you will enjoy this:
http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace...lrev71.pdf

it's from 2006 and basically says that student athletes have always fit the definition of employees and the concept of a "student athlete" is a myth and a term created by the NCAA just to keep their cartel going.

This directly contradicts Title IX case law which holds college athletics to be an educational experience. Title IX protects women from discrimination in "any education program and activity" at schools that receive federal funding.

While Colleges control many of the details of an athlete's experience and thus meet the qualification of employee vs say independent contractor, participation in college athletics is a privilege. Not a right.

What control does the school have over athletes that it doesn't have over non-athlete students?

Now that athletes are now employees, who is going to pay the taxes on the benefits they receive? (Benefits like room, board, tuition, travel, lodging, medical, etc.).

(03-30-2014 09:29 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  This directly contradicts Title IX case law which holds college athletics to be an educational experience. Title IX protects women from discrimination in "any education program and activity" at schools that receive federal funding.

While Colleges control many of the details of an athlete's experience and thus meet the qualification of employee vs say independent contractor, participation in college athletics is a privilege. Not a right.

Also contradicted by the prior appellate ruling regarding graduate assistants, who are not employees despite receiving scholarships for work performed as instructors.

Only aspect of this NLRB ruling is that it exempts walkons from the employee requirement. No other "employer" is allowed to accept free labor from people doing the same work as other "employees".

This NLRB ruling is self refuting.

(03-30-2014 05:38 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  Only aspect of this NLRB ruling is that it exempts walkons from the employee requirement. No other "employer" is allowed to accept free labor from people doing the same work as other "employees".

This NLRB ruling is self refuting.

Tell that to most hospitals. Retiree volunteers abound.

(03-30-2014 05:40 PM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 05:38 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  Only aspect of this NLRB ruling is that it exempts walkons from the employee requirement. No other "employer" is allowed to accept free labor from people doing the same work as other "employees".

This NLRB ruling is self refuting.

Tell that to most hospitals. Retiree volunteers abound.

Fair Labor Standards

And another article

(03-30-2014 05:40 PM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 05:38 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  Only aspect of this NLRB ruling is that it exempts walkons from the employee requirement. No other "employer" is allowed to accept free labor from people doing the same work as other "employees".

This NLRB ruling is self refuting.

Tell that to most hospitals. Retiree volunteers abound.

That, and "walkons" can walk off with no consequences. Scholarship athletes cannot.

(03-30-2014 05:38 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  Only aspect of this NLRB ruling is that it exempts walkons from the employee requirement. No other "employer" is allowed to accept free labor from people doing the same work as other "employees".

This NLRB ruling is self refuting.

Unpaid interns?

NLRB's ruling will have to be incredibly narrow if it makes basketball & football players "employees," but decides that grad assistants, full-scholarship students, and tennis players are "non-employees." Any decision that narrow will be easy for the NCAA to get around. The NCAA will just change the structure of football/basketball scholarships so that they are no longer considered employees.

(03-30-2014 09:29 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  This directly contradicts Title IX case law which holds college athletics to be an educational experience. Title IX protects women from discrimination in "any education program and activity" at schools that receive federal funding.

While Colleges control many of the details of an athlete's experience and thus meet the qualification of employee vs say independent contractor, participation in college athletics is a privilege. Not a right.

Excellent point. If football players are employees and not "student-athletes", then I guess that schools can go back to funding wrestling and men's soccer programs now.

(03-30-2014 05:17 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 09:29 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  This directly contradicts Title IX case law which holds college athletics to be an educational experience. Title IX protects women from discrimination in "any education program and activity" at schools that receive federal funding.

While Colleges control many of the details of an athlete's experience and thus meet the qualification of employee vs say independent contractor, participation in college athletics is a privilege. Not a right.

Also contradicted by the prior appellate ruling regarding graduate assistants, who are not employees despite receiving scholarships for work performed as instructors.

A big part of that is that they are receiving that scholarship since it is part of their degree requirements. Unless, college create a football major, athletics are not part of the educational major and per this current ruling they will be an employee.
However, It appears that NYU has given in in some way regarding the graduate assistants. I'm not sure but I think that case is still pending in courts? However, now those grad students may also be needing to pay taxes on the scholarship they receive for room and board...etc....the tuition could still be non-taxed if meeting requirements for obtaining the degree in the field of study,

Go to the IRS website: irs.gov and you can find a lot of info (a bit confusing also).

(03-30-2014 07:17 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 05:38 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  Only aspect of this NLRB ruling is that it exempts walkons from the employee requirement. No other "employer" is allowed to accept free labor from people doing the same work as other "employees".

This NLRB ruling is self refuting.

Unpaid interns?

6 Legal Requirements for unpaid internships

(03-30-2014 08:24 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 07:17 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 05:38 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  Only aspect of this NLRB ruling is that it exempts walkons from the employee requirement. No other "employer" is allowed to accept free labor from people doing the same work as other "employees".

This NLRB ruling is self refuting.

Unpaid interns?

6 Legal Requirements for unpaid internships

Great point. Several of those rules make it clear that walk-ons can't be governed similar to interns:

1) The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment.
3) The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff.
4) The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/201...o-unionize

(03-30-2014 08:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 09:29 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  This directly contradicts Title IX case law which holds college athletics to be an educational experience. Title IX protects women from discrimination in "any education program and activity" at schools that receive federal funding.

While Colleges control many of the details of an athlete's experience and thus meet the qualification of employee vs say independent contractor, participation in college athletics is a privilege. Not a right.

Excellent point. If football players are employees and not "student-athletes", then I guess that schools can go back to funding wrestling and men's soccer programs now.

Title IX also applies to employment opportunities at colleges receiving federal funds. But I'm not sure it would apply the same way.

Right now, the "separate but equal" Title IX approach works because the football "educational experience" is legally equivalent to the women's golf "educational experience." So they try to balance the experiences.

But what if each individual sport had to comply with Title IX? What if Pat Summit wanted to coach men's basketball? What if Brittany Griner wanted to play men's basketball? Could they file discrimination lawsuits under Title IX if they were denied "employment opporunities" because of their gender?

And if Title IX applied to "athletic employment opportunities" on a sport by sport basis, would there still be a need to balance overall opportunities under the old separate but equal approach?

(03-30-2014 08:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 05:17 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 09:29 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  This directly contradicts Title IX case law which holds college athletics to be an educational experience. Title IX protects women from discrimination in "any education program and activity" at schools that receive federal funding.

While Colleges control many of the details of an athlete's experience and thus meet the qualification of employee vs say independent contractor, participation in college athletics is a privilege. Not a right.

Also contradicted by the prior appellate ruling regarding graduate assistants, who are not employees despite receiving scholarships for work performed as instructors.

A big part of that is that they are receiving that scholarship since it is part of their degree requirements. Unless, college create a football major, athletics are not part of the educational major and per this current ruling they will be an employee.
However, It appears that NYU has given in in some way regarding the graduate assistants. I'm not sure but I think that case is still pending in courts? However, now those grad students may also be needing to pay taxes on the scholarship they receive for room and board...etc....the tuition could still be non-taxed if meeting requirements for obtaining the degree in the field of study,

Go to the IRS website: irs.gov and you can find a lot of info (a bit confusing also).

grad students already pay taxes on their student aid. grad students on scholarship & athletic scholarships are in two completely different ballparks for the following reasons......

1. grad students have the opportunity to enter & win awards that often include large cash rewards. Some as high as 4 or 5 figures.

2. grad students on scholarship also have the chance to get a decent "cost of living" stipend.

3. grad students are allowed to keep some of the research materials they buy with their financial aid. I don't know about other schools but at my school grad students on scholarship to retain a piece of equipment as long as it's under 5k.

4. the vast majority of the time grad students are doing work that is directly helping their future job careers whereas with athletics less than 1% are going pro.

(03-31-2014 06:51 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 09:29 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  This directly contradicts Title IX case law which holds college athletics to be an educational experience. Title IX protects women from discrimination in "any education program and activity" at schools that receive federal funding.

While Colleges control many of the details of an athlete's experience and thus meet the qualification of employee vs say independent contractor, participation in college athletics is a privilege. Not a right.

Excellent point. If football players are employees and not "student-athletes", then I guess that schools can go back to funding wrestling and men's soccer programs now.

Title IX also applies to employment opportunities at colleges receiving federal funds. But I'm not sure it would apply the same way.

Right now, the "separate but equal" Title IX approach works because the football "educational experience" is legally equivalent to the women's golf "educational experience." So they try to balance the experiences.

But what if each individual sport had to comply with Title IX? What if Pat Summit wanted to coach men's basketball? What if Brittany Griner wanted to play men's basketball? Could they file discrimination lawsuits under Title IX if they were denied "employment opporunities" because of their gender?

And if Title IX applied to "athletic employment opportunities" on a sport by sport basis, would there still be a need to balance overall opportunities under the old separate but equal approach?

Anyone who thinks Title IX won't continue to be a significant aspect no matter what happens with men's football and basketball, a) hasn't been following this the last couple of decades; and b) doesn't understand universities who really want to comply in every way with Title IX if it weren't inconvenient from a money standpoint.