Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 29,426
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3809
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-07-2022 10:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-07-2022 08:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(05-07-2022 07:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Interstate commerce

The Constitution not only gives Congress the ability to regulate it, but heck, the mere specter of it has allowed Congress to regulate a number of thoroughly unrelated matters over the generations.

When we're talking about college athletes being employees and engaging in "trade" that involves other employees across state lines then you have a basis for legislation.

Now it matters how creative they get with accomplishing certain goals. NIL will remain essentially unregulated, but what the commissioners need to do is come up with something that keeps the athletes tied to the school via enrollment or else they may kill the golden goose.

Nonetheless, limiting compensation in any way barring an anti-trust exemption will be DOA.

I don't know that NIL will be more regulated in the future than it is now. But I suspect that folks at the IRS have been reading the same stories about what's happening with schools and individual college athletes as we have, and will have something to say about the tax implications of these deals.

They could very well decide that some of these deals between corporations, whether for profit or non-profit, are actually sham transactions, and therefore not deductible by a for profit business or allowed for a non-profit because they are expenditures for purposes other than those which gave rise to their non-profit status.

Perhaps some of the sugar daddies funding salaries for the Texas offensive line are planning on taking a tax deduction for making a "donation" to a 501-c(3) corporation that will have those linemen make a few PSA's promoting some charitable cause. To the extent that those payments are above the fair market value of those promos they could deem the "donations" to actually be gifts subject to gift taxes (which are paid by the donor, not the donee).

The IRS doesn't need new legislation to make such determinations. They can simply apply the same standards they have always used when auditing corporate and individual tax returns. That could throw cold water on a lot of these "creative" deals that are thinly veiled recruiting tactics.

Interesting point.

I think KenD describes a likely, and viable, control and one which already exists. All schools need do is require work towards a degree to keep the students. Contacts will put some brakes on the transfer portal. So, pay for play doesn't mean the most dire things will happen. The government controls us all via income tax. Pay the players and those who violate tax law will be prosecuted. Contract law covers the rest. All the breakaway tier need do is establish punishments for any athletic department employee or coach who tries to encourage a player under contract to leave their employer. In fact that too is tortious interference.
05-07-2022 10:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,454
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 269
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-07-2022 07:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-07-2022 07:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Interstate commerce

The Constitution not only gives Congress the ability to regulate it, but heck, the mere specter of it has allowed Congress to regulate a number of thoroughly unrelated matters over the generations.

When we're talking about college athletes being employees and engaging in "trade" that involves other employees across state lines then you have a basis for legislation.

Now it matters how creative they get with accomplishing certain goals. NIL will remain essentially unregulated, but what the commissioners need to do is come up with something that keeps the athletes tied to the school via enrollment or else they may kill the golden goose.

Nonetheless, limiting compensation in any way barring an anti-trust exemption will be DOA.

I'm not that concerned about tying players to schools. I think the main thing is to treat them as much as possible like other students. That means they can change schools if things aren't working the way they want.

What I meant was that the players shouldn't be purely employees and not students.

However, only in that instance would we see the players with a fair amount of ability to transfer. If they're purely employees then we'll end up at a place where the labor is contractual and there will be very little movement.
05-08-2022 09:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,712
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 960
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #23
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-08-2022 09:01 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-07-2022 07:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-07-2022 07:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Interstate commerce

The Constitution not only gives Congress the ability to regulate it, but heck, the mere specter of it has allowed Congress to regulate a number of thoroughly unrelated matters over the generations.

When we're talking about college athletes being employees and engaging in "trade" that involves other employees across state lines then you have a basis for legislation.

Now it matters how creative they get with accomplishing certain goals. NIL will remain essentially unregulated, but what the commissioners need to do is come up with something that keeps the athletes tied to the school via enrollment or else they may kill the golden goose.

Nonetheless, limiting compensation in any way barring an anti-trust exemption will be DOA.

I'm not that concerned about tying players to schools. I think the main thing is to treat them as much as possible like other students. That means they can change schools if things aren't working the way they want.

What I meant was that the players shouldn't be purely employees and not students.

However, only in that instance would we see the players with a fair amount of ability to transfer. If they're purely employees then we'll end up at a place where the labor is contractual and there will be very little movement.

Employees don't have to have contracts. Let's say that playing football is a paying job for a student, like working in a bookstore or cafeteria on campus. The students working the cash registers at the bookstore can quit at any time for any reason. They can leave to take a better paying job off campus, they can leave because they are transferring to a different college, they can leave because they think the bookstore's boss is a jerk, or for any other reason.
05-08-2022 12:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 53,541
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2216
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-08-2022 09:01 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-07-2022 07:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-07-2022 07:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Interstate commerce

The Constitution not only gives Congress the ability to regulate it, but heck, the mere specter of it has allowed Congress to regulate a number of thoroughly unrelated matters over the generations.

When we're talking about college athletes being employees and engaging in "trade" that involves other employees across state lines then you have a basis for legislation.

Now it matters how creative they get with accomplishing certain goals. NIL will remain essentially unregulated, but what the commissioners need to do is come up with something that keeps the athletes tied to the school via enrollment or else they may kill the golden goose.

Nonetheless, limiting compensation in any way barring an anti-trust exemption will be DOA.

I'm not that concerned about tying players to schools. I think the main thing is to treat them as much as possible like other students. That means they can change schools if things aren't working the way they want.

What I meant was that the players shouldn't be purely employees and not students.

However, only in that instance would we see the players with a fair amount of ability to transfer. If they're purely employees then we'll end up at a place where the labor is contractual and there will be very little movement.

Indentured servitude is illegal. Employees in the USA are pretty much free to move. In very limited cases you have penalties like with coaches. And you do get some non-compete agreements. But those have to be limited--for example you could prevent them from transferring to one of your conference mates or scheduled opponents for the next couple of years, but not from transferring to any college.
05-08-2022 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 53,541
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2216
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
I don't like what's happened with the transfer portal, but I think its fair that the students should be treated like other students or like other employees if they are employees. They should be free to move and play immediately. Maybe to discourage excessive school hopping, there would be a 1 year delay for a 2nd transfer.
05-08-2022 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,851
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 157
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-06-2022 08:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Some quotes from Senator Blackburn:

https://twitter.com/espnrittenberg/statu...L2TrRl0_qg

Needless to say, a lot of quotes about protecting student-athletes and not a single word about worrying about how colleges are impacted (along with critiques of the NCAA). As I’ve said many times here, letting student-athletes get paid as much as possible seems to be the one thing that Republicans and Democrats are united on here. We may get federal legislation in order to address the patchwork quilt of state laws, but anyone that thinks that politicians on either side of the aisle are interested in actually capping or reducing NIL compensation are seriously misreading where the general public (not old school fans posting on message boards) is on this issue.

Marsha Blackburn and Cory Booker recently introduced a bi-partisan bill called the "NCAA Accountability Act of 2021," which would basically reform the NCAA and involve the Department of Justice. Both Blackburn and Booker are members of the Judiciary Committee. Booker was also involved in the introduction of a bill called the "College Athletes Bill of Rights." I read that both Sankey and Kliavkoff were trying to set-up a meeting with Booker.

But Cantwell may be the key contact. She is the chair of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. They have been holding hearings on NIL. Cantwell said last summer that, "Congress cannot pass an NIL law that just ignores the rights of students. It also has to hear, I believe, about the experiences in healthcare and scholarship that make important rights issues so central to this debate. There is no substitute for a national standard that not only gives our student athletes the ability to control their own Name, Image, and Likeness rights, but also includes health care, safety, scholarship, and transfer protections."

There will be no caps on NIL, but the National NIL bill could get done if they can include some other protections for student-athletes. The Congress may be able to help with the "student athletes are employees' question" in an NIL bill. Emmert has wasted the past few years in this catatonic role he has been playing while the rest of the world is trying to move forward.
05-08-2022 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SouthEastAlaska Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,070
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 70
I Root For: UW,PAC12
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-08-2022 12:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't like what's happened with the transfer portal, but I think its fair that the students should be treated like other students or like other employees if they are employees. They should be free to move and play immediately. Maybe to discourage excessive school hopping, there would be a 1 year delay for a 2nd transfer.

When we reach pay for play, there will be contracts that limit movement, it will look very much like the NFL with money guarantees and team control.

What I will concied to you is that they might be one, two, or three year contracts but these will naturally lesson some of the movement.

What will be more interesting to me is how these schools will handle under performance. Will they cut players like the NFL? That might create a sort of free agent frenzy.
(This post was last modified: 05-08-2022 08:50 PM by SouthEastAlaska.)
05-08-2022 08:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 53,541
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2216
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-08-2022 08:49 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  
(05-08-2022 12:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't like what's happened with the transfer portal, but I think its fair that the students should be treated like other students or like other employees if they are employees. They should be free to move and play immediately. Maybe to discourage excessive school hopping, there would be a 1 year delay for a 2nd transfer.

When we reach pay for play, there will be contracts that limit movement, it will look very much like the NFL with money guarantees and team control.

What I will concied to you is that they might be one, two, or three year contracts but these will naturally lesson some of the movement.

What will be more interesting to me is how these schools will handle under performance. Will they cut players like the NFL? That might create a sort of free agent frenzy.

NFL has a union contract. That gives them some control over free agency.
05-08-2022 09:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,712
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 960
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #29
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-08-2022 08:49 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  What will be more interesting to me is how these schools will handle under performance. Will they cut players like the NFL? That might create a sort of free agent frenzy.

College football and basketball teams cut players now. They tell players they don't want that they won't get any playing time and need to transfer. They take away athletic scholarships. Usually that's enough to get a player to move on, but if the player is slow to look for transfer options or just doesn't want to move, or if the school discourages canceling scholarships, some coaches pressure them harder by doing things like telling the player he can't practice or work out, taking his stuff out of the locker room and leaving it in large trash bags outside the building, etc.

There have been stories about newly-hired head coaches, particularly in basketball, who go in with the understanding that they will completely overhaul the roster and get a promise when they take the job that they can get rid of as many of the former coach's players as they want without any interference from the university.

It won't be much different if we ever get to the point where players are paid a salary, except that to the above tactics, coaches will add cutting off paychecks.
05-08-2022 09:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 52,922
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 2085
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #30
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-08-2022 12:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't like what's happened with the transfer portal, but I think its fair that the students should be treated like other students or like other employees if they are employees. They should be free to move and play immediately. Maybe to discourage excessive school hopping, there would be a 1 year delay for a 2nd transfer.

That's the NCAA rule right now, with the exception of grad transfers.
(This post was last modified: 05-09-2022 07:22 AM by TripleA.)
05-09-2022 07:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SouthEastAlaska Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,070
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 70
I Root For: UW,PAC12
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-08-2022 09:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-08-2022 08:49 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  What will be more interesting to me is how these schools will handle under performance. Will they cut players like the NFL? That might create a sort of free agent frenzy.

College football and basketball teams cut players now. They tell players they don't want that they won't get any playing time and need to transfer. They take away athletic scholarships. Usually that's enough to get a player to move on, but if the player is slow to look for transfer options or just doesn't want to move, or if the school discourages canceling scholarships, some coaches pressure them harder by doing things like telling the player he can't practice or work out, taking his stuff out of the locker room and leaving it in large trash bags outside the building, etc.

There have been stories about newly-hired head coaches, particularly in basketball, who go in with the understanding that they will completely overhaul the roster and get a promise when they take the job that they can get rid of as many of the former coach's players as they want without any interference from the university.

It won't be much different if we ever get to the point where players are paid a salary, except that to the above tactics, coaches will add cutting off paychecks.

I agree, it is happening now. I guess my point is that what a pay for play model may yield is players who can't as easily enter the transfer portal because they are under contract. The players might actually end up with less flexibility in the semi-pro pro model than they have as amateur's. This war over control of who can do what is what will end up with a players union. It won't happen immediately but I would guess we will see them organizing with-in 10 years of the Pay for play being established.

The changes we are about to witness are fascinating.
05-09-2022 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 53,541
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2216
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-09-2022 07:22 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(05-08-2022 12:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't like what's happened with the transfer portal, but I think its fair that the students should be treated like other students or like other employees if they are employees. They should be free to move and play immediately. Maybe to discourage excessive school hopping, there would be a 1 year delay for a 2nd transfer.

That's the NCAA rule right now, with the exception of grad transfers.

That's relatively new. Think it came in with Covid. Before they had to sit out a year.
And several on here are proposing limitations on transfers.
05-09-2022 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,454
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 269
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-08-2022 12:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Employees don't have to have contracts. Let's say that playing football is a paying job for a student, like working in a bookstore or cafeteria on campus. The students working the cash registers at the bookstore can quit at any time for any reason. They can leave to take a better paying job off campus, they can leave because they are transferring to a different college, they can leave because they think the bookstore's boss is a jerk, or for any other reason.

(05-08-2022 12:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  Indentured servitude is illegal. Employees in the USA are pretty much free to move. In very limited cases you have penalties like with coaches. And you do get some non-compete agreements. But those have to be limited--for example you could prevent them from transferring to one of your conference mates or scheduled opponents for the next couple of years, but not from transferring to any college.

You two are missing my point.

We will end up with contractual employment(which is not indentured servitude or else private companies in this country are going to have a lot of explaining to do) if we enter a world where the athletes are employees. Professional athletes tend to have contracts which is precisely what they will be. I never said contracts are a condition of any form of employment, I said it will end up moving that direction in this hypothetical world we're navigating.

There's no way the schools will employ them and enter a world of shifted dynamics and not require contracts. If the kids can just up and leave at any time then their pay/privileges will be commensurate. Nobody is worried about the kid who quits his job at the library so there's mechanism to motivate him staying. That's also why they get paid very little.

Coaches get paid a crap ton of money and guess what, they've got contracts as a form of guarantee to the payer. The schools/ADs will be the payers in this instance and it's a big business. They're not going to give the athletes the whole ball of wax. With real payment will come real responsibility and real consequences.

Thus if the kids want to take being a pro-athlete seriously then they won't break their contract. If there's any sort of uniform system of competition then the other schools won't sign transferring kids to a new contract if it's outside a established standard of rules for the new employment structure...just like professional leagues. You can just decide to quit one team and join another because you feel like it.

Remember there is no right to be employed by a school if you decide to enroll at a new school. Johnny can quit the library, but that doesn't mean the library at the school down the road is required to hire him for the same role.

It's like I've been trying to tell you people. Students and university employees are not the same thing. You can't truly be both. Johnny working at the library isn't eligible for benefits or a host of other things that genuine employees are eligible for...the fact that he is getting paid for labor is deceptive. His role, both legally and practically, is that of a student. Everything about his experience is filtered through that paradigm.

The librarian is a different matter. That person was hired to aid in the function of the operation of the school itself. Everything about their experience is filtered through that paradigm. This is true despite the fact that employees at colleges tend to have the ability to take courses as one of their benefits. Just because they attend a class and the rules work a little differently for 3 hours a week doesn't mean they're students.

You can't blend the two even if you are able to come up with a superficial way to blur the lines here and there.

Think of this way, students are customers and employees are being paid to meet the needs of the customer. It's a transaction regardless of the nature of academia.

If the athletes become employees then everything changes.
05-10-2022 06:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 52,922
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 2085
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #34
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-09-2022 03:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-09-2022 07:22 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(05-08-2022 12:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't like what's happened with the transfer portal, but I think its fair that the students should be treated like other students or like other employees if they are employees. They should be free to move and play immediately. Maybe to discourage excessive school hopping, there would be a 1 year delay for a 2nd transfer.

That's the NCAA rule right now, with the exception of grad transfers.

That's relatively new. Think it came in with Covid. Before they had to sit out a year.
And several on here are proposing limitations on transfers.

There are still limitations. You only get a free pass once. Next transfer, you still have to sit a year, unless you're a grad transfer.

And it did not come with Covid. That was coincidental. That rule was in the process of being passed before then. And I seriously doubt the NCAA is going to restrict it any more than that now.
05-10-2022 07:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,865
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 906
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #35
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-10-2022 06:40 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-08-2022 12:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Employees don't have to have contracts. Let's say that playing football is a paying job for a student, like working in a bookstore or cafeteria on campus. The students working the cash registers at the bookstore can quit at any time for any reason. They can leave to take a better paying job off campus, they can leave because they are transferring to a different college, they can leave because they think the bookstore's boss is a jerk, or for any other reason.

(05-08-2022 12:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  Indentured servitude is illegal. Employees in the USA are pretty much free to move. In very limited cases you have penalties like with coaches. And you do get some non-compete agreements. But those have to be limited--for example you could prevent them from transferring to one of your conference mates or scheduled opponents for the next couple of years, but not from transferring to any college.

You two are missing my point.

We will end up with contractual employment(which is not indentured servitude or else private companies in this country are going to have a lot of explaining to do) if we enter a world where the athletes are employees. Professional athletes tend to have contracts which is precisely what they will be. I never said contracts are a condition of any form of employment, I said it will end up moving that direction in this hypothetical world we're navigating.

There's no way the schools will employ them and enter a world of shifted dynamics and not require contracts. If the kids can just up and leave at any time then their pay/privileges will be commensurate. Nobody is worried about the kid who quits his job at the library so there's mechanism to motivate him staying. That's also why they get paid very little.

Coaches get paid a crap ton of money and guess what, they've got contracts as a form of guarantee to the payer. The schools/ADs will be the payers in this instance and it's a big business. They're not going to give the athletes the whole ball of wax. With real payment will come real responsibility and real consequences.

Thus if the kids want to take being a pro-athlete seriously then they won't break their contract. If there's any sort of uniform system of competition then the other schools won't sign transferring kids to a new contract if it's outside a established standard of rules for the new employment structure...just like professional leagues. You can just decide to quit one team and join another because you feel like it.

Remember there is no right to be employed by a school if you decide to enroll at a new school. Johnny can quit the library, but that doesn't mean the library at the school down the road is required to hire him for the same role.

It's like I've been trying to tell you people. Students and university employees are not the same thing. You can't truly be both. Johnny working at the library isn't eligible for benefits or a host of other things that genuine employees are eligible for...the fact that he is getting paid for labor is deceptive. His role, both legally and practically, is that of a student. Everything about his experience is filtered through that paradigm.

The librarian is a different matter. That person was hired to aid in the function of the operation of the school itself. Everything about their experience is filtered through that paradigm. This is true despite the fact that employees at colleges tend to have the ability to take courses as one of their benefits. Just because they attend a class and the rules work a little differently for 3 hours a week doesn't mean they're students.

You can't blend the two even if you are able to come up with a superficial way to blur the lines here and there.


Think of this way, students are customers and employees are being paid to meet the needs of the customer. It's a transaction regardless of the nature of academia.

If the athletes become employees then everything changes.

That's actually not true. The fact that the library employee is also a student is completely irrelevant with respect to that employee's legal rights.

For instance, if Johnny is working at the school library for 30 hours or more per week, then the school is required to provide him with health care benefits by law under the ACA. Even if Johnny is working just a few hours per week, minimum wage laws, Title VII, OSHA, ADA, workers compensation, and a whole host of other employment-related regulations apply to that student employee in the EXACT same way as any other employee. The fact that he is a student doesn't magically mean that there are suddenly different employment rules that the schools can avoid versus hiring a non-student employee.

On the flip side, the fact that Johnny is an employee getting paid at the school library also doesn't turn him into a non-student. This ought to be basic stuff, but if someone is taking classes in accordance with academic requirements, then that person is a student regardless of whether they are getting paid as an employee or not. That would be the case whether it's a library worker or an athlete as we're discussing here. There might be an internal distinction between having full-time student status (taking 15 hours per semester) versus part-time student status (taking 3 hours a semester), but how much that person is working is similarly irrelevant to that student status. If the full-time librarian that works 40 hours a week is also taking a full-time class load of 15 hours per semester, then that librarian is every bit of a full-time student as someone that doesn't work at all while attending school.

THAT is what all of the "sky is falling" crowd needs to get through their heads. I see absolutely no incongruence between an athlete getting paid and being able to be a student. LOTS (e.g. MILLIONS) of non-athlete students are in similar situations. These subjective distinctions that many of us build up in our heads (e.g. the student library worker versus the full-time librarian example that you've provided) are completely meaningless. Being a student doesn't magically allow schools to avoid employment laws, including but not limited to providing health benefits where required. At the same time, being a full-time employee similarly doesn't magically mean that you're not a full-time student when you're still taking a full-time class load. Being an employee and being a student are pretty objective definitions and a person can absolutely be both at the same time. We know this because MILLIONS OF PEOPLE are in that situation.

Essentially, all of these breathless threads on this forum along with the NCAA are trying to argue one thing: student-athletes are somehow a different class of people that should be treated different than EVERY other type of student AND employee in America simply because we don't like it when our sports teams can't compete with the ones with more money. At the same time, they worry that all of this is somehow new for athletes and changes all types of status and it now means athletes somehow can't be employees and students at the same time... even though millions of people across the country are both employees and students at the same time without issue.

The myopia of too many sports fans is that they think that paying student-athletes is somehow abnormal when the reality is the fact that they *weren't* being paid is what was abnormal compared to the entire rest of society. The courts and legislators are starting to reflect this and they are rightfully coming down forcefully on breaking down the previously abnormal system.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2022 08:17 AM by Frank the Tank.)
05-10-2022 08:14 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,087
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 344
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
Fed should stay out of it. Colleges opened up this can of beans, let them eat it. I quit watching Pro ball a long time ago and am getting close on quitting college sports as well.
05-10-2022 08:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,865
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 906
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #37
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
Further to my last post, note that most of us here are talking about a traditional full-time on-campus student experience, which constitutes the preponderance of major sports schools. As a result, a lot of us have these pre-defined notions of putting "students" and "employees" into separate buckets. However, that's coming from a very privileged position. Most college students are NOT in that position. Most of them are working at the same time as being students while also not living on-campus. Most people cannot afford to simply be a full-time student without also having employment income. Everything that we're discussing here is pretty high up on the pyramid of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
05-10-2022 08:30 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mpurdy22 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 684
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 15
I Root For: Miami (OH)
Location: Sandusky, Ohio
Post: #38
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
05-10-2022 08:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 53,541
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2216
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-10-2022 08:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 06:40 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-08-2022 12:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Employees don't have to have contracts. Let's say that playing football is a paying job for a student, like working in a bookstore or cafeteria on campus. The students working the cash registers at the bookstore can quit at any time for any reason. They can leave to take a better paying job off campus, they can leave because they are transferring to a different college, they can leave because they think the bookstore's boss is a jerk, or for any other reason.

(05-08-2022 12:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  Indentured servitude is illegal. Employees in the USA are pretty much free to move. In very limited cases you have penalties like with coaches. And you do get some non-compete agreements. But those have to be limited--for example you could prevent them from transferring to one of your conference mates or scheduled opponents for the next couple of years, but not from transferring to any college.

You two are missing my point.

We will end up with contractual employment(which is not indentured servitude or else private companies in this country are going to have a lot of explaining to do) if we enter a world where the athletes are employees. Professional athletes tend to have contracts which is precisely what they will be. I never said contracts are a condition of any form of employment, I said it will end up moving that direction in this hypothetical world we're navigating.

There's no way the schools will employ them and enter a world of shifted dynamics and not require contracts. If the kids can just up and leave at any time then their pay/privileges will be commensurate. Nobody is worried about the kid who quits his job at the library so there's mechanism to motivate him staying. That's also why they get paid very little.

Coaches get paid a crap ton of money and guess what, they've got contracts as a form of guarantee to the payer. The schools/ADs will be the payers in this instance and it's a big business. They're not going to give the athletes the whole ball of wax. With real payment will come real responsibility and real consequences.

Thus if the kids want to take being a pro-athlete seriously then they won't break their contract. If there's any sort of uniform system of competition then the other schools won't sign transferring kids to a new contract if it's outside a established standard of rules for the new employment structure...just like professional leagues. You can just decide to quit one team and join another because you feel like it.

Remember there is no right to be employed by a school if you decide to enroll at a new school. Johnny can quit the library, but that doesn't mean the library at the school down the road is required to hire him for the same role.

It's like I've been trying to tell you people. Students and university employees are not the same thing. You can't truly be both. Johnny working at the library isn't eligible for benefits or a host of other things that genuine employees are eligible for...the fact that he is getting paid for labor is deceptive. His role, both legally and practically, is that of a student. Everything about his experience is filtered through that paradigm.

The librarian is a different matter. That person was hired to aid in the function of the operation of the school itself. Everything about their experience is filtered through that paradigm. This is true despite the fact that employees at colleges tend to have the ability to take courses as one of their benefits. Just because they attend a class and the rules work a little differently for 3 hours a week doesn't mean they're students.

You can't blend the two even if you are able to come up with a superficial way to blur the lines here and there.


Think of this way, students are customers and employees are being paid to meet the needs of the customer. It's a transaction regardless of the nature of academia.

If the athletes become employees then everything changes.

That's actually not true. The fact that the library employee is also a student is completely irrelevant with respect to that employee's legal rights.

For instance, if Johnny is working at the school library for 30 hours or more per week, then the school is required to provide him with health care benefits by law under the ACA. Even if Johnny is working just a few hours per week, minimum wage laws, Title VII, OSHA, ADA, workers compensation, and a whole host of other employment-related regulations apply to that student employee in the EXACT same way as any other employee. The fact that he is a student doesn't magically mean that there are suddenly different employment rules that the schools can avoid versus hiring a non-student employee.

On the flip side, the fact that Johnny is an employee getting paid at the school library also doesn't turn him into a non-student. This ought to be basic stuff, but if someone is taking classes in accordance with academic requirements, then that person is a student regardless of whether they are getting paid as an employee or not. That would be the case whether it's a library worker or an athlete as we're discussing here. There might be an internal distinction between having full-time student status (taking 15 hours per semester) versus part-time student status (taking 3 hours a semester), but how much that person is working is similarly irrelevant to that student status. If the full-time librarian that works 40 hours a week is also taking a full-time class load of 15 hours per semester, then that librarian is every bit of a full-time student as someone that doesn't work at all while attending school.

THAT is what all of the "sky is falling" crowd needs to get through their heads. I see absolutely no incongruence between an athlete getting paid and being able to be a student. LOTS (e.g. MILLIONS) of non-athlete students are in similar situations. These subjective distinctions that many of us build up in our heads (e.g. the student library worker versus the full-time librarian example that you've provided) are completely meaningless. Being a student doesn't magically allow schools to avoid employment laws, including but not limited to providing health benefits where required. At the same time, being a full-time employee similarly doesn't magically mean that you're not a full-time student when you're still taking a full-time class load. Being an employee and being a student are pretty objective definitions and a person can absolutely be both at the same time. We know this because MILLIONS OF PEOPLE are in that situation.

Essentially, all of these breathless threads on this forum along with the NCAA are trying to argue one thing: student-athletes are somehow a different class of people that should be treated different than EVERY other type of student AND employee in America simply because we don't like it when our sports teams can't compete with the ones with more money. At the same time, they worry that all of this is somehow new for athletes and changes all types of status and it now means athletes somehow can't be employees and students at the same time... even though millions of people across the country are both employees and students at the same time without issue.

The myopia of too many sports fans is that they think that paying student-athletes is somehow abnormal when the reality is the fact that they *weren't* being paid is what was abnormal compared to the entire rest of society. The courts and legislators are starting to reflect this and they are rightfully coming down forcefully on breaking down the previously abnormal system.

1. You're assuming being an intercollegiate athlete is a job. Its clear a club athlete is not a job. Its clear being in the marching band is not a job, yet you still have to attend practices to stay in the band. Maybe courts will rule an intercollegiate athlete is. Its seems to be trending that way, but maybe not.
2. There's an assumption that all these athletes have no "compensation" and are underpaid. They are getting "compensation" of 50k+ a year and IMO all but a handful are overpaid relative to their worth. Lots of people race horses. For many of them, its a hobby, not an actual business. Its a similar thing with a lot of intercollegiate sports. If it were a business, almost all sports and most colleges would go out of business.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2022 11:50 AM by bullet.)
05-10-2022 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 53,541
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2216
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
To AllTideUp's point, coaches leave whenever they want despite having employment contracts. Contracts don't keep people required to stay in a job. The only reason pro sports players are tied to teams is because there is a union contract that allows that. Curt Flood's suit broke the hold of leagues over players.
05-10-2022 11:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2022 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.