...there will need to be some form of legislative relief to sustain intercollegiate sports as we know them for about 80% of the schools currently in the NCAA. Will they get any relief?
If so, what form will that relief take? If not, how will intercollegiate sports change?
Relief for schools not named Alabama or Ohio State? Lol.
I imagine that sports outside the top 40 football programs and some more basketball programs, college athletics will go back to being more like club sports than college athletics as we know them today. It really depends on what the reasoning for them being employees is.
I start from an assumption that a ruling that athletes are employees would have to include all athletes in any intercollegiate sports, whether or not they are on scholarship. Only intramural sports would be exempt.
I also assume that waived educational expenses (tuition, fees, books, computers) would remain non-taxable, but all other payments (wages, room and board, and FCOA stipends) would be fully taxable, as would payments received from third parties for NIL or as compensation by boosters for signing with and playing for their favorite teams (which are currently mislabeled as NIL).
Relief? No.
CFP splits off from NCAA/FBS.
The CFP will becomes a professional sports league. The players will unionize and collectively bargain with the CFP. The players will be employees of the league and the school scholarship will be apart of the benefits package. The owners of the league will be the privatized athletic departments. Title 9 changes to include scholarship athletes for Professional / Semi-Pro / and Amateur athletes.
Men's and Women's basketball create their own Semi-Pro League.
An 800 pound gorilla in collegiate sports is Title IX. I doubt if there exists in America the political support for doing away with Title IX. However, ironically, I'm not as certain that the underlying Civil Right Act of which Title IX is a part could never be repealed in today's political climate. And once repealed, I'm not at all certain that it could ever be re-enacted. Just a few years ago, I would never have imagined that such a thing could happen. Now I can imagine it happening in what little lifetime I have remaining, and surely in the lifetimes of my children.
(03-02-2023 09:24 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: [ -> ]Relief? No.
CFP splits off from NCAA/FBS.
The CFP will becomes a professional sports league. The players will unionize and collectively bargain with the CFP. The players will be employees of the league and the school scholarship will be apart of the benefits package. The owners of the league will be the privatized athletic departments. Title 9 changes to include scholarship athletes for Professional / Semi-Pro / and Amateur athletes.
Men's and Women's basketball create their own Semi-Pro League.
Why have scholarships or school attendance requirements at that point? If everything is private and run for profit with employees, call it what it is......a private league. The sponsorships are the schools......thats it.
In the absence of legislative relief, I could envision all athletic scholarships being eliminated, replaced by wages collectively bargained by sport rather than by athletic departments. If there are no scholarships, effectively there is no Title IX. In that environment, schools would likely still have women's sports, but their wages would depend on the revenues for each sport (either external revenues or institutional subsidies). Wages would have to be the same for both men's and women's soccer, but not the same for soccer vs rowing or tennis.
(03-02-2023 09:24 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: [ -> ]Relief? No.
CFP splits off from NCAA/FBS.
The CFP will becomes a professional sports league. The players will unionize and collectively bargain with the CFP. The players will be employees of the league and the school scholarship will be apart of the benefits package. The owners of the league will be the privatized athletic departments. Title 9 changes to include scholarship athletes for Professional / Semi-Pro / and Amateur athletes.
Men's and Women's basketball create their own Semi-Pro League.
That's the likely answer. Then there's no lawsuit and SCOTUS doesn't upheave the whole table and congress wouldn't have to act. I'd assume that the rest of college sports could continue as is with DIV I offering scholarships and stipends and down the line. There's really only a handful of schools that are actually profiting off of athletes' labors.
(03-02-2023 09:38 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]In the absence of legislative relief, I could envision all athletic scholarships being eliminated, replaced by wages collectively bargained by sport rather than by athletic departments. If there are no scholarships, effectively there is no Title IX. In that environment, schools would likely still have women's sports, but their wages would depend on the revenues for each sport (either external revenues or institutional subsidies). Wages would have to be the same for both men's and women's soccer, but not the same for soccer vs rowing or tennis.
Really screwing a lot of athletes there just so a couple hundred FB & MBB players can play semipro.
(03-02-2023 09:06 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]...there will need to be some form of legislative relief to sustain intercollegiate sports as we know them for about 80% of the schools currently in the NCAA. Will they get any relief?
If so, what form will that relief take? If not, how will intercollegiate sports change?
We are looking at the death of the entire college athletics model. Frankly, some of the arguments regarding "employee status" go beyond even athletics and into club teams themselves.
You'll see a division between schools that decide to "pay the athletes" and schools that simply forgo this affair altogether. You will see an extreme number of sports cut and scholarships removed. This will inevitably be decried as racist and sexist.
The college athletic model wasn't perfect, it needed congressional support for legitimacy, but I don't think anyone can fairly argue that it wasn't "good enough". It is hard to argue that the critics aren't correct when legally, they are correct. But the damage done is far greater than the critics want to believe or know, even if some of us have been screaming it from the rooftops.
At best, the club teams model may persist. Enjoy what is left of the sport for now, its days in the current form are limited.
(03-02-2023 09:41 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2023 09:38 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]In the absence of legislative relief, I could envision all athletic scholarships being eliminated, replaced by wages collectively bargained by sport rather than by athletic departments. If there are no scholarships, effectively there is no Title IX. In that environment, schools would likely still have women's sports, but their wages would depend on the revenues for each sport (either external revenues or institutional subsidies). Wages would have to be the same for both men's and women's soccer, but not the same for soccer vs rowing or tennis.
Really screwing a lot of athletes there just so a couple hundred FB & MBB players can play semipro.
An alternative is just to do away with college sports entirely, which is what most countries do. They don't really serve an educational purpose. Football and basketball serve as a promotional purpose for schools, and to a much greater extent than do any other sports.
Let the NFL and NBA subsidize them as minor leagues if they want them as feeder leagues (though the NBA already has a feeder league).
Not going to be a popular take here, but it'll drive athletics out of academic institutions, and that's fine. It's probably how it should've been all along.
Why? Schools won't be able to afford the worker's comp insurance that comes with "employees" in dangerous and injury-prone jobs.
Net results? Football? A minor league of the NFL forms based in present SEC and B1G cities. Hockey? Probably a CHL (major junior) model comes to cities with big interest in the sport. Baseball? An established minors gets larger. Basketball? The NBA finally has to create a minor league system.
(03-02-2023 09:18 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]I start from an assumption that a ruling that athletes are employees would have to include all athletes in any intercollegiate sports, whether or not they are on scholarship. Only intramural sports would be exempt.
I also assume that waived educational expenses (tuition, fees, books, computers) would remain non-taxable, but all other payments (wages, room and board, and FCOA stipends) would be fully taxable, as would payments received from third parties for NIL or as compensation by boosters for signing with and playing for their favorite teams (which are currently mislabeled as NIL).
I think your first assumption is to broad of an assumption to make. The idea of amateur sports is codified in the US tax codes right next to religious and charitable tax exemptions. It be a huge leap for SCOTUS to come along and say that amateur sports at the college level which is over a century old tradition was never meant by Congress. Because that's clearly not the case. Now whether some are abusing that designation and the athletes that participate in these billion dollar deals is a different story. On the other hand the courts are loath to draw lines like that, I don't know what they'd do really. I generally agree that the upper end schools are moving to preempt this and move on their own towards a split. It's a shame really though.
(03-02-2023 09:38 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]In the absence of legislative relief, I could envision all athletic scholarships being eliminated, replaced by wages collectively bargained by sport rather than by athletic departments. If there are no scholarships, effectively there is no Title IX. In that environment, schools would likely still have women's sports, but their wages would depend on the revenues for each sport (either external revenues or institutional subsidies). Wages would have to be the same for both men's and women's soccer, but not the same for soccer vs rowing or tennis.
Title VII would still apply even if Title IX doesn't going forward. That prohibits employment discrimination based on sex and other protected class characteristics. Now, to that point, the potential non-compliance with Title VII and/or Title IX if there's a pure free market system in college sports is probably the strongest point for colleges to get some type of legislative relief. I don't think colleges are getting anywhere with just an argument that players shouldn't be paid because athletic departments would suffer - that's simply not going to get any sympathy from people on Capitol Hill. However, there is a legitimate argument from the colleges that complying with unrestricted pay-for-play on the one hand could cause them to be out of compliance with Title VII and/or Title IX on the other hand, which would be an inequitable "double jeopardy" situation. Essentially, the colleges would be out of compliance with the law no matter which course that they choose. So, it would be appropriate for the government to step in to resolve that double jeopardy issue. That's how I'd approach it if I were running the colleges here (as opposed to trying to use emotional arguments in pretending that amateurism still exists).
By the same token, I don't think athletic scholarships would be eliminated. It doesn't make sense from a financial perspective. Remember that an athletic scholarship of $X is "cheaper" than a salary of $X for everyone involved - boosters that fund scholarships are able to deduct donations from their taxes, schools can use those tax-advantaged funds along with it being an in-house expense transfer between university departments as opposed to a true out-of-pocket expense, and the athletes get that scholarship benefit tax-free. The scholarship still makes too much sense as a base benefit because it's essentially an item that's valued at the higher retail price but its true cost is a lower wholesale amount. The scholarship just can't be the *only* compensation if you want to continue to participate in high-level athletics anymore.
(03-02-2023 09:57 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote: [ -> ]Not going to be a popular take here, but it'll drive athletics out of academic institutions, and that's fine. It's probably how it should've been all along.
Why? Schools won't be able to afford the worker's comp insurance that comes with "employees" in dangerous and injury-prone jobs.
Net results? Football? A minor league of the NFL forms based in present SEC and B1G cities. Hockey? Probably a CHL (major junior) model comes to cities with big interest in the sport. Baseball? An established minors gets larger. Basketball? The NBA finally has to create a minor league system.
To the extent that the NCAA provides value, this is actually where the NCAA steps in and takes on that obligation for its members. That's how they handle a lot of insurance risk issues already (and why the power conferences that were voicing some thoughts that they'd break away last year have backed off a lot lately because they've realized that such risk is significant to take on themselves directly).
(03-02-2023 10:14 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2023 09:18 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]I start from an assumption that a ruling that athletes are employees would have to include all athletes in any intercollegiate sports, whether or not they are on scholarship. Only intramural sports would be exempt.
I also assume that waived educational expenses (tuition, fees, books, computers) would remain non-taxable, but all other payments (wages, room and board, and FCOA stipends) would be fully taxable, as would payments received from third parties for NIL or as compensation by boosters for signing with and playing for their favorite teams (which are currently mislabeled as NIL).
I think your first assumption is to broad of an assumption to make. The idea of amateur sports is codified in the US tax codes right next to religious and charitable tax exemptions. It be a huge leap for SCOTUS to come along and say that amateur sports at the college level which is over a century old tradition was never meant by Congress. Because that's clearly not the case. Now whether some are abusing that designation and the athletes that participate in these billion dollar deals is a different story. On the other hand the courts are loath to draw lines like that, I don't know what they'd do really. I generally agree that the upper end schools are moving to preempt this and move on their own towards a split. It's a shame really though.
Your first two sentences may be true. If they are, and SCOTUS means to retain that status, then they will rule that college athletes are
not employees. But the premise of this thread is that SCOTUS
will vote to upend that special status, and then asks "what if they do".
(03-02-2023 10:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2023 09:38 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]In the absence of legislative relief, I could envision all athletic scholarships being eliminated, replaced by wages collectively bargained by sport rather than by athletic departments. If there are no scholarships, effectively there is no Title IX. In that environment, schools would likely still have women's sports, but their wages would depend on the revenues for each sport (either external revenues or institutional subsidies). Wages would have to be the same for both men's and women's soccer, but not the same for soccer vs rowing or tennis.
Title VII would still apply even if Title IX doesn't going forward. That prohibits employment discrimination based on sex and other protected class characteristics. Now, to that point, the potential non-compliance with Title VII and/or Title IX if there's a pure free market system in college sports is probably the strongest point for colleges to get some type of legislative relief. I don't think colleges are getting anywhere with just an argument that players shouldn't be paid because athletic departments would suffer - that's simply not going to get any sympathy from people on Capitol Hill. However, there is a legitimate argument from the colleges that complying with unrestricted pay-for-play on the one hand could cause them to be out of compliance with Title VII and/or Title IX on the other hand, which would be an inequitable "double jeopardy" situation. Essentially, the colleges would be out of compliance with the law no matter which course that they choose. So, it would be appropriate for the government to step in to resolve that double jeopardy issue. That's how I'd approach it if I were running the colleges here (as opposed to trying to use emotional arguments in pretending that amateurism still exists).
By the same token, I don't think athletic scholarships would be eliminated. It doesn't make sense from a financial perspective. Remember that an athletic scholarship of $X is "cheaper" than a salary of $X for everyone involved - boosters that fund scholarships are able to deduct donations from their taxes, schools can use those tax-advantaged funds along with it being an in-house expense transfer between university departments as opposed to a true out-of-pocket expense, and the athletes get that scholarship benefit tax-free. The scholarship still makes too much sense as a base benefit because it's essentially an item that's valued at the higher retail price but its true cost is a lower wholesale amount. The scholarship just can't be the *only* compensation if you want to continue to participate in high-level athletics anymore.
Not if those athletes are drawing a salary. Those tax deductions are only for "amateur athletes"
(03-02-2023 10:23 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2023 10:14 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2023 09:18 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]I start from an assumption that a ruling that athletes are employees would have to include all athletes in any intercollegiate sports, whether or not they are on scholarship. Only intramural sports would be exempt.
I also assume that waived educational expenses (tuition, fees, books, computers) would remain non-taxable, but all other payments (wages, room and board, and FCOA stipends) would be fully taxable, as would payments received from third parties for NIL or as compensation by boosters for signing with and playing for their favorite teams (which are currently mislabeled as NIL).
I think your first assumption is to broad of an assumption to make. The idea of amateur sports is codified in the US tax codes right next to religious and charitable tax exemptions. It be a huge leap for SCOTUS to come along and say that amateur sports at the college level which is over a century old tradition was never meant by Congress. Because that's clearly not the case. Now whether some are abusing that designation and the athletes that participate in these billion dollar deals is a different story. On the other hand the courts are loath to draw lines like that, I don't know what they'd do really. I generally agree that the upper end schools are moving to preempt this and move on their own towards a split. It's a shame really though.
Your first two sentences may be true. If they are, and SCOTUS means to retain that status, then they will rule that college athletes are not employees. But the premise of this thread is that SCOTUS will vote to upend that special status, and then asks "what if they do".
If they're going to eliminate school sponsored sports from Alabama Football to Div III T&F then they would have to do the same for high school sports as well. People are jumping off the crazy train here. It's seems pretty clear, to me at least, which athletes and which schools are in danger of forfeiting the right to call their endeavors amateur athletics anymore and thus have unpaid employees.
(03-02-2023 09:06 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]...there will need to be some form of legislative relief to sustain intercollegiate sports as we know them for about 80% of the schools currently in the NCAA. Will they get any relief?
If so, what form will that relief take? If not, how will intercollegiate sports change?
Workers Comp plaintiffs attorneys everywhere will be shopping for larger yachts...
(03-02-2023 10:24 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2023 10:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2023 09:38 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]In the absence of legislative relief, I could envision all athletic scholarships being eliminated, replaced by wages collectively bargained by sport rather than by athletic departments. If there are no scholarships, effectively there is no Title IX. In that environment, schools would likely still have women's sports, but their wages would depend on the revenues for each sport (either external revenues or institutional subsidies). Wages would have to be the same for both men's and women's soccer, but not the same for soccer vs rowing or tennis.
Title VII would still apply even if Title IX doesn't going forward. That prohibits employment discrimination based on sex and other protected class characteristics. Now, to that point, the potential non-compliance with Title VII and/or Title IX if there's a pure free market system in college sports is probably the strongest point for colleges to get some type of legislative relief. I don't think colleges are getting anywhere with just an argument that players shouldn't be paid because athletic departments would suffer - that's simply not going to get any sympathy from people on Capitol Hill. However, there is a legitimate argument from the colleges that complying with unrestricted pay-for-play on the one hand could cause them to be out of compliance with Title VII and/or Title IX on the other hand, which would be an inequitable "double jeopardy" situation. Essentially, the colleges would be out of compliance with the law no matter which course that they choose. So, it would be appropriate for the government to step in to resolve that double jeopardy issue. That's how I'd approach it if I were running the colleges here (as opposed to trying to use emotional arguments in pretending that amateurism still exists).
By the same token, I don't think athletic scholarships would be eliminated. It doesn't make sense from a financial perspective. Remember that an athletic scholarship of $X is "cheaper" than a salary of $X for everyone involved - boosters that fund scholarships are able to deduct donations from their taxes, schools can use those tax-advantaged funds along with it being an in-house expense transfer between university departments as opposed to a true out-of-pocket expense, and the athletes get that scholarship benefit tax-free. The scholarship still makes too much sense as a base benefit because it's essentially an item that's valued at the higher retail price but its true cost is a lower wholesale amount. The scholarship just can't be the *only* compensation if you want to continue to participate in high-level athletics anymore.
Not if those athletes are drawing a salary. Those tax deductions are only for "amateur athletes"
No - not at all. There are lots of students that are simultaneously employees of their university and recipients of a scholarship. In fact, many financial aid packages are specifically tied to a work-study program where the student is an employee for the university. This is no different for athletes - the scholarship that they receive to attend school is one item and then the salary and wages that they receive for playing their sport is another item. That's no different than how work-study programs and a lot of graduate student programs (where their tuition is paid for via a scholarship and then also get an employment stipend for teaching classes as a Teaching Assistant) work. The educational scholarship piece is always tax-deductible.