College football is a mess

[L41k18]

I think I see my exit from supporting college athletics coming soon.

 

[roadkill]

I do not think you can classify the athletes on our football team to be upper level managers of the university, but your point is taken. Yes, executives and common workers do not receive the same perks.

By the way, the inverse is also true. There are students who receive similar benefits with academic scholarships that have not been designated as employees. I wonder why the NLRB chose not to include them in their ruling.

You make a good point and I suspect that's why scholarships have not traditionally been regarded as compensation. But regular students who a) receive academic scholarships not paid by the state (Hope) or another third party (many endowed schollys or federal grants) but instead paid directly by the school, and b) who also perform work for the school, may be a quite small number. I really don't know. I do know that when I co-oped with GTRI, I was considered both a student and an employee of the state. I suppose GTRI is considered a separate entity from the school itself.

 

[sweeper]

I’m not sure we are comparing apples to apples.

Students who receive academic scholarships are not required to work according to institutional rules (eg. 20 hrs or 40 hrs per week of mandated study time) or other standards that don’t apply to the general student population. If you are incredibly gifted and study a bare minimum and still achieve the performance requirements of your scholarship, you keep the scholarship. If you don’t maintain the academic minimum required, you lose the scholarship.

The example of working in a lab is interesting. As an undergrad you are not required to work in the lab to maintain student status. You volunteer your time for experience and, hopefully, the mentorship and recommendations for future endeavors that follow. As a grad student you work at the schools facilities but are paid out of funding from some source, maybe school related or maybe outside funding. My nephew is getting a PhD at Ga State. He is paid 30,000 a year and gets tuition for free. He told me that he is paid as a contractor, 1099 income. I guess that is how he doesn’t get state benefits.

 

[7979]

The product on the field is very good these days. That follows advances in nutrition, S&C, and coaching, all beginning at the HS level. Yes, money has purchased part of that, but not all of it. Many of those players who end up coaching are ones who didn't make it to the NFL. Coaching at the HS level is much better today overall than it was back in 1974. I'm not sure college coaching is as much, but probably somewhat. That is due to more former players at high levels entering the coaching field - an unintended consequence. I don't think many want to go back to 1974 for the CFB game itself.

Where the greatest effect of today's money is felt, IMO, is in the absurd escalation of coaches' salaries, constantly upgraded state of the art locker rooms and other facilities designed to catch recruits' eyes, expensive means of travel - such as helicopters, significant expansion of staffs, the rampant cost of "education," and now NIL. None of that, except staff expansion, really improves the game on the field but it sure explodes the cost. It's ludicrous that a college football coach makes over 10x what the President of the US makes, or research scientists seeking cures to disease. Yet, that's where we are. You may love it... I don't. It's not helping the game at all, IMO.

Few oppose the right of an athlete to market himself. No issue there at all. But that is not what all the money is about, and it is flowing so freely - like a narcotic - into the game today that the game is now hooked on money. Yes, it has always taken money to pay the bills. That is no different today than 1974, or 1954. But the money it requires now to run a "successful" program is decadent, again, in my opinion. There's a huge magnitude of difference in what we see today in AA budgets and what it took to run the non-profit AA back in 1974.

Just my opinion. You surely do not have to agree.

"..Coaching at the HS level is much better today overall than it was back in 1974. I'm not sure college coaching is as much...."
Absolutely true on both counts....

 

[leatherneckjacket]

I’m not sure we are comparing apples to apples.

Students who receive academic scholarships are not required to work according to institutional rules (eg. 20 hrs or 40 hrs per week of mandated study time) or other standards that don’t apply to the general student population. If you are incredibly gifted and study a bare minimum and still achieve the performance requirements of your scholarship, you keep the scholarship. If you don’t maintain the academic minimum required, you lose the scholarship.

The example of working in a lab is interesting. As an undergrad you are not required to work in the lab to maintain student status. You volunteer your time for experience and, hopefully, the mentorship and recommendations for future endeavors that follow. As a grad student you work at the schools facilities but are paid out of funding from some source, maybe school related or maybe outside funding. My nephew is getting a PhD at Ga State. He is paid 30,000 a year and gets tuition for free. He told me that he is paid as a contractor, 1099 income. I guess that is how he doesn’t get state benefits.

Practicing and playing football games is not required "work" any more for college students than it is for high school students.

You are talking about Hope scholarships, not other types of academic scholarships offered by the school. There are conditions beyond GPA for some students to keep their scholarship from the school that requires them to support either academic classes or research within the university. It may be small in number, but it exists and they are not considered employees. In many cases a professor oversees the "work" and can have the scholarship pulled if the student does not meet his obligations under the scholarship agreement.

 

[roadkill]

I’m not sure we are comparing apples to apples.

Students who receive academic scholarships are not required to work according to institutional rules (eg. 20 hrs or 40 hrs per week of mandated study time) or other standards that don’t apply to the general student population. If you are incredibly gifted and study a bare minimum and still achieve the performance requirements of your scholarship, you keep the scholarship. If you don’t maintain the academic minimum required, you lose the scholarship.

The example of working in a lab is interesting. As an undergrad you are not required to work in the lab to maintain student status. You volunteer your time for experience and, hopefully, the mentorship and recommendations for future endeavors that follow. As a grad student you work at the schools facilities but are paid out of funding from some source, maybe school related or maybe outside funding. My nephew is getting a PhD at Ga State. He is paid 30,000 a year and gets tuition for free. He told me that he is paid as a contractor, 1099 income. I guess that is how he doesn’t get state benefits.

Another twist to the scholarship-as-income debate is that the IRS does not consider scholarships, grants, or fellowships used for qualified educational expenses to be income. So to be an employee, you need to both do work that is controlled by the employer, and get paid for it. If scholarships aren't income, then an S-A shouldn't be considered an employee if they just get a scholarship.

 

[sweeper]

At least in college it is if you want to stay on the team

 

[roadkill]

Practicing and playing football games is not required "work" any more for college students than it is for high school students.

You are talking about Hope scholarships, not other types of academic scholarships offered by the school. There are conditions beyond GPA for some students to keep their scholarship from the school that requires them to support either academic classes or research within the university. It may be small in number, but it exists and they are not considered employees. In many cases a professor oversees the "work" and can have the scholarship pulled if the student does not meet his obligations under the scholarship agreement.

I was about to object to your description of participating in football games, mandatory practices, and other required ancillary activities as not being "work". But then I had another thought - don't S-A's get PE credit for their sport? Wouldn't participating in the sport thus be considered a requirement for the course? It may be "work" in one sense of the word, but it's also coursework.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

What about schools that offer scholarships for being in the school band. Don't they have to "work" to stay in the band and keep their scholarships. Are they employees?

 

[Vespidae]

You make a good point and I suspect that's why scholarships have not traditionally been regarded as compensation. But regular students who a) receive academic scholarships not paid by the state (Hope) or another third party (many endowed schollys or federal grants) but instead paid directly by the school, and b) who also perform work for the school, may be a quite small number. I really don't know. I do know that when I co-oped with GTRI, I was considered both a student and an employee of the state. I suppose GTRI is considered a separate entity from the school itself.

Scholarships are not considered taxable income unless there are specific conditions for employment.

 

[roadkill]

What about schools that offer scholarships for being in the school band. Don't they have to "work" to stay in the band and keep their scholarships. Are they employees?

So I think we have two potential reasons why they should not be considered employees. One is that if their only compensation is a scholarship to pay for qualified education expenses, that's not income per the IRS. The second is that if they are getting course credit for it, any required activities are schoolwork, not "work" in the labor sense.

 

[roadkill]

Scholarships are not considered taxable income unless there are specific conditions for employment.

Another twist to the scholarship-as-income debate is that the IRS does not consider scholarships, grants, or fellowships used for qualified educational expenses to be income.

Agree.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

A general definition of employee is someone whos work is exchanged for payment. Scholarship students aren't generally required to work (other than coursework). The band students would be a good and reasonable question. My thought, and it is opinion on my part, nothing that I have read in any ruling, is that the definition of employee also means someone who is paid for their services to bring revenue to the company. Generally, employees are hired to help keep revenue coming in. Some as direct sales/public interface, some as support staff allowing the direct sales/public interface employees to work freely. Since College football and basketball players can reasonably be assumed to be revenue generating, the designation of employee is not surprising.

 

[Vespidae]

What about schools that offer scholarships for being in the school band. Don't they have to "work" to stay in the band and keep their scholarships. Are they employees?

It depends. If they use the scholarship to pay for educational expenses like tuition, no. If they receive a weekly stipend in return for required work, yes.

 

[roadkill]

A general definition of employee is someone whos work is exchanged for payment. Scholarship students aren't generally required to work (other than coursework). The band students would be a good and reasonable question. My thought, and it is opinion on my part, nothing that I have read in any ruling, is that the definition of employee also means someone who is paid for their services to bring revenue to the company. Generally, employees are hired to help keep revenue coming in. Some as direct sales/public interface, some as support staff allowing the direct sales/public interface employees to work freely. Since College football and basketball players can reasonably be assumed to be revenue generating, the designation of employee is not surprising.

Your general definition may be correct but is too general to answer the question of whether or not someone should be considered an employee.

For example (and keeping this in the college context), if I paid you to take (and pass) my final exam, you could be considered a 1099/contract worker, but not my employee. If I paid you to attend my classes and do my homework, regardless of the outcome, you could be considered my employee.

I know a little about labor law, but not nearly enough to weigh in on some of the nuances that might have been applied to the recent NRLB decision.

 

[Roswellgoldmember]

Isn't the end game with the employee's status the athletes getting a percentage of the media revenue directly from the schools?

 

[Vespidae]

Isn't the end game with the employee's status the athletes getting a percentage of the media revenue directly from the schools?

Schools are under no obligation to share that anymore than companies are required to distribute all profits to employees.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Isn't the end game with the employee's status the athletes getting a percentage of the media revenue directly from the schools?

The end game is that once the NLRB designates them as employees they are allowed to attempt to unionize and then collectively bargain for better wages.

 

[roadkill]

The end game is that once the NLRB designates them as employees they are allowed to attempt to unionize and then collectively bargain for better wages.

While that could happen, and in my opinion would open a can of worms, the employee designation would also trigger:

• Minimum wage requirements that apply whether or not they're in a union. Shouldn't be a big issue for most schools given where the minimum is now.
• Overtime law applies whether or not they are in a union. Most of the time this wouldn't be an issue, but I can see scenarios involving travel that could get messy if not properly administered.

Edit to add: I don't know the rationale behind the recent NLRB decision, but if they counted scholarships as paid compensation (income), then an unintended consequence might be that schools deliberately cut back on schollys and just leverage NIL instead.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

While that could happen, and in my opinion would open a can of worms, the employee designation would also trigger:

• Minimum wage requirements that apply whether or not they're in a union. Shouldn't be a big issue for most schools given where the minimum is now.
• Overtime law applies whether or not they are in a union. Most of the time this wouldn't be an issue, but I can see scenarios involving travel that could get messy if not properly administered.

It's not a "could happen" scenario. Reread the headline of the article I linked.

NLRB official rules Dartmouth men's basketball team are employees, orders union vote​