NCAA- Supreme Court ruling

[isucy86]

I was reading about that exact thing, and how in retrospect, the NCAA should have allowed players to unionize because the collectively bargained agreements wouldn't be subject to the antitrust laws that the SCOTUS ruled apply to them, today. Hindsight tho...

I am no labor law expert, but I thought part of the unionization push back is it would require that universities recognize athletes as employees of the university.

IMO that is the last thing colleges want due to liability issues of classifying student-athletes as employees. I believe the NCAA has not had to make payouts for CTE injuries like the NFL.

At some point, I believe university presidents are going to question the value of college athletics. Too much liability risk and expense for an activity that is outside the core academic mission of colleges.

I think P5 schools might be able to justify, but based on the Supreme court's ruling yesterday and ensuing statements I think the number of scholarship student-athletes will be far smaller in 5 years. For instance there may be only 60 scholarship football players.

Not sure that scholarship student athletes will exist at schools like UNI that already subsidize their AD's today.

 

[Clark]

If it is a pay-for-play situation, does that mean it is a situation where players follow the same rules as any other employees? Can they get "fired" - beyond just benching them, can their scholarships and "salary" be taken away for bad performance or personnel issues? Iowa has the right for employees to quit at any time, or for employers to terminate at any time. Is there any extra protection for students in this scenario, or do they just lose all of their livelihood? Can they just leave at any time mid-season to go to a school with a better offer if they are performing well?

My assumption is they'll have contracts just like coaches. So you could fire them, but you still have to pay them.

Question is are they one year contracts or four year contracts? Advantages and disadvantages to the player with both.

 

[randomfan44]

You guys will have a leg up with all your experience already in that arena.

I would certainly hope so. Hate so see all that experience go to waste...

 

[randomfan44]

Another thing to think about. If/when college athletes start getting paid, expect increased scrutiny from fans. I would assume their pay would be public knowledge since they are being paid by public institutions?

Fans will be essentially paying their salary and will feel more entitled to scrutinize player performances (probably rightfully so). With bigger salaries comes much more pressure to perform.

If you don't get any say into how Target does their business despite spending money there then you don't get any say into the team you cheer for does things because you bought a ticket.

 

[Mr Janny]

I am no labor law expert, but I thought part of the unionization push back is it would require that universities recognize athletes as employees of the university.

IMO that is the last thing colleges want due to liability issues of classifying student-athletes as employees. I believe the NCAA has not had to make payouts for CTE injuries like the NFL.

At some point, I believe university presidents are going to question the value of college athletics. Too much liability risk and expense for an activity that is outside the core academic mission of colleges.

I think P5 schools might be able to justify, but based on the Supreme court's ruling yesterday and ensuing statements I think the number of scholarship student-athletes will be far smaller in 5 years. For instance there may be only 60 scholarship football players.

Not sure that scholarship student athletes will exist at schools like UNI that already subsidize their AD's today.

That's definitely possible. I think the landscape of college sports will look much different ten years from now. I don't necessarily think that has to be a bad thing, though.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

I don't think we can really predict anything until we know how Title IX intersects with this ruling.

If Title IX requirements go away, or drastically change, as departments become 'businesses', the only college sports left are going to be Football, MBB, WBB, VB, Baseball and Softball in most departments with Hockey, Track and Wrestling sprinkled in geographically.

If Title IX rules apply, your UNIs of the world are just flat done offering athletics and you'll have 50ish schools making up a semi-professional league in major sports that continue to give crumbs to your golfers, swimmers, gymnasts and track athletes of the world.

It's an incredibly bad time to be an athlete in Olympic Sports right now.

 

[isucy86]

That's definitely possible. I think the landscape of college sports will look much different ten years from now. I don't necessarily think that has to be a bad thing, though.

I think the tough part of this situation, but also an opportunity for an entrepeneurial investor group is the professional sport leagues reluctance to have their own minor league systems. Even MLB has cut back on minor league opportunities.

Maybe US evolves to a similar model as soccer in Europe where elite teams have to pay a transfer fee to the developmental team.

 

[NorthCyd]

Jay Bilas nails this in so many ways, but his best point is how many people have bought into the idea that this is just too complicated! That's the narrative the NCAA feeds you because it's in their best interest and so many swallow it hook line and sinker. College sports aren't going anywhere. It will be fine and everyone will figure it out.

 

[JRE1975]

Janny, do you know if an athlete becomes an employee and paid a wage would the IRS rules say that all value received, (tuition, room, meals, medical training, and the monthly stipend) would all be taxable and subject to income, FICA, Medicare, and state income taxes? That would raise the cost to tax effect the payments received.

Do people realize that most if not all of us make our contributions to the Iowa State Foundation, which is a separate tax exempt organization that accepts our contributions in support of Iowa State, a tax deduction?

 

[BMWallace]

How has college FB become a protected monopoly? I am not aware of any legal restrictions for a new professional FB league to be created that would recruit and sign HS prospects. And while I am in favor of unlimited NIL compensation to athletes (as long as they aren't used solely as recruiting inducements without any athlete services rendered), any court or other organization calling for college athletes to be paid as W-2 employees are full of crap for this reason.

Thinking about it further, I used the wrong term here; I should have stated college football is is a monopsony. From Investopedia:

A monopsony refers to a situation that involves control of the market through which specific goods or services are purchased. Monopsonies arise when individuals, corporate groups, or other entities are able to position themselves as the sole purchasers for a particular good or service. A monopsonistic company is thus able to use competition among suppliers or wholesalers to its advantage, driving down the selling or asking price for the given good or service.

Monopsony can also be common in labor markets when a single employer has an advantage over the workforce. When this happens, the suppliers—in this case, the potential employees—agree to a lower wage because of factors resulting from the buying company’s control. This wage control drives down the cost to the employer and increases profit margins.

The NCAA, or the colleges that comprise it, are able to use their position as the sole "employer" of football players between high school and the NFL to suppress compensation to their "employees". They take this further by not giving the "employees" any ability to negotiate for better compensation. There is no other viable option for football players looking to pursue their sport further than through the college system.

At the same time, the colleges are still monopolistic in that they are the only ones able to create and stage high level football games between the high school and NFL level. The schools, conferences, and the NCAA negotiate TV and advertising contracts that have exploded in value since Oklahoma vs the NCAA in 1984. But that value does not reflect in the compensation given to the athletes.

 

[benman82]

But that principal doesn't hold water if the employees are also the product that the job provider is selling. The job providers (colleges) are reliant on the quality of employees that the can acquire in order to put the best possible product in front of consumers, and more importantly, advertisers.

It doesn't help that college athletics is not an open market, especially for football. It has become a protected monopoly that has been able to suppress employee compensation with the excuse of "amateurism". There is no other viable path for a player to reach the NFL than by participating in the college, but those players are also not allowed to seek fair compensation for their labor and the product that they put out.

And we have seen over the last few years more and more players opting out of the college post season because the benefits do not outweigh the risk. The highest profile example being Nick Bosa, who, after an injury withdrew from Ohio State 3 games into his junior. He had already established the value he could bring at the NFL level, and it became more prudent to skip the remainder of the season thank risk more serious injury.

Why does the fact that there's no viable alternate spot to train for the NFL mean that the NCAA is wrong for running an amateur league? The fact that either the pro leagues don't exist, or the pro leagues won't hire them directly out of high school means that these players have a de facto market value of $0. If nobody is willing to employ them, then maybe they should do like every other person who goes to college to get trained so that they can leave and get a good job once they finish school.

Nobody is forcing kids to go to college and play sports. You can choose to go to college and play by the rules they offer, or you can go do literally anything else you want. Your example of Nick Bosa also proves this point. He didn't need any more training, so he chose to stop participating in the system.

 

[Clark]

Janny, do you know if an athlete becomes an employee and paid a wage would the IRS rules say that all value received, (tuition, room, meals, medical training, and the monthly stipend) would all be taxable and subject to income, FICA, Medicare, and state income taxes? That would raise the cost to tax effect the payments received.

Do people realize that most if not all of us make our contributions to the Iowa State Foundation, which is a separate tax exempt organization that accepts our contributions in support of Iowa State, a tax deduction?

they'd have the same rules regarding the taxability of scholarships as any other student and the same rules they have now.

Also, be careful with the tax deduction for athletic department donations. If you donated the money as a requirement to be able to purchase tickets, that isn't deductible at all anymore.

 

[NorthCyd]

they'd have the same rules regarding the taxability of scholarships as any other student and the same rules they have now.

This. As I pointed out, I was a student employee. Universities have MANY student employees. This is not a completely foreign situation for them. If it comes to that it will be all right.

 

[cykadelic2]

Iowa State University has more than 9,600 employees that are paid for their services without affecting the university's non-profit status. This is utter nonsense.

....and those 9,600 employees aren't athletes providing a multi-million dollar revenue stream to the University. See post #86

 

[NWICY]

So if Royce White was still here and getting paid, it would be alright to heckle him for missing free throws? "Your getting paid learn how to f*cking shoot."

I'll hang around and see how this plays out but if it goes a direction I really don't like I'll just drop my tkts and someone else will buy them. I personally thought getting a education at a good university was a pretty fair trade for playing sports. I paid for my education and still thought I got a good value.

At my stage in life as much as I enjoy sports I'll watch but my true affiliation is with the University. But this is a sports board and I realize a lot of people won't agree with me on this subject.

 

[Mr Janny]

....and those 9,600 employees aren't athletes providing a multi-million dollar revenue stream to the University. See post #86

Your argument seems to be "While amateur athletics are not a limiting criteria for University tax exempt status now, some people might get mad enough that they might rewrite the tax code sometime in the future.... maybe"

Do I have that about right?

I'm not sure post 86 is quite the 'gotcha' you think it is.

 

[Cyched]

I'm not sure post 86 is quite the 'gotcha' you think it is.

Even with all the hype it's getting?

 

[JM4CY]

Even with all the hype it's getting?

I’m printing tshirts. “Post 86 MF’ers!” Will start a new thread to try and sell them. Cash only. Screw taxes.

 

[Lineup]

College sports are done

 

[CYEATHAWK]

My daughter is in the top 2% of her class AND major her first year. She is a "student". Are the "athlete's" getting paid going to be required to be "students" like my daughter? If so.....is their pay going to be tied also with their performance in the classroom or because being in the top of your class and major bring in no revenue.......are they going to be able to just skip class and basically do nothing but play video games and sports?