College Athletes Can Unionize, Federal Agency Says

[ontheblack]

Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/03/26/us/ap-us-college-athletes-union.html?_r=0

[jonriv]

If it ever gets past the national board and/or the courts- d1 schools will either drop the sport or the scholarships

Not a great scenario

[ontheblack]

If the Feds rule a scholarship is compensation, one can assume that can lead to taxation. Is this a case of be careful what you wish for?

[PDad]

I heard the IRS definitions are different than NLRB, so taxation shouldn't be an issue.

NLRB only has jurisdiction over private schools, so it's questionable whether this could happen at public schools. The schools would be limited by NCAA rules in what they can provide in a labor agreement.

[jonriv]

I can understand students want representation- since the NCAA does not do such a great job of it. Despite what the media seems to think, except for a smaller group schools(SEC, PAC12, Big ten etcc..) Most schools lose money or barely break even on sports. Many schools have dropped football)Hofstra, Northeastern) Any incrimental increase in cost could knock even more schools from carrying these sports.

[PDad]

I find the notion of college athletics making or losing money to be questionable. They have little incentive to make money, so they aim to break even to keep the same amount of funding - use it or lose it.

If CAPA was sincere about their goals, they would be open to all student-athletes instead of just the ones from the revenue sports.

[tbjd33]

I find the notion of college athletics making or losing money to be questionable. They have little incentive to make money, so they aim to break even to keep the same amount of funding - use it or lose it.

If CAPA was sincere about their goals, they would be open to all student-athletes instead of just the ones from the revenue sports.

JonRiv is spot on... With the exception of Major College football and basketball majority of sports loose $$$ or at best break even. When there is profit in those sports funds generally go back into the pool for other sports. In our case(softball) only a handful of programs don't loose $$$.

Back on subject... Now this is what happens when the idea of "change for the same of change" is absurd. Kind of like the previous Azusa, CA subject we so vigorously discussed. With that being said, I do feel players such as a Johnny Manziel deserves some sort of reimbursement because his image is plastered everywhere and both the NCAA and T A&M are profiting big time. Softball players like K. Ricketts or similar may deserve consideration as well. In my opinion, the everyday college athlete is not in their category and doesnt deserve anymore than the school can provide without hurting the program.

Not to long ago I was knee deep in doing my fair share in helping save Cal baseball from the chopping block because of State Budget concerns. Actually saw the baseball budget as well as other sports on the chopping block. Financial loss to the school is real...

[exD1dad]

Here's a good read on this subject

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/colleg ... thwestern/



My Union initiation fee was $3000 in 1989, same price today.

[3'sDad]

Is anyone surprised the athletes from Northwestern filed this case and were successful? I'm surprised the Stanford or Notre dame football team didn't join in the action.....all are private schools that actually have real student athletes that graduate with useful degrees on their rosters who are smart enough to figure out for themselves that they at least be covered for lifetime medical from an athletic injury, a monthly stipend while playing or upon graduation is just extra gravy on the biscuits..

As a hypothetical......can you imagine the fun if the Patriot League and Ivy League teams enjoined this? The NCAA would have to roll over on their bellies with paws up and settle. The Ivy League won't since they don't offer scholarships but the Patriot League teams now do offer them; and they have some pretty savvy student athletes playing within their ranks as well.

[PDad]

I find the notion of college athletics making or losing money to be questionable. They have little incentive to make money, so they aim to break even to keep the same amount of funding - use it or lose it.

JonRiv is spot on... With the exception of Major College football and basketball majority of sports loose $$$ or at best break even. When there is profit in those sports funds generally go back into the pool for other sports. In our case(softball) only a handful of programs don't loose $$$.

That's a given - very few colleges don't subsidize their athletic departments to some extent or another. My point is even the schools that make tremendous amounts of money off football and men's basketball still subsidize their athletic departments, not due to a lack of athletic revenue, but because they CHOOSE to spend more money than necessary. If they were a real for-profit business, they would exert more control over their expenses.

Not to long ago I was knee deep in doing my fair share in helping save Cal baseball from the chopping block because of State Budget concerns. Actually saw the baseball budget as well as other sports on the chopping block. Financial loss to the school is real...

That is a different issue - the State Budget concerns threatened the school's overall budget, so they were being proactive in looking for ways to balance the school's budget.