a stipend per game to play some events such as Women's Basketball and Volleyball games. (no money for men's games) It's not much, $25-$30, in that range. Which equates to a little more than minimum wage for 2-3 hours of their time. Marching band members get a couple of thousand dollars (not sure the exact amount, but in that range) Whether you want to classify it as "scholarship" or "pay" is up for debate. but they don't get the money until the season is over and it is put into their student accounts for the spring semester. they can do whatever with the money, it's not earmarked towards tuition or anything. Though that's what my son applies his towards. They won't pay it up front like a scholarship, to ensure members follow through instead of taking the money, then quitting. Oh, and music majors on scholarship aren't required to be in the band.

 

[ganner918]

Then they should stop charging money for admission or for jerseys or for advertising on television during college events.

Right - it was the NCAA and the schools that willingly turned amateur athletics into a billion dollar industry. Not the athletes. Only when the players ask why they're not getting any of the mountain of money do people suddenly freak out about the integrity of amateurism.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Then they should stop charging money for admission or for jerseys or for advertising on television during college events.

Why? What does one have to do with the other?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

For years the NCAA and their member institutions have held all the power in this relationship. Athletes were on year-to-year scholarships, but not allowed to transfer. They weren't allowed to hold a job. The schools and the leagues made tons of money off the players image and recognition, and never had to share a dime with the player. And, as we learned from North Carolina, this promise that at least they would receive an education in exchange for their effort was often a sham.

Personally, I am for the athlete in this fight. They have a commodity that is valuable, let the market decide its worth. If the schools want more control, then let it be a negotiation of equals. If these leagues would have committed to something as simple as paying the players minimum wage for their practice time at a point where they were prohibiting scholarship athletes from holding a part-time job then most of this could have been avoided. Greed is not good, and I am glad it is finally coming to an end.

I think the problem with what you are saying is that it's not a market. None of these leagues are markets, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc. Teams aren't in economic competition with each other. They aren't trying to put the other out of business. The league is the product, not the individual team. They need each other to have a product. In college athletics, the Federal Government has imposed restrictions on athletic departments such as title 9. If it operated like a market, meaning the value that each sport has in the marketplace is used to support that sport, then maybe I could somewhat agree. Even then, most college teams probably couldn't turn a profit. But athletic departments are required by law to have equal number of men's and women's scholarships and facilities. It seems unethical for the government to argue that on one hand that market forces should determine the rules of college athletics while on the other requiring that money from profitable sports be used to pay for scholarships and facilities, and ultimately salaries, for unprofitable sports. If they want a true market, then women's sports will cease to exist. Many men's sports will cease to exist as well because they don't generate a profit. The athletic departments of many schools operate in the red, so will those schools shut down their athletic departments if they have to start treating players as employees?

The reality is these are students who want to play sports. They are not employees. It just so happens that there is huge fan interest in watching these students play certain sports, not all sports. This generates a lot of money for top schools, but not a lot of profit because it must be used to support an entire athletic department. If players believe they don't get value from playing college sports, then why do they do it. There is a free market in terms of whether or not to play college sports. If a person wants to play for money, then find a pro league and see if you can make a roster. No one forces anyone to play college sports. It's completely voluntary and as such, they should have broad latitude to determine the rules under which someone can participate. That's just my opinion.

 

[bballcat4]

I’m not an attorney, but here are my thoughts.
1) No entity can make millions of $ (profit) based on work of others and not pay them. (W-2, or 1099) The specifics for this just happens to be college football& basketball. (Mainly)
2) Most P-5 schools have made fortune from college athletics.
3) Many non-major universities lose $ from athletics.
4) NCAA has made BILLIONS from NCAA Tournament
5) Treating revenue generating athletes as employees would severely limit NIL, which is much better than what’s going on now.
6) Coaching salaries go back down, with that $ going to players. (I know most coaches technically receive money from other sources, but it’s generated from the sport’s revenue.)
7) There’s no way female sports (and other non-revenue sports) can pay athletes from the revenue their sport generates, so Title 9 lawsuits will be the next round of lawsuits demanding equal pay.

Again, I think most coaches would prefer paying employees instead of current NIL. AD’s may not like NIL, but they know it is not being funded from athletic budget.

Just my thoughts. Next 2-3 years will be interesting.

 

[Cat_Man_Blue]

I’m not an attorney, but here are my thoughts.

1) No entity can make millions of $ (profit) based on work of others and not pay them. (W-2, or 1099) The specifics for this just happens to be college football& basketball. (Mainly)

2) Most P-5 schools have made fortune from college athletics.

3) Many non-major universities lose $ from athletics.

4) NCAA has made BILLIONS from NCAA Tournament

5) Treating revenue generating athletes as employees would severely limit NIL, which is much better than what’s going on now.

6) Coaching salaries go back down, with that $ going to players. (I know most coaches technically receive money from other sources, but it’s generated from the sport’s revenue.)

7) There’s no way female sports (and other non-revenue sports) can pay athletes from the revenue their sport generates, so Title 9 lawsuits will be the next round of lawsuits demanding equal pay.



Again, I think most coaches would prefer paying employees instead of current NIL. AD’s may not like NIL, but they know it is not being funded from athletic budget.



Just my thoughts. Next 2-3 years will be interesting.


The artical stated the athletes would get a minimum wage in addition to what they are currently getting for tuition and room and board. Who knows what this minimum wage would really look like. Having said that, don't the players stand to make more money through NIL than they would as paid employees of the university. Could it be possible that NIL would remain even if athleets become paid employees?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I’m not an attorney, but here are my thoughts.
1) No entity can make millions of $ (profit) based on work of others and not pay them. (W-2, or 1099) The specifics for this just happens to be college football& basketball. (Mainly)
2) Most P-5 schools have made fortune from college athletics.
3) Many non-major universities lose $ from athletics.
4) NCAA has made BILLIONS from NCAA Tournament
5) Treating revenue generating athletes as employees would severely limit NIL, which is much better than what’s going on now.
6) Coaching salaries go back down, with that $ going to players. (I know most coaches technically receive money from other sources, but it’s generated from the sport’s revenue.)
7) There’s no way female sports (and other non-revenue sports) can pay athletes from the revenue their sport generates, so Title 9 lawsuits will be the next round of lawsuits demanding equal pay.

Again, I think most coaches would prefer paying employees instead of current NIL. AD’s may not like NIL, but they know it is not being funded from athletic budget.

Just my thoughts. Next 2-3 years will be interesting.

I'm not sure number 2 is accurate. UK for example, is one of the minority of athletic programs that don't operate in the red. They haven't "made a fortune from college athletics". UK athletics is a non-for-profit. They spend virtually all of what they bring in on the players (scholarships, food, lodging, training, coaching, etc.) and facilities. There are no massive profits. Plus, the Federal Government requires them to keep equal numbers of female scholarships and facilities. So if you look at college athletics on the whole, number 3 is what you see in most cases.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

For years the NCAA and their member institutions have held all the power in this relationship. Athletes were on year-to-year scholarships, but not allowed to transfer. They weren't allowed to hold a job. The schools and the leagues made tons of money off the players image and recognition, and never had to share a dime with the player. And, as we learned from North Carolina, this promise that at least they would receive an education in exchange for their effort was often a sham.

Personally, I am for the athlete in this fight. They have a commodity that is valuable, let the market decide its worth. If the schools want more control, then let it be a negotiation of equals. If these leagues would have committed to something as simple as paying the players minimum wage for their practice time at a point where they were prohibiting scholarship athletes from holding a part-time job then most of this could have been avoided. Greed is not good, and I am glad it is finally coming to an end.

Athletes have always been allowed to have jobs, but they couldn't be paid anymore than someone who wasn't an athlete would get for that job. A car washer at a dealership couldn't make 100 bucks an hour if the going rate for said car washer was 10 bucks an hour.

 

[bballcat4]

UK for example, is one of the minority of athletic programs that don't operate in the red.

I agree all P-5 athletic programs are not on the same financial footing. Couple things to keep in mind.

1) Athletic Departments spend their $ (regardless of the amount) because they do NOT desire to be perceived as for-profit businesses. (I agree with you that some schools do not have to try hard to hide the $ because they're not making as much as other schools.

2) Football is main revenue stream for universities, and the NCAA tourn is main revenue stream for NCAA. The SEC just handed out over $40 MILLION to each school. This is just for television revenue. This amount is expected to double to over $80 MILLION annually after Okl & Tx join SEC.

The Big 10 & SEC are light years ahead of other 3 conferences, thus a major difference in revenue. Look at what Forbes magazine says about television revenue for schools and what basketball tournament generates for NCAA.

The days of college athletics (men's football & basketball) being a non-profit entity for amateurs is similar to the rotary phone. That day has passed and is not returning. Frankly, the NCAA & Universities have skated on this issue for several years because of the "not paying players is just the way we've always done it."

I miss college sports the way they once were. (I'm not naive enough to believe there wasn't A LOT of $ exchanging hands to players behind the scenes.) But, I still miss the way it once was. However, it isn't coming back.

Income = Compensation. No judge (group of judges) are going to rule in favor of an entity not compensating people who are generating the revenue. I guarantee you without doubt, NCAA and universities do NOT want to show their books to transparently show how the money is being spent.

 

[jauk11]

Then they should stop charging money for admission or for jerseys or for advertising on television during college events.

Then shouldn't they have to pay high school athletes, where does it end?

 

[jauk11]

I think the problem with what you are saying is that it's not a market. None of these leagues are markets, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc. Teams aren't in economic competition with each other. They aren't trying to put the other out of business. The league is the product, not the individual team. They need each other to have a product. In college athletics, the Federal Government has imposed restrictions on athletic departments such as title 9. If it operated like a market, meaning the value that each sport has in the marketplace is used to support that sport, then maybe I could somewhat agree. Even then, most college teams probably couldn't turn a profit. But athletic departments are required by law to have equal number of men's and women's scholarships and facilities. It seems unethical for the government to argue that on one hand that market forces should determine the rules of college athletics while on the other requiring that money from profitable sports be used to pay for scholarships and facilities, and ultimately salaries, for unprofitable sports. If they want a true market, then women's sports will cease to exist. Many men's sports will cease to exist as well because they don't generate a profit. The athletic departments of many schools operate in the red, so will those schools shut down their athletic departments if they have to start treating players as employees?

The reality is these are students who want to play sports. They are not employees. It just so happens that there is huge fan interest in watching these students play certain sports, not all sports. This generates a lot of money for top schools, but not a lot of profit because it must be used to support an entire athletic department. If players believe they don't get value from playing college sports, then why do they do it. There is a free market in terms of whether or not to play college sports. If a person wants to play for money, then find a pro league and see if you can make a roster. No one forces anyone to play college sports. It's completely voluntary and as such, they should have broad latitude to determine the rules under which someone can participate. That's just my opinion.

Very well said. I think the stupid lawyers are going to be the death of college athletics, and it will trickle down to the high school level. And no, I am not trying to win a popularity contest.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I agree all P-5 athletic programs are not on the same financial footing. Couple things to keep in mind.

1) Athletic Departments spend their $ (regardless of the amount) because they do NOT desire to be perceived as for-profit businesses. (I agree with you that some schools do not have to try hard to hide the $ because they're not making as much as other schools.

2) Football is main revenue stream for universities, and the NCAA tourn is main revenue stream for NCAA. The SEC just handed out over $40 MILLION to each school. This is just for television revenue. This amount is expected to double to over $80 MILLION annually after Okl & Tx join SEC.

The Big 10 & SEC are light years ahead of other 3 conferences, thus a major difference in revenue. Look at what Forbes magazine says about television revenue for schools and what basketball tournament generates for NCAA.

The days of college athletics (men's football & basketball) being a non-profit entity for amateurs is similar to the rotary phone. That day has passed and is not returning. Frankly, the NCAA & Universities have skated on this issue for several years because of the "not paying players is just the way we've always done it."

I miss college sports the way they once were. (I'm not naive enough to believe there wasn't A LOT of $ exchanging hands to players behind the scenes.) But, I still miss the way it once was. However, it isn't coming back.

Income = Compensation. No judge (group of judges) are going to rule in favor of an entity not compensating people who are generating the revenue. I guarantee you without doubt, NCAA and universities do NOT want to show their books to transparently show how the money is being spent.

I guess the free market economist part of me would argue they are being compensated. If they were not being compensated they would do something else. People generally don't do something they feel is not worth the effort.

 

[The Public Enemy]

Jay Bilas tweet on this ... whatever you think of Bilas he is by trade an attorney

 

[3632]

That court of appeals is more left leaning. Why does that matter? Because most people are missing the point in thinking this or other similar ‘employee’ court cases are really about the ncaa. It’s about unionization. If you think there are wave shifts in conferences etc now, wait til unions get involved. The stratification of schools will expedite.

 

[K_TIME]

For years the NCAA and their member institutions have held all the power in this relationship. Athletes were on year-to-year scholarships, but not allowed to transfer. They weren't allowed to hold a job. The schools and the leagues made tons of money off the players image and recognition, and never had to share a dime with the player. And, as we learned from North Carolina, this promise that at least they would receive an education in exchange for their effort was often a sham.

Personally, I am for the athlete in this fight. They have a commodity that is valuable, let the market decide its worth. If the schools want more control, then let it be a negotiation of equals. If these leagues would have committed to something as simple as paying the players minimum wage for their practice time at a point where they were prohibiting scholarship athletes from holding a part-time job then most of this could have been avoided. Greed is not good, and I am glad it is finally coming to an end.

Players have not been prohibited from getting jobs.

- Sure in season, it's goiign to be hard to play and have a part time job...but off season plenty of athletes have always worked part time gigs. Now they could not make 50 bucks an hour for a job that was paying 10 bucks an hour to other employees.....but players can earn extra money

 

[catben]

With Title 9 there is NO WAY in _ELL to distribute the money to Men's Football and Basketball players(whom ACTUALLY generates the income) equitably without incurring another lawsuit.

What needs to happen is ALL of the astronomical coaches salaries will have to be lowered and the money paid by JMI, other sponsors and TV revenue will need to go to the athletes.

Similar to the Pro's, there will have to be profit sharing for the players.

 

[Deli owl]

If the players choose to play for universities and they sign their LOI. The verbiage in the contract could state what the NCAA chooses. Not sure why universities are struggling with it. Just let them go pro if they don't want to play in amateur sports. No reason not to have both options.

 

[kb22stang]

It’s hard to believe this is the state of college athletics. The NIL ruling is one thing, but this is entirely something different. College athletics are extra-curricular activities for college students. Play sports or don’t play sports and just go be a college student. Or, if you want to play sports for pay, go play in the G-League or other minor or semi-pro league. Members of the band on music scholarship that have to practice and perform as part of the scholarship, are they employees? What about academic scholarships where students have to participate in accelerated curriculum enrichment programs?

So much wrong in this post. When you're bringing in billion dollar revenues its hard to compare that intramural softball.

 

[kb22stang]

If the players choose to play for universities and they sign their LOI. The verbiage in the contract could state what the NCAA chooses. Not sure why universities are struggling with it. Just let them go pro if they don't want to play in amateur sports. No reason not to have both options.

Just because the NCAA puts something in the LOI doesn't make it legal, that's the point of these cases.

 

[bballcat4]

Then shouldn't they have to pay high school athletes, where does it end?

I doubt hs ticket sales even cover uniform cost, travel expenses, and a small coach's stipend.

There's a slight difference between multimillions of $ of revenue compared to groups just trying to cover a portion of their expenses.

Like you, I've stated multiple times that I miss the way college sports used to be. However, I had to watch most UK football games on tape delay. Heck, half of UK's basketball games were tape delay. Now, every game is televised somewhere and television revenue is an endless ATM machine.

Tell me another industry that has this kind of revenue stream (I'm mainly referring to SEC & B-10) coming in that doesn't compensate the people generating the revenue in some capacity. (Employee or contract)

You're correct about lawsuits never ending. It will not stop with just men's revenue sports. People will be screaming for all athletes to be paid same amount.

If there's anything good about this, I believe treating football and basketball players as employees will greatly reduce the impact of NIL. Players will still do endorsements, but I think it will be true endorsements for existing players and not what it is today.

 

[Deli owl]

Just because the NCAA puts something in the LOI doesn't make it legal, that's the point of these cases.

Amateurism isn't in the LOI as far as i know. Not mentioned anywhere.

 

[UKnCincy]

Amateurism isn't in the LOI as far as i know. Not mentioned anywhere.

It’s in the Student Athlete Statement that all student athletes are required to sign each year prior to participating in competition.

 

[thornie1]

There is a large group of people that have been convinced that all forms of competitive sports is evil and needs to be eliminated. This all falls into their agenda.....

 

[Knoffs73]

The way I see it, is that the athletes accepted to scholarship offer at what it was. There should be no entitlement for anything once you signed and agreed to the schools terms.

 

[The Public Enemy]

The way I see it, is that the athletes accepted to scholarship offer at what it was. There should be no entitlement for anything once you signed and agreed to the schools terms.

It doesn’t work that way … the Federal Courts not matter if they are Conservative or Liberal Judges or in Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavaugh have pretty much said the NCAA is a walking Anti Trust Violation. If this goes to the Supreme Court … the NCAA gonna get fried … it appears they are going to get fried by this Court of Appeals

 

[zwynn10]

Then they should stop charging money for admission or for jerseys or for advertising on television during college events.

The jersey is a NIL thing and players can collect pay for putting their name on and selling a jersey.

How do you feel about high school players? High schools charge admission and ESPN and other networks broadcast high school games during which advertisers pay for advertising. In fact, there are now local companies that live stream high school games and sell advertising for the broadcast. High schools have long had radio broadcast with advertisers paying for air time. High school players have to practice, suffer injuries, are subject to eligibility rules, etc. The only real difference between high school and college sports in this regard, especially at the highest level of college sports, is the $$$ involved. Are high school players now employees of the school.

It could be argued that college players get a scholarship and that makes them different from high school players. Ok, but what about walk-ons in college that have to practice, have injuries, etc. Are scholarship players employees and walk-ons are not? Or, what about the high school players that attend private schools and get a scholarship to go to that school? Are high school scholarship players employees and the rest of the team is not? Even further, if a high school freshman that is 14 years old who is on scholarship plays on the football team, is he an employee of the school and is the school violating child labor laws by exceeding the hours a kid under 16 years old can work in a week?

College and high school sports are voluntary extra-curricular activities. Students can play or not play and still be a student. Making sports an employee-employer relationship below a professional level is ridiculous.

 

[zwynn10]

For years the NCAA and their member institutions have held all the power in this relationship. Athletes were on year-to-year scholarships, but not allowed to transfer. They weren't allowed to hold a job. The schools and the leagues made tons of money off the players image and recognition, and never had to share a dime with the player. And, as we learned from North Carolina, this promise that at least they would receive an education in exchange for their effort was often a sham.

Personally, I am for the athlete in this fight. They have a commodity that is valuable, let the market decide its worth. If the schools want more control, then let it be a negotiation of equals. If these leagues would have committed to something as simple as paying the players minimum wage for their practice time at a point where they were prohibiting scholarship athletes from holding a part-time job then most of this could have been avoided. Greed is not good, and I am glad it is finally coming to an end.

Think about the ramifications of your (and apparently the 3rd Circuit’s and probably the Supreme Court’s) view. If athletes are employees, then they are employees for all purposes under law. They have the right to unionize, collectively bargain, strike and implement work stoppages (the International Brotherhood of College Basketball Players - the IBCBP) Now, each college has to negotiate a union contract with the IBCBP for its union members to “work” at that college. That negotiation involves more than a scholarship, it will involve big $$, luxury living arrangements, employer provided use of luxury cars, deferred compensation for future years, etc. For the vast majority of college basketball players that have no hopes of ever playing basketball professionally and want to play college basketball as part of their college experience, they are then caught up in a system that will probably be too expensive for the vast majority of non-P5 schools to have a basketball team.

 

[Deli owl]

It’s in the Student Athlete Statement that all student athletes are required to sign each year prior to participating in competition.

Statement isn’t a contract

 

[zwynn10]

So much wrong in this post. When you're bringing in billion dollar revenues it’s hard to compare that intramural softball.

So, in your view, it’s the revenue that determines if a player is an employee? The baseball, softball, gymnastics, swimming, etc teams make little or no revenue so those team members are not employees? The so-called revenue sports team members are employees and non-revenue sports team members are not? I wonder how that flies under employment discrimination laws. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

The truth is that big $$$ in revenue is made and it is mostly from football but some from basketball, and it goes in large measure to pay for baseball, softball, etc. When the revenue is spent across the entire athletic department, very few colleges actually have a profit (revenue minus cost of athletic department). UK is one of the 20 or so colleges that makes a “profit” from athletics. And at UK, a big chunk of that profit is “taken” by the university to pay for academic endeavors, such as the new science building.

UK Athletics will pay for two-thirds of new $100 million science building

FRANKFORT — The University of Kentucky will move forward with a new science building, an expanded business college and a $110 million upgrade to Commonwealth Stadium under a plan supported by Gov. Steve Beshear and top legislative leaders.

amp.kentucky.com

People look at the big $$$ being taken in by college sports and think it somehow equates to athletes being cheated. The narrative is false. The coaches, especially the football and basketball coaches at a P-5, and many ADs, are making big $$, but the rest of the revenue goes to paying the cost of all sports programs.

 

[UKnCincy]

Statement isn’t a contract

The statement is a requirement per the NLI’s terms regarding initial eligibility.

It’s effectively an affidavit that’s part of what’s required under the NLI and also under the financial aid agreement.