(10-16-2026 08:17 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote: (10-16-2026 07:07 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote: Here’s an antitrust expert opinion against the PCSA. It states the argument in layman terms.
https://defector.com/an-antitrust-expert...sports-act
They aren't classified as employees by the university. Therefore, they don't earn a salary nor is there a salary cap. They also don't have the right to collectively bargain if they aren't employees.
All of those laws are applicable to employees who've filled out a W4. It's essentially like saying when I was a teenager I had the federal right to bargain for my allowance lol. I was not an employee of my parents, but I was granted benefits and revenue sharing if I performed my role. That's just about what the student athlete classification comes down to, and trust me, they're doing just fine.
The student athletes are, however, independent contractors when it comes to unrestricted 3rd party NIL. That's where they have their employment rights. I feel like all of them should be required to take classes that prepare them, and actually the PCSA is providing a ton of free resources to them.
The article I posted covers not only that but the motivation behind the PCSA, including the political motivations. Concerning your point I think this part of the article interesting.
From the article:
What way is there to interpret the attempted passing of this law as anything other than management trying to snuff out labor's bargaining power? Because if the NCAA wanted this stuff, they could still bargain it with the athletes. There's no reason it has to be done through Congress.
That's my interpretation. Now, at this precise moment, there are no college athletes that have been recognized as a bargaining unit. So at this precise moment, collective bargaining cannot take place. However, there are a number of ways in which college athletes presumably could create bargaining units. Those who claim that it's not possible are primarily relying on the fact that not all college athletes play at private universities. Some are at public schools, and the purported argument that college athletes cannot unionize is that certain athletes who are at the public schools would purportedly be employees, if at all, of a public school, and then not subject to National Labor Relations Act. I believe this argument is grandly overstated for a number of reasons.
First, while I believe it's disingenuous to claim that all college athletes meet the definition of employee, at least the revenue-generating college athletes, which consist of a limited number of college athletes and a limited number of sports that bring in revenue, seem to meet the dictionary definition of being an employee. Now, if certain college athletes meet the definition of employee, the question is whether the National Labor Relations Board could or would assert jurisdiction over them for purposes of creating a bargaining unit. With respect to athletes and revenue-generating sports at private schools, there does not seem to be much of a problem at all.
There are a number of ways that seem to clearly get around the issue that would allow for creation of a multi-employer bargaining unit by conference by sport. One that I've suggested in articles I've co-authored with John Holden and Michael McCann is this notion that college athletes are actually jointly employed, not only by their individual school but also by the conference, which broadcasts the games on television, and at the same time exercises a substantial amount of control over the athlete. This is a very pertinent point because if such a relationship exists, then even the athletes who are at public universities such as the University of Michigan and Ohio State University also have an employer in the conference, which is private, and that would create jurisdiction with the National Labor Relations Board under the National Labor Relations Act. So that is one way to address the issue. It also was addressed in a very similar light in a footnote to an advisory opinion that had been written by Jennifer Abruzzo of the National Labor Relations Board, who was General Counsel under the Biden administration. So it's not just three professors coming up with this ad hoc theory. The General Counsel of the previous president's National Labor Relations Board cited it, and a number of other professors cited it as well.
to that!
