College football is a mess

[stinger78]

1. if they’re contractors, they aren’t amateurs.
2. The players don’t have employment contracts. They have scholarships. It’s not the same
3. The NIL contracts are not with the AA or the school.
4. If you have a contract, you don’t need a non-compete. Have a four year exclusive contract and pay for the four years. If they leave after the term of the contract, they can sell their services wherever
5. it can’t be overly broad, and if a court views it as “something for nothing” it might be invalidated anyway.

This is what the Alston case was about. The agreements with the athletes were ruled unfair restraints of trade.

Trying to accomplish the same thing with the same benefits with a different piece piece of paper will probably get the same results

EDIT: we have NIL threads. If you want to argue NIL, take it to an existing thread on the topic

I don’t want to argue NIL. It is what it is.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I don’t want to argue NIL. It is what it is.

And we are what we are.

And what will be will be.

 

[forensicbuzz]

1. if they’re contractors, they aren’t amateurs.
2. The players don’t have employment contracts. They have scholarships. It’s not the same
3. The NIL contracts are not with the AA or the school.
4. If you have a contract, you don’t need a non-compete. Have a four year exclusive contract and pay for the four years. If they leave after the term of the contract, they can sell their services wherever
5. it can’t be overly broad, and if a court views it as “something for nothing” it might be invalidated anyway.

This is what the Alston case was about. The agreements with the athletes were ruled unfair restraints of trade.

Trying to accomplish the same thing with the same benefits with a different piece piece of paper will probably get the same results

EDIT: we have NIL threads. If you want to argue NIL, take it to an existing thread on the topic

To be fair, the restriction on the student-athletes was never to prevent them from earning money for their name, image, or likeness. The whole point was to make it a black-and-white issue regarding compensation for the players to prevent boosters from using it as a way to pay players to come play for their team. If there were a way to strictly police NIL options to prevent pay-for-play, the NCAA would have done that decades ago. There is no way to do that, so they've always just said "No pay, period." That's what got tossed out by the Alston matter.

 

[alagold]

Hey now...thats something and employer would offer an employee on the basis of hiring. Good thing they are Student-Athletes and not emplo.......uh oh

Dartmouth ,I think, bball players just voted to have a union. hmmmm

 

[TooTall]

Dartmouth ,I think, bball players just voted to have a union. hmmmm

Wonder if they'll strike during the regular season or post season. Teachers strikes never happen in the summer.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Wonder if they'll strike during the regular season or post season. Teachers strikes never happen in the summer.

Who do they negotiate with? What is their leverage? Can the school just bring in other students to play games when they go on strike? Do they realize scholarships are only for 1 year and don't have to be renewed? Do they know that if they strike, they'll be locked out of the facilities and won't be able to access the weight rooms, cafeterias, dorms, academic support, all the perks they get for being participating student-athletes?

 

[Root4GT]

Who do they negotiate with? What is their leverage? Can the school just bring in other students to play games when they go on strike? Do they realize scholarships are only for 1 year and don't have to be renewed? Do they know that if they strike, they'll be locked out of the facilities and won't be able to access the weight rooms, cafeterias, dorms, academic support, all the perks they get for being participating student-athletes?

Why do you think there will be a strike. Negations often take place without a strike.

The courts will clearly have a say in this before all is said and done.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Why do you think there will be a strike. Negations often take place without a strike.

The courts will clearly have a say in this before all is said and done.

Because I do not believe the schools will treat these players as employees of the University. I don't believe the Universities will engage. I think the Ivies will transition their athletics to club sports before they engage in negotiation. I think these young people have been hoodwinked by people who have different agendas. Could it happen at somewhere like Alabama or OSU? Maybe. But I think Dartmouth would downgrade their program before engaging in labor negotiations. Just my opinion. Time will tell. Labor's one ace in the hole has always been strike. It's really the only leverage they have. I don't think college students have the same leverage. They're replaceable.

How many players did Deion Sanders replace this year? The portal is full of players who want to play.

 

[Root4GT]

Because I do not believe the schools will treat these players as employees of the University. I don't believe the Universities will engage. I think the Ivies will transition their athletics to club sports before they engage in negotiation. I think these young people have been hoodwinked by people who have different agendas. Could it happen at somewhere like Alabama or OSU? Maybe. But I think Dartmouth would downgrade their program before engaging in labor negotiations. Just my opinion. Time will tell. Labor's one ace in the hole has always been strike. It's really the only leverage they have. I don't think college students have the same leverage. They're replaceable.

How many players did Deion Sanders replace this year? The portal is full of players who want to play.

I believe you are conflating the legal issue regarding the athletes as employees which the courts will make the final decision on with employer-union negotiations. If the courts do rule the athletes are in fact employees than Dartmouth has no option but to negotiate with them thru collective bargaining. If the courts rule they are not employees than they are not union members.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I believe you are conflating the legal issue regarding the athletes as employees which the courts will make the final decision on with employer-union negotiations. If the courts do rule the athletes are in fact employees than Dartmouth has no option but to negotiate with them thru collective bargaining. If the courts rule they are not employees than they are not union members.

I disagree. Dartmouth does not have to negotiate with them. If Dartmouth identifies scholarship student-athletes as independent contractors, they don't have to negotiate. Because the Wagner Act applies only to employees, an employer would have no duty to bargain with a union of independent contractors. The contractors' union would therefore have no peaceful way to bring the employer to the table.

 

[Root4GT]

I disagree. Dartmouth does not have to negotiate with them. If Dartmouth identifies scholarship student-athletes as independent contractors, they don't have to negotiate. Because the Wagner Act applies only to employees, an employer would have no duty to bargain with a union of independent contractors. The contractors' union would therefore have no peaceful way to bring the employer to the table.

Back to the NLRB ruling which said the players were in effect school employees therefore it’s now heading to the full NLRB and no doubt to Federal Court.

 

[awbuzz]

Good summation of why coaches are leaving...

"... and then maybe 70 or 80 percent of the players you talk to, all they want to know is two things: What assurances do I have that I'm going to play because they're thinking about transferring, and how much are you going to pay me?" Saban recounted. "Our program here was always built on how much value can we create for your future and your personal development, academic success in graduating and developing an NFL career on the field.

"So I'm saying to myself, 'Maybe this doesn't work anymore, that the goals and aspirations are just different and that it's all about how much money can I make as a college player?' I'm not saying that's bad. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that's never been what we were all about, and it's not why we had success through the years."

 

[forensicbuzz]

Back to the NLRB ruling which said the players were in effect school employees therefore it’s now heading to the full NLRB and no doubt to Federal Court.

With the entrepreneurial ability of the student-athletes with NIL, and the ability to move whenever they want, it shouldn't be hard for a school to argue they're independent contractors. Depending on the election next year, that definition may change again. It has changed with each successive change in the White House since President Obama's second term (not a political comment, but the interpretation of the NLRB guidelines for "independent contractors" has changed).

 

[Root4GT]

With the entrepreneurial ability of the student-athletes with NIL, and the ability to move whenever they want, it shouldn't be hard for a school to argue they're independent contractors. Depending on the election next year, that definition may change again. It has changed with each successive change in the White House since President Obama's second term (not a political comment, but the interpretation of the NLRB guidelines for "independent contractors" has changed).

Yup which of course is nuts (changing based on elections) but it is what it is!

 

[ThatGuy]

I disagree. Dartmouth does not have to negotiate with them. If Dartmouth identifies scholarship student-athletes as independent contractors, they don't have to negotiate. Because the Wagner Act applies only to employees, an employer would have no duty to bargain with a union of independent contractors. The contractors' union would therefore have no peaceful way to bring the employer to the table.

A good thought, but I'm not certain it works that way in this case. The laws of supply and demand may take over, here.

I have the (often unfortunate) distinction of being a member of the formerly-3 (now 2) unions for professional actors - SAG-AFTRA and Equity. Their founding is an interesting one, and could provide an interesting allegory to the upcoming shifts in college athletics.

In the 1920s through the 1950s, actors were employees of specific studios.They were under contract with a specific studio, with a deal for X pictures. What this did was allowed studios to be in control of an actor's career, with undue influence over it. The studios controlled an actor's schedule, which films they worked on, and their overall public image. If an actor upset the wrong studio boss, or if someone in power decided they didn't like the actor, the studio could simply sit on the contract forever and effectively "blacklist" the actor (which happened to Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland, among others). There was no ability to "transfer."

Additionally, studios owned the production facilities, the theaters where movies were distributed, and in some cases even the outside companies that processed film and generated special effects. They would often work with other studios to determine which independent theaters would be allowed to show certain films. They owned the distribution and the means of production, all of which prevented actors and independent producers from competing on the open market.

In 1948, a Supreme Court ruling deemed Paramount Studios a monopoly, and effectively dismantled the studio system. And that's when things really started to change in the actors' world. The actors were now independent contractors, and could shop themselves around to other studios. Actors continued to collectively bargain - but now over more issues. Essentially, the producers and studios organization would meet with SAG/AFTRA and negotiate changes to the broad union contract, which set base levels of salaries, conditions, etc - all of which were effectively minimums. Actors could always negotiate more than the floor of the contract (and they still do, of course). This was all while actors were independent contractors, not employees.

The producers and studios negotiated not because rank and file actors had leverage, but because the public wanted to see the stars, and the stars agreed to stop work until protections were afforded to actors of all income levels and public stature.

So while universities may not be bound to negotiate with the formerly-"student athletes," eventually there will be enough star power involved that the university ADs will have to take notice and negotiate.

Again, same as it ever was: billable hours will be what wins. And it will be interesting to see what the student athletes do when confronted with paying out union dues, paying for attorneys, dealing with union bureaucracy, having to focus less on the "me" and more on the "us," etc. But I'm pretty sure supply and demand will work in the athletes' favor here as far as getting universities to the table. If not Dartmouth, the precedent has now been set.

Given the whole sticky situation with schools supposedly being about education & all, I would expect to see athletes not go the route of the "W-2 employee" (as the NFL does), but adopt an IC model similar to what actors and directors in the entertainment industry do. This will allow schools to say "they are students, but we're paying them for another thing they contribute to the school." But that remains to be seen - as we know, there are a lot of litmus tests set up around what constitutes an IC versus an employee.

Anyway, thought I'd bring that up, as it continually jumps into my mind as this situation continues to develop. I would be shocked if the scenario of actors' business dealings doesn't continue to be a good analogy for the players' situation.

 

[takethepoints]

The courts will clearly have a say in this before all is said and done.

I think Congress will beat them to it. Substantively, that is. The college game needs to step up and save itself. Not likely, but if they don't somebody else will. Here's what he'll look like:

 

[forensicbuzz]

A good thought, but I'm not certain it works that way in this case. The laws of supply and demand may take over, here.

I have the (often unfortunate) distinction of being a member of the formerly-3 (now 2) unions for professional actors - SAG-AFTRA and Equity. Their founding is an interesting one, and could provide an interesting allegory to the upcoming shifts in college athletics.

In the 1920s through the 1950s, actors were employees of specific studios.They were under contract with a specific studio, with a deal for X pictures. What this did was allowed studios to be in control of an actor's career, with undue influence over it. The studios controlled an actor's schedule, which films they worked on, and their overall public image. If an actor upset the wrong studio boss, or if someone in power decided they didn't like the actor, the studio could simply sit on the contract forever and effectively "blacklist" the actor (which happened to Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland, among others). There was no ability to "transfer."

Additionally, studios owned the production facilities, the theaters where movies were distributed, and in some cases even the outside companies that processed film and generated special effects. They would often work with other studios to determine which independent theaters would be allowed to show certain films. They owned the distribution and the means of production, all of which prevented actors and independent producers from competing on the open market.

In 1948, a Supreme Court ruling deemed Paramount Studios a monopoly, and effectively dismantled the studio system. And that's when things really started to change in the actors' world. The actors were now independent contractors, and could shop themselves around to other studios. Actors continued to collectively bargain - but now over more issues. Essentially, the producers and studios organization would meet with SAG/AFTRA and negotiate changes to the broad union contract, which set base levels of salaries, conditions, etc - all of which were effectively minimums. Actors could always negotiate more than the floor of the contract (and they still do, of course). This was all while actors were independent contractors, not employees.

The producers and studios negotiated not because rank and file actors had leverage, but because the public wanted to see the stars, and the stars agreed to stop work until protections were afforded to actors of all income levels and public stature.

So while universities may not be bound to negotiate with the formerly-"student athletes," eventually there will be enough star power involved that the university ADs will have to take notice and negotiate.

Again, same as it ever was: billable hours will be what wins. And it will be interesting to see what the student athletes do when confronted with paying out union dues, paying for attorneys, dealing with union bureaucracy, having to focus less on the "me" and more on the "us," etc. But I'm pretty sure supply and demand will work in the athletes' favor here as far as getting universities to the table. If not Dartmouth, the precedent has now been set.

Given the whole sticky situation with schools supposedly being about education & all, I would expect to see athletes not go the route of the "W-2 employee" (as the NFL does), but adopt an IC model similar to what actors and directors in the entertainment industry do. This will allow schools to say "they are students, but we're paying them for another thing they contribute to the school." But that remains to be seen - as we know, there are a lot of litmus tests set up around what constitutes an IC versus an employee.

Anyway, thought I'd bring that up, as it continually jumps into my mind as this situation continues to develop. I would be shocked if the scenario of actors' business dealings doesn't continue to be a good analogy for the players' situation.

If you read my post (or ealier post) you would see I was specifically talking about Dartmouth. It'll be a different story with the big programs. But schools like Dartmouth will simply not engage.

 

[stinger78]

A good thought, but I'm not certain it works that way in this case. The laws of supply and demand may take over, here.

I have the (often unfortunate) distinction of being a member of the formerly-3 (now 2) unions for professional actors - SAG-AFTRA and Equity. Their founding is an interesting one, and could provide an interesting allegory to the upcoming shifts in college athletics.

In the 1920s through the 1950s, actors were employees of specific studios.They were under contract with a specific studio, with a deal for X pictures. What this did was allowed studios to be in control of an actor's career, with undue influence over it. The studios controlled an actor's schedule, which films they worked on, and their overall public image. If an actor upset the wrong studio boss, or if someone in power decided they didn't like the actor, the studio could simply sit on the contract forever and effectively "blacklist" the actor (which happened to Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland, among others). There was no ability to "transfer."

Additionally, studios owned the production facilities, the theaters where movies were distributed, and in some cases even the outside companies that processed film and generated special effects. They would often work with other studios to determine which independent theaters would be allowed to show certain films. They owned the distribution and the means of production, all of which prevented actors and independent producers from competing on the open market.

In 1948, a Supreme Court ruling deemed Paramount Studios a monopoly, and effectively dismantled the studio system. And that's when things really started to change in the actors' world. The actors were now independent contractors, and could shop themselves around to other studios. Actors continued to collectively bargain - but now over more issues. Essentially, the producers and studios organization would meet with SAG/AFTRA and negotiate changes to the broad union contract, which set base levels of salaries, conditions, etc - all of which were effectively minimums. Actors could always negotiate more than the floor of the contract (and they still do, of course). This was all while actors were independent contractors, not employees.

The producers and studios negotiated not because rank and file actors had leverage, but because the public wanted to see the stars, and the stars agreed to stop work until protections were afforded to actors of all income levels and public stature.

So while universities may not be bound to negotiate with the formerly-"student athletes," eventually there will be enough star power involved that the university ADs will have to take notice and negotiate.

Again, same as it ever was: billable hours will be what wins. And it will be interesting to see what the student athletes do when confronted with paying out union dues, paying for attorneys, dealing with union bureaucracy, having to focus less on the "me" and more on the "us," etc. But I'm pretty sure supply and demand will work in the athletes' favor here as far as getting universities to the table. If not Dartmouth, the precedent has now been set.

Given the whole sticky situation with schools supposedly being about education & all, I would expect to see athletes not go the route of the "W-2 employee" (as the NFL does), but adopt an IC model similar to what actors and directors in the entertainment industry do. This will allow schools to say "they are students, but we're paying them for another thing they contribute to the school." But that remains to be seen - as we know, there are a lot of litmus tests set up around what constitutes an IC versus an employee.

Anyway, thought I'd bring that up, as it continually jumps into my mind as this situation continues to develop. I would be shocked if the scenario of actors' business dealings doesn't continue to be a good analogy for the players' situation.

I think the SA is an independent contractor as has been, in essence, for a long time. Athletic scholarships have been the binding contractual vehicle for decades for securing their athletic prowess on behalf of the school. Their payment was free or reduced tuition plus all the additional perks such as clothing, food, housing, tutoring, books, training, and medical services, among others.

However, the NCAA limited NIL to almost zero prior to the O’Bannon and Alston cases in which COA and NIL were affirmed by the courts as legitimate rights of SA’s subject to antitrust laws.

IMO, the next step is to codify the SA as an IC wrt his/her sport allowing the ability to unionize. I also believe this will bring about the end of college sports as we know it by eliminating athletic scholarships. Those who qualify for academic scholarships can access those, while others opt to play in a “premier league” (SEC/B1G) type environment that can afford to pay players enormous sums of money for their services.

 

[Steverc]

Dartmouth has several foreign players on its roster. I wonder if they are the ones that voted "NO" since they cannot work on student visas. I don't think they can get work visas for college basketball because they would have to prove that a citizen could not do the work. There are so many American citizens that play basketball and would love to take those jobs.

 

[ThatGuy]

If you read my post (or ealier post) you would see I was specifically talking about Dartmouth. It'll be a different story with the big programs. But schools like Dartmouth will simply not engage.

Right. Agreed on that - but as I said, it all depends on how quickly dominoes start to fall. If the Dartmouth players form/join a union, then within a week you could see Rutgers players voting to join, or Clemson, or uGA, etc, etc. It could take a lot longer than that - but once the collective is established with some higher-caliber players, their leverage starts to increase.

But we're in agreement at the start - Dartmouth has no obligation to come to the table with their athletes if their athletes are ICs. But as soon as other schools get involved, it gets more complex.