The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize

In a potentially game-changing moment for college athletics, the Chicago district of the National Labor Relations Board ruled on Wednesday that Northwestern football players qualify as employees and can unionize.

NLRB regional director Peter Sung Ohr cited the players' time commitment to their sport and that their scholarships were tied directly to their performance as reasons for granting them union rights.

Ohr wrote in his ruling that Wildcats players "fall squarely within the [National Labor Relations] Act's broad definition of 'employee' when one considers the common law definition of 'employee.'"

Ohr ruled that Northwestern players can hold an election on whether they want to be represented by the College Athletes Players Association, which brought the case to the NLRB along with former Wildcats quarterback Kain Colter and the United Steelworkers Union.

Northwestern issued a statement shortly after the ruling saying it would appeal to the full NLRB in Washington.

"While we respect the NLRB process and the regional director's opinion, we disagree with it," the statement read. "Northwestern believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students. Unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes."

CAPA supporters, meanwhile, celebrated the news. Colter tweeted: "This is a HUGE win for ALL college athletes!"

Northwestern's president has reportedly already threatened to can the program over this.

Gobaseline will be by any time now to complain about this and forecast the end of society.

My only concern with unionizing/paying college athletes is the non-major sports. Once you pay the football team, you have to pay everybody, and evenly. Men and women. So what you're going to see is the have-nots, who don't make any money, making MASSIVE cuts to their athletics programs.

(03-26-2014 02:52 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  My only concern with unionizing/paying college athletes is the non-major sports. Once you pay the football team, you have to pay everybody, and evenly. Men and women. So what you're going to see is the have-nots, who don't make any money, making MASSIVE cuts to their athletics programs.

And once college athletes get paid, the Government will (correctly) want to tax them. Now they get scholarship, room and board, travel, apparel, etc. for "free". Not sure they will come out better off getting a stipend in exchange for tax liabilities.

If upheld it has interesting implications. As noted earlier, are all scholarship athletes employees? Is a scholarship considered income? Would they have to pay an income beyond the scholarship? Would the IRS start to tax earnings now that they are considered employees? Are walk-ons considered volunteers or interns? Would schools like those in D2 and lower level D1 schools like MAC schools simply drop athletic scholarships for need based scholarship? Or can this all be fairly negotiated thru the collective bargaining process? Interesting and exciting times.

(03-26-2014 03:20 PM)chipfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:52 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  My only concern with unionizing/paying college athletes is the non-major sports. Once you pay the football team, you have to pay everybody, and evenly. Men and women. So what you're going to see is the have-nots, who don't make any money, making MASSIVE cuts to their athletics programs.

And once college athletes get paid, the Government will (correctly) want to tax them. Now they get scholarship, room and board, travel, apparel, etc. for "free". Not sure they will come out better off getting a stipend in exchange for tax liabilities.

And somebody else just presented to me, the universities would probably include the scholarship as part of their income, and make that taxable as well (not sure if that's legal/possible or not, but it wouldn't surprise me)

(03-26-2014 02:49 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  Gobaseline will be by any time now to complain about this and forecast the end of society.

I doubt you have the economic sense to balance a checkbook, so lord knows you couldn't possibly see the downside to this.

(03-26-2014 03:24 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:20 PM)chipfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:52 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  My only concern with unionizing/paying college athletes is the non-major sports. Once you pay the football team, you have to pay everybody, and evenly. Men and women. So what you're going to see is the have-nots, who don't make any money, making MASSIVE cuts to their athletics programs.

And once college athletes get paid, the Government will (correctly) want to tax them. Now they get scholarship, room and board, travel, apparel, etc. for "free". Not sure they will come out better off getting a stipend in exchange for tax liabilities.

And somebody else just presented to me, the universities would probably include the scholarship as part of their income, and make that taxable as well (not sure if that's legal/possible or not, but it wouldn't surprise me)

This is yet another case of be careful what you wish for.

(03-26-2014 04:44 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:24 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:20 PM)chipfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:52 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  My only concern with unionizing/paying college athletes is the non-major sports. Once you pay the football team, you have to pay everybody, and evenly. Men and women. So what you're going to see is the have-nots, who don't make any money, making MASSIVE cuts to their athletics programs.

And once college athletes get paid, the Government will (correctly) want to tax them. Now they get scholarship, room and board, travel, apparel, etc. for "free". Not sure they will come out better off getting a stipend in exchange for tax liabilities.

And somebody else just presented to me, the universities would probably include the scholarship as part of their income, and make that taxable as well (not sure if that's legal/possible or not, but it wouldn't surprise me)

This is yet another case of be careful what you wish for.

Unexpected outcomes may rear its ugly head.

(03-26-2014 04:54 PM)BCBronco Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 04:44 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:24 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:20 PM)chipfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:52 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  My only concern with unionizing/paying college athletes is the non-major sports. Once you pay the football team, you have to pay everybody, and evenly. Men and women. So what you're going to see is the have-nots, who don't make any money, making MASSIVE cuts to their athletics programs.

And once college athletes get paid, the Government will (correctly) want to tax them. Now they get scholarship, room and board, travel, apparel, etc. for "free". Not sure they will come out better off getting a stipend in exchange for tax liabilities.

And somebody else just presented to me, the universities would probably include the scholarship as part of their income, and make that taxable as well (not sure if that's legal/possible or not, but it wouldn't surprise me)

This is yet another case of be careful what you wish for.

Unexpected outcomes may rear its ugly head.

Players will end their college career in debt rather than debt free.

I enjoyed not having any student loans. It took 15 years to pay off my wife's student loans.

not to mention, ALOT of college athletes don't graduate and don't go pro. So they're going to end up in debt without a degree to help pay it off.

Another interesting question is athletes like those in hockey.

College hockey teams only get 15 scholarships. Do players that get half or quarter scholarships still get benefits?

(03-26-2014 05:12 PM)Brown and Gold Wrote:  Another interesting question is athletes like those in hockey.

College hockey teams only get 15 scholarships. Do players that get half or quarter scholarships still get benefits?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but due to Title IX, wouldn't everything have to be equal for all sports, genders, scholarships, etc?

(03-26-2014 05:13 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 05:12 PM)Brown and Gold Wrote:  Another interesting question is athletes like those in hockey.

College hockey teams only get 15 scholarships. Do players that get half or quarter scholarships still get benefits?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but due to Title IX, wouldn't everything have to be equal for all sports, genders, scholarships, etc?

I wonder if title IX might not apply to employees of a university v. athletes on scholarship?

Quote:This is yet another case of be careful what you wish for.

Yup.

Lawyers are digging this.

Under this ruling, you can't pay one athlete without paying them all - regardless of sport or gender.

All college athletics may wind up being D-III structure eventually.

Which actually might not be a bad thing.

(03-26-2014 06:16 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Under this ruling, you can't pay one athlete without paying them all - regardless of sport or gender.

All college athletics may wind up being D-III structure eventually.

Which actually might not be a bad thing.

I thought the same thing, but then I wonder how the big money will respond?

So many people view this as a "these football players are making this school so much money, they deserve to get paid". Problem is, you also have to pay every athlete that competes under the NCAA division structure. All the way down to the most obscure sports. If this were to happen, ALOT of schools would lose D-1 status fast, because they wouldn't be able to support as many sports.

(03-26-2014 04:42 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  I doubt you have the economic sense to balance a checkbook, so lord knows you couldn't possibly see the downside to this.

I swim in cash, plus I pay my own phone bill. Personal responsibility, isn't it great?