College Athletes are Employees

These athletes have acces to the best training equipment and medical care and don't pay a dime. Have yet to see a school dump a player because they couldn't pay for a doctor or surgery.

Where does it end? Is every athlete at every level owed money, health insurance, ect...?

I agree that it isn't easy. I'd like to see some of them get care after they leave though. Chronic knee and back issues don't just go away when you graduate.
 
Well will take care if them right....





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not sure why my post was edited. Do I have to call it the affordable care act to be accepted? It's our nations healthcare system. Not sure why it can't be mentioned. Totally relevant in this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I agree that it isn't easy. I'd like to see some of them get care after they leave though. Chronic knee and back issues don't just go away when you graduate.


No they don't. But the kids should still be covered under their parents insurance or buy their own


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Not sure why my post was edited. Do I have to call it the affordable care act to be accepted? It's our nations healthcare system. Not sure why it can't be mentioned. Totally relevant in this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From the rules thread:

#5 Political references/analogies are not allowed.

Let's not have any more discussion of the topic.
 
No they don't. But the kids should still be covered under their parents insurance or buy their own


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I don't think they should get a blank check from schools. Maybe just a guarantee of coverage a few years after graduation? So if your parents can't cover you and you don't have a job yet your health isn't at risk.

Honestly, I haven't given much thought about this. There may be plenty of things wrong with that idea.
 
So if your parents can't cover you and you don't have a job yet your health isn't at risk.


Anybody and everybody can get healthcare coverage now. Pretty affordable if you don't have much income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I do think that the present courts will overturn the NLRB ruling---for now. Eventually, probably fifteen to twenty years in the future, I am almost certain that some ruling will define that university athletes are employees of the institution and entitled to the benefits of the institutions---such as workman's compensation. Attempting to keep this under institutional control is about as likely as the NCAA trying to keep control of TV rights in the fifties and sixties.

This will go to court and might go the Supreme Court. As presented by Boca, the NLRB is way out on a limb (the actual ruling could be pretty narrow). There are huge implications to this. I am completely serious about the value of the scholarship and tax. It isn't right to argue you are an employee and then say your compensation should be tax free or is tax free. I really don't think the NLRB thought about much other than helping organized labor.
 
Well, actually, it wasn't "THE" NLRB. A single individual, a director at one regional office, made this ruling. Even with that, the ruling is only applicable to Private Schools like Northwestern. It has nothing to do with Public Universities.

The ruling is subject to appeal to the NLRB in DC. Then if needed, on to the courts.

Powerful moneyed interest want to keep the status quo. Message board posters and a couple of non descript journalist are the only advocates for the players.

The players may get a couple of extra handfuls of money one of these days. But, there will be no union and no revenue sharing.

I bet this local guy is over ruled by the national office. This is a major, major change and should not be made by some low level person.
 
What is representation going to do? It will create another group of adults getting rich off the student athletes. I will volunteer to run this new union. I will do it for the low, low salary of $500,000 a year (plus benefits). I will fly all over the country attending big sporting events, go on the news, raise awareness, etc. I will hire a huge staff of people, several of whom will be highly compensated. Then I will farm out all of the actual work to large law firms at $500 an hour (maybe more).

The student athletes won't get anything.

Some of you are very naive. The government cannot solve your problems or any problems. It never has and it never will.
 
Unions have declined over the years primarily because the government provides most of the protection that employees used to get from the unions. there are other reasons of course.

There has been a recent bonanza for the unions with government employees where the mother of conflict of interest has developed. Government employee unions support candidates who become the decision makers about wages and benefits and in many cases has granted much more than earned by their counterparts in the private sector and in turn those decision makers receive generous campaign contributions from said union.

I wouldn't bet on the NLRB ruling against this decision. For the most part the NLRB is very supportive of unions.

I just don't see how it would work. Unions are typically for the employee and if the organization is destroyed in the process no big deal. They become ineffective if they take on any other attitude. Early unions were unsuccessful because they were concerned about the organization.

If Northwestern players gain a big financial gain then does this give them an unfair advantage over Illinois and Indiana U. Will all schools go to the union. Will the NCAA disappear as a governing body. Will Texas unionize to avoid NCAA limits and with their large donor base become the New York Yankees of college football. Will the union demand that all players receive the same amount. They typically do not consider skill in their contracts. So the all-American quarterback receives the same as the last guy off the bench. Do all sports become unionized. What about Title IX.

There are probably unintended consequenses of this that none of us can forsee. In any event, if upheld it will mean the end of college sports as we know them. For the better or worse, who knows.
 
Money is not one of their demands. Their argument is that they are employees because of their existing compensation arrangement. They might in the future demand more money, but that would be subject to normal bargaining rules.
 
They may say it is not about money but the complaint for years is how come the head coach makes millions and they get nothing.

It will also be interesting how the grievance system will work. Do they get to file one if they think they should get more playing time. But if they all get paid the same then who will care about playing time.
 
There are probably unintended consequenses of this that none of us can forsee. In any event, if upheld it will mean the end of college sports as we know them. For the better or worse, who knows.

I agree the consequences are far greater than just giving the players extended health insurance benefits. What about unemployment? What about workers compensation? What about taxes on the scholarships (which are currently not taxable)? What about the Fair Labor Standards Act and over time? If they are putting in more than 40 hours per week and are employees they are entitled to over time compensation. More importantly what about all of the schools that struggle to field football teams as it is?

People want to act OU, Texas, Alabama, etc. are representative of all college athletics but they are not. What about NAIA, FCS, and Juco teams?
 
As Andy Staples said, the collegiate athletics boom over the past 15 years has been incredible. ADs and coaches have lined their pockets with profits while enjoying low labor costs and, for most schools, subsidized money from state and federal institutions.

Anyone who thought this free ride would last had their head in the sand. There is a reason all of these higher educated people (JDs, MBAs, CPAs, etc) started jumping in the athletics administration game...there was easy money to be made. That's why you don't see coaches in power AD positions anymore. Everyone a couple years ago was saying Mack Brown would take over the Texas AD job when Dodds step down...are you kidding me? You would entrust that gravy train with a football coach? Come on.

I don't think athletes are going to ask to be paid as normal employees, as Colter or one of the representatives said yesterday, no one is asking for that. Most just want some extended benefits, starting with the actual price of tuition, fees, etc to attend a four year school. Throw in some extended long-term health benefits for injuries, a pension to cash out after GRADUATING and both sides will come to a deal.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if any of the advocates of collective bargaining and revenue sharing for college ball players feel the same about the employees of Walmart and McDonalds?
 
I'd still like to know what a full football scholarship to OU entails. Entirely. Tell me everything they get, what they don't pay for, what they have access to. I think there is a lot of misconceptions, and I'll be honest, I don't know entirely what they get either. It'd be nice if somebody would just spell it out.

What do they get in terms of medical help?
In terms of cash/stipends?
Living?
Clothes?
 
I'd still like to know what a full football scholarship to OU entails. Entirely. Tell me everything they get, what they don't pay for, what they have access to. I think there is a lot of misconceptions, and I'll be honest, I don't know entirely what they get either. It'd be nice if somebody would just spell it out.

What do they get in terms of medical help?
In terms of cash/stipends?
Living?
Clothes?

I don't think even the players know, there are misconceptions all around.

That's why in the end, I think everyone will settle on some of the items I mentioned above.
 
I'd still like to know what a full football scholarship to OU entails. Entirely. Tell me everything they get, what they don't pay for, what they have access to. I think there is a lot of misconceptions, and I'll be honest, I don't know entirely what they get either. It'd be nice if somebody would just spell it out.

What do they get in terms of medical help?
In terms of cash/stipends?
Living?
Clothes?

I don't know all the details. It is a secret. But, they make out like bandits.

Firstly, even though they are on scholarship, they are eligible for any other grant or aid that is available to any other student. If they meet the economic standards for a Pell Grant, they get it. That is just pocket money since tuition and books are covered by the athletic scholarship.

Then at OU and most all of the other competitive programs there is the Headdington Hall scam. Their room and meal benefit is based on the pretty high Headington Hall rate. When they move out after their freshman year into lessor priced University owned housing or to private owned housing, they get a get a weekly check and meal per diem based on the Higher Headington Hall rates. More pocket money.

Then there is the snack vs meal benefit. They get a per diem when the team travels. In basketball for instance, after an evening game and the team comes home that night. The team may be served a foot long subway chips, cookies, and a drink. That is a snack not a meal. The value of a Headington Hall evening meal would then be added to their weekly check. Times like spring break or holiday break when school isn't in session, there may be "snacks" available to the players. Those snacks do not dilute the weekly check per diem meal benefit.

It is all legal. They all do it. They players make out pretty good. Where did you think all that tattoo money comes from?
 
I'm very confident that 99% of college athletes are "over compensated" and the other 1% are fairly compensated.

I always enjoyed this union related video: you have to stick with it to the end for the payoff.

[ame]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr5oWfoWRY[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top