Student-Athletes Turned Employees
The NCAA Amateurism model threatened
The decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional director to order a union election for Dartmouth College men's basketball players, rooted in the common-law definition of employment, indicates a significant development in the ongoing discussions about the labor rights of student-athletes. This decision implies that, at least in this specific case, athletes are considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) due to the employer's right to control their work and the exchange of compensation.
Dartmouth does not treat their men's basketball players as employees, and this distinction is evident in the absence of standard employment procedures such as the completion of documents like I-9s or W-2s. Of particular interest is Dartmouth's alignment with Ivy League policies, where athletic scholarships are not awarded to student-athletes to compete. In navigating the complex interplay between academics, sports, and financial considerations, Dartmouth's approach adds a unique perspective to the broader conversations about the roles and treatment of student-athletes in collegiate athletics. Despite the facts, the Regional Director concluded that Dartmouth's imposition of rigorous fitness, practice, and playing regimens on basketball players demonstrated the necessary control.
Student-athletes or employees
The conversation about student-athletes being classified as employees within the NCAA has been ongoing for several decades. The issue gained notable attention in the early 2000s and has since evolved with legal challenges, court cases, and public discussions continuing to shape the landscape. The debate has intensified in recent years, especially concerning matters like athlete compensation, name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, and working conditions.
One landmark moment was the Northwestern University football team's attempt to unionize in 2014. While the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in favor of the players' employee status, the decision was later overturned. Subsequent legal challenges and legislative actions at both the state and federal levels have kept the conversation alive, prompting discussions about reforming the NCAA model and addressing the rights and well-being of student-athletes.
The Current NCAA Business Model
The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) operates under a business model that centers around the concept of amateurism. Here is what that model includes:
Amateurism: The NCAA's foundational principle is amateurism, emphasizing that student-athletes should primarily be students and not employees. This concept historically restricts athletes from receiving compensation beyond scholarships and related educational expenses.
Scholarships: Student-athletes are typically offered scholarships covering tuition, room, board, and other educational expenses. The scholarship is considered the primary form of compensation, and athletes are expected to maintain their amateur status.
Who does not receive scholarships?
Division III: Division III schools do not offer athletic scholarships. Instead, student-athletes are eligible for financial aid based on need or academic merit, similar to the general student population.
Ivy League and Patriot League: These conferences also do not award athletic scholarships. However, they provide financial aid based on need, and student-athletes are not awarded scholarships specifically for their athletic abilities.
It's crucial to understand that the availability of scholarships can vary widely among different colleges and universities, even within the same NCAA division. In Division I, for example, some schools invest heavily in athletic scholarships, while others may not allocate as many resources to their athletic programs. Student-athletes who do not receive athletic scholarships may still be eligible for other forms of financial aid, such as academic scholarships, grants, or need-based aid, depending on the policies of the institution. Additionally, athletes may pursue walk-on opportunities, where they join a team without an athletic scholarship but may earn one through their performance over time.
Revenue Generation: College sports, particularly football and basketball, generate substantial revenue through television contracts, sponsorships, ticket sales, and merchandise. The revenue is used to fund athletic programs, scholarships, and the overall maintenance of collegiate athletics.
NCAA Control: The NCAA maintains control over regulations, eligibility criteria, and the organization of college sports competitions. This centralized control is intended to ensure a level playing field, fair competition, and adherence to amateurism.
The NCAA business model has faced challenges and criticisms over the years, and the ongoing conversation about student-athletes being treated as employees poses a threat to certain aspects of this model. Here's how:
Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Rights: Recent discussions and legal developments have challenged the NCAA's restrictions on athletes profiting from their name, image, and likeness to its fullest extend without restrictions. The ability of athletes to engage in endorsement deals, receive compensation for their NIL rights, and pursue commercial opportunities threaten the traditional limitation on athlete earnings.
Compensation Beyond Scholarships: Calls for providing additional compensation to student-athletes, particularly in high-revenue sports, challenge the traditional model of amateurism. Efforts to allow athletes to receive payment for their athletic contributions beyond scholarships could impact the current distribution of revenue within the NCAA.
Unionization and Employee Status: Cases like the attempt to unionize Northwestern University football players and discussions about student-athletes being classified as employees challenge the idea of amateurism. If athletes gain employee status, it could lead to collective bargaining, legal protections, and negotiations on various employment-related aspects, impacting the traditional NCAA structure.
Should and do student-athletes want to be considered employees?
The question of whether athletes should want to be considered employees is subjective and depends on various factors, including individual preferences, priorities, and the specific context of collegiate or professional sports. Here are some considerations:
Potential Advantages:
Collective Bargaining: If athletes are classified as employees, they may gain the right to engage in collective bargaining. This could provide them with a platform to negotiate for better working conditions, compensation, and other benefits.
Legal Protections: Employee status may afford athletes certain legal protections and rights that they might not have as student-athletes. This could include protections against unfair labor practices or the ability to collectively negotiate terms and conditions of their involvement in sports.
Compensation Beyond Scholarships: Employee status might open avenues for athletes to receive compensation beyond traditional scholarships, especially in the form of additional wages, benefits, or opportunities to profit from their name, image, and likeness.
Potential Disadvantages:
Complexity and Responsibility: Being classified as employees could introduce additional complexities, responsibilities, and potential conflicts in the relationship between athletes and their institutions or sports organizations.
Balancing Academic Commitments: For college athletes, employee status might affect their ability to balance athletic and academic commitments. The increased demands of being employees could impact their academic pursuits.
Ultimately, the question of whether athletes should want to be considered employees is highly personal and depends on individual priorities, goals, and the broader context of the sports landscape. The ongoing discussions about athlete compensation and labor rights reflect the evolving nature of the relationship between athletes and the institutions or organizations they represent.
As we navigate the evolving landscape of athlete compensation and labor rights, leaders in collegiate and professional sports should anticipate a paradigm shift. While this conversation presents challenges, it also opens doors to new opportunities for collaboration, negotiation, and mutual understanding between athletes and sports organizations. Leaders should proactively engage in constructive dialogue, recognizing the diverse perspectives and priorities within the sports community. As we look forward, embracing flexibility in the traditional models and finding common ground on compensation structures will be essential for fostering a positive and sustainable future in sports.