(05-19-2023 08:58 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(05-19-2023 07:45 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 09:44 PM)Bluedevil16 Wrote:  Also if college athletes are employees, what’s the reason high school athletes aren’t.

The NLRB counsel said that under the NLRA that employees perform a service, and their employer exercises significant control over them.

Football revenues at USC are in the $10s of millions. They sell tickets to games, and sell media rights to the games. The games are in essence performances. Were there no football players (performers/entertainers) there would be no games, and USC would not receive any revenue which they siphon off to pay coaches and ADs. Only a tiny percentage of students at USC play football, it can hardly be considered part of the educational process.

High school athletics don't make $millions of dollars. Athletes (and other competitors in academic and music contests) are a significant share of students. Coaches are often teachers (this may be a requirement in some states). Athletes may be earning P.E. credits, and practice during class time.

You make a good argument but how much revenue an organization makes does not, to the best of my knowledge, affect a person's employment status. They either are employees or not.

The question then becomes "should they be paid for their services", which is an entirely different issue. If they should be paid, then in this case and others like it it it must be determined by whom they will be paid, which is another issue as well; will they be state employees if at a public institution or will they be private employees if at a private institution? I don't think that they would be determined to be conference employees but if they are, it could be the end of the PAC at the very least as I am sure that it would force many schools to leave the conference with the exception of the ones in CA.

This brings me to another question and it's one that should at least be considered: if the ruling winds up finding in favor of athletes playing sports at USC (and possibly UCLA), what decision does the B10 make when it comes to realignment? Do they somehow revoke membership to USC and UCLA and then choose to focus their attention in the east or just hold fast at 14 members?

Everything will be decided by the courts and politicians at the end of the day... but it will take years to resolve. In the meantime, I wonder how much conferences and schools will mitigate their risk exposures in preparation of any worst case scenarios?

This is more than a little weird timing.

JRsec had posted a link to a podcast

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep...0609222451

Gabe Feldman host of the podcast 'Between the Lines: A Podcast About Sports and the Law' was interviewing Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel of the NLRB.

The way she phrased things it was obvious it was recorded in early April (April 16, as it turns out) since she was predicting when the complaint would be issued (towards the end of May)

The complaint dropped today:

NLRB complaint against USC, PAC-12, and NCAA (PDF)

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

The National Labor Relations Act

does not really define what an "employee" is except it excludes from the meaning of "employee" under the NLRA agricultural workers, domestic servants, employed by parent or spouse, independent contractor, supervisor, or railroad workers. The term "employer" excludes the Federal government, state governments (and subdivisions thereof) and railroad.

So clearly there is 88 years of case law who is an "employee".

The complaint in describing the NCAA and PAC-12 are described as doing more than $50,000 worth in commerce outside their domiciled states of Indiana and California. Congress has asserted its authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate labor relations for organizations engaged in interstate commerce.

USC is described as having more than $1,000,000 in gross revenue, with at least $5,000 from outside California.

The NLRB complaint states that USC (and the PAC-12 and NCAA) have misclassified football and basketball players (both women and men) as student-athletes rather than employees.

The complaint does not say why they excluded other student-athletes. It could be as simple that they did not receive a complaint from such persons.

The term "joint employer" is not defined in the NLRA, so it too must be a matter of case law.

So back to high school athletes. If they are employees, their employers are typically school districts (and therefore exempt from the NLRA). But that might simply mean that they can't form a labor union. They could be subject to other laws such as minimum wage laws. The state organizations might also be government entities.

But there is a difference. Lincoln Riley never visited a HS player in Texas or Oklahoma or anywhere else and said, "USC has a really good Film Studies program. If you are accepted you can play on the football team."

He says "We want you for our football team because you are 6 stars in our eyes. We can get you an athletic scholarship. I'm not really familiar with the academic side of USC - I never go over to that side of campus, but I understand they are pretty good. We'll get you a tutor." Athlete and student are disjoint.

High school students generally attend school where they (or their parents) live. Athletics and students are integrated.

Short answer: I dunno.

(05-19-2023 03:42 PM)unalions Wrote:  Their AD just resigned.

From D1.ticker:

USC AD Bohn has resigned, per multiple sources. In a statement to the Los Angeles Times, Bohn writes, in part: "I have been fortunate to have had so many wonderful opportunities and met so many terrific people, and I depart wishing the very best to all with whom I worked and served. In moving on, it is important now that I focus on being present with my treasured family, addressing ongoing health challenges, and reflecting on how I can be impactful in the future."

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...hn-resigns

Though he has moved around quite a lot (5 schools in 25 years). The longest he spent at one school is Colorado, and he grew up in Boulder. Wikipedia says he had two "terms" at CU. Maybe Colorado is one of those states that don't permit open-ended contracts.

They’re using USC and The PAC because of their location. They expect they will receive a favorable judgment from a California court.

(05-19-2023 06:25 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(05-19-2023 08:58 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(05-19-2023 07:45 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 09:44 PM)Bluedevil16 Wrote:  Also if college athletes are employees, what’s the reason high school athletes aren’t.

The NLRB counsel said that under the NLRA that employees perform a service, and their employer exercises significant control over them.

Football revenues at USC are in the $10s of millions. They sell tickets to games, and sell media rights to the games. The games are in essence performances. Were there no football players (performers/entertainers) there would be no games, and USC would not receive any revenue which they siphon off to pay coaches and ADs. Only a tiny percentage of students at USC play football, it can hardly be considered part of the educational process.

High school athletics don't make $millions of dollars. Athletes (and other competitors in academic and music contests) are a significant share of students. Coaches are often teachers (this may be a requirement in some states). Athletes may be earning P.E. credits, and practice during class time.

You make a good argument but how much revenue an organization makes does not, to the best of my knowledge, affect a person's employment status. They either are employees or not.

The question then becomes "should they be paid for their services", which is an entirely different issue. If they should be paid, then in this case and others like it it it must be determined by whom they will be paid, which is another issue as well; will they be state employees if at a public institution or will they be private employees if at a private institution? I don't think that they would be determined to be conference employees but if they are, it could be the end of the PAC at the very least as I am sure that it would force many schools to leave the conference with the exception of the ones in CA.

This brings me to another question and it's one that should at least be considered: if the ruling winds up finding in favor of athletes playing sports at USC (and possibly UCLA), what decision does the B10 make when it comes to realignment? Do they somehow revoke membership to USC and UCLA and then choose to focus their attention in the east or just hold fast at 14 members?

Everything will be decided by the courts and politicians at the end of the day... but it will take years to resolve. In the meantime, I wonder how much conferences and schools will mitigate their risk exposures in preparation of any worst case scenarios?

This is more than a little weird timing.

JRsec had posted a link to a podcast

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep...0609222451

Gabe Feldman host of the podcast 'Between the Lines: A Podcast About Sports and the Law' was interviewing Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel of the NLRB.

The way she phrased things it was obvious it was recorded in early April (April 16, as it turns out) since she was predicting when the complaint would be issued (towards the end of May)

The complaint dropped today:

NLRB complaint against USC, PAC-12, and NCAA (PDF)

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

The National Labor Relations Act

does not really define what an "employee" is except it excludes from the meaning of "employee" under the NLRA agricultural workers, domestic servants, employed by parent or spouse, independent contractor, supervisor, or railroad workers. The term "employer" excludes the Federal government, state governments (and subdivisions thereof) and railroad.

So clearly there is 88 years of case law who is an "employee".

The complaint in describing the NCAA and PAC-12 are described as doing more than $50,000 worth in commerce outside their domiciled states of Indiana and California. Congress has asserted its authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate labor relations for organizations engaged in interstate commerce.

USC is described as having more than $1,000,000 in gross revenue, with at least $5,000 from outside California.

The NLRB complaint states that USC (and the PAC-12 and NCAA) have misclassified football and basketball players (both women and men) as student-athletes rather than employees.

The complaint does not say why they excluded other student-athletes. It could be as simple that they did not receive a complaint from such persons.

The term "joint employer" is not defined in the NLRA, so it too must be a matter of case law.

So back to high school athletes. If they are employees, their employers are typically school districts (and therefore exempt from the NLRA). But that might simply mean that they can't form a labor union. They could be subject to other laws such as minimum wage laws. The state organizations might also be government entities.

But there is a difference. Lincoln Riley never visited a HS player in Texas or Oklahoma or anywhere else and said, "USC has a really good Film Studies program. If you are accepted you can play on the football team."

He says "We want you for our football team because you are 6 stars in our eyes. We can get you an athletic scholarship. I'm not really familiar with the academic side of USC - I never go over to that side of campus, but I understand they are pretty good. We'll get you a tutor." Athlete and student are disjoint.

High school students generally attend school where they (or their parents) live. Athletics and students are integrated.

Short answer: I dunno.

I've personally witnessed numerous times over the years recruiting or "magical transfers" into Athletically successful school districts. When I was in High School, there was this guy named Jeff Redfearn at Aubrey, one of our rivals. He was an absolute basketball stud, all-State type guy. Magically, he transferred to Krum, a local basketball power, before his Sr year. They didn't win state that year, but they went to the State Tournament, and they won in 1994, 96, and 98 (I graduated in '91). GA Moore tried to recruit me to Celina. Not directly, and I wasn't that good of a player anyway tbh, but one of his assistants was the drivers ed instructor for several high schools (including mine). Usually there were several of us driving, but one day the weather was pretty nasty and it was just me and him. We casually drove over to Celina, he stopped to get coffee, then disappeared for 10 minutes to go the restroom. The second he left, several Celina boosters turned around in their chairs and engaged me in intense football-related conversations. They were savvy about it, and I wasn't dreaming of playing at a big college or certainly not the pros, so the conversation shifted, the coach came back, and the topic never came up with him directly. Moore won 8 class AA Championships from '74 to '01. I'm sure that he never broke any rules, not really, but any kids who were interested were getting recruited to Celina (or Pilot Point when he was there).

That's a couple of real, lived examples. I played against Redfearn twice a year for years, he was impossible to guard. "Boosters" from another local school stealth-recruited me while I was driving for drivers ed. And that was for a couple of very small AA high schools in North Texas. What do you think happens at the big 5A and 6A schools in Texas?

They might not be getting paid to go the most competitive public schools in Texas, or SoCal, or Florida, etc etc, but they're bringing in plenty of revenues for those schools to build 10k, 15k, or 20k seat stadiums. If D1 athletes are magically reclassified as employees, this is going to open up a nasty and very real can of worms. I can't even see the bottom of it tbh.

(05-19-2023 07:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-19-2023 06:25 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(05-19-2023 08:58 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(05-19-2023 07:45 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 09:44 PM)Bluedevil16 Wrote:  Also if college athletes are employees, what’s the reason high school athletes aren’t.

The NLRB counsel said that under the NLRA that employees perform a service, and their employer exercises significant control over them.

Football revenues at USC are in the $10s of millions. They sell tickets to games, and sell media rights to the games. The games are in essence performances. Were there no football players (performers/entertainers) there would be no games, and USC would not receive any revenue which they siphon off to pay coaches and ADs. Only a tiny percentage of students at USC play football, it can hardly be considered part of the educational process.

High school athletics don't make $millions of dollars. Athletes (and other competitors in academic and music contests) are a significant share of students. Coaches are often teachers (this may be a requirement in some states). Athletes may be earning P.E. credits, and practice during class time.

You make a good argument but how much revenue an organization makes does not, to the best of my knowledge, affect a person's employment status. They either are employees or not.

The question then becomes "should they be paid for their services", which is an entirely different issue. If they should be paid, then in this case and others like it it it must be determined by whom they will be paid, which is another issue as well; will they be state employees if at a public institution or will they be private employees if at a private institution? I don't think that they would be determined to be conference employees but if they are, it could be the end of the PAC at the very least as I am sure that it would force many schools to leave the conference with the exception of the ones in CA.

This brings me to another question and it's one that should at least be considered: if the ruling winds up finding in favor of athletes playing sports at USC (and possibly UCLA), what decision does the B10 make when it comes to realignment? Do they somehow revoke membership to USC and UCLA and then choose to focus their attention in the east or just hold fast at 14 members?

Everything will be decided by the courts and politicians at the end of the day... but it will take years to resolve. In the meantime, I wonder how much conferences and schools will mitigate their risk exposures in preparation of any worst case scenarios?

This is more than a little weird timing.

JRsec had posted a link to a podcast

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep...0609222451

Gabe Feldman host of the podcast 'Between the Lines: A Podcast About Sports and the Law' was interviewing Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel of the NLRB.

The way she phrased things it was obvious it was recorded in early April (April 16, as it turns out) since she was predicting when the complaint would be issued (towards the end of May)

The complaint dropped today:

NLRB complaint against USC, PAC-12, and NCAA (PDF)

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

The National Labor Relations Act

does not really define what an "employee" is except it excludes from the meaning of "employee" under the NLRA agricultural workers, domestic servants, employed by parent or spouse, independent contractor, supervisor, or railroad workers. The term "employer" excludes the Federal government, state governments (and subdivisions thereof) and railroad.

So clearly there is 88 years of case law who is an "employee".

The complaint in describing the NCAA and PAC-12 are described as doing more than $50,000 worth in commerce outside their domiciled states of Indiana and California. Congress has asserted its authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate labor relations for organizations engaged in interstate commerce.

USC is described as having more than $1,000,000 in gross revenue, with at least $5,000 from outside California.

The NLRB complaint states that USC (and the PAC-12 and NCAA) have misclassified football and basketball players (both women and men) as student-athletes rather than employees.

The complaint does not say why they excluded other student-athletes. It could be as simple that they did not receive a complaint from such persons.

The term "joint employer" is not defined in the NLRA, so it too must be a matter of case law.

So back to high school athletes. If they are employees, their employers are typically school districts (and therefore exempt from the NLRA). But that might simply mean that they can't form a labor union. They could be subject to other laws such as minimum wage laws. The state organizations might also be government entities.

But there is a difference. Lincoln Riley never visited a HS player in Texas or Oklahoma or anywhere else and said, "USC has a really good Film Studies program. If you are accepted you can play on the football team."

He says "We want you for our football team because you are 6 stars in our eyes. We can get you an athletic scholarship. I'm not really familiar with the academic side of USC - I never go over to that side of campus, but I understand they are pretty good. We'll get you a tutor." Athlete and student are disjoint.

High school students generally attend school where they (or their parents) live. Athletics and students are integrated.

Short answer: I dunno.

I've personally witnessed numerous times over the years recruiting or "magical transfers" into Athletically successful school districts. When I was in High School, there was this guy named Jeff Redfearn at Aubrey, one of our rivals. He was an absolute basketball stud, all-State type guy. Magically, he transferred to Krum, a local basketball power, before his Sr year. They didn't win state that year, but they went to the State Tournament, and they won in 1994, 96, and 98 (I graduated in '91). GA Moore tried to recruit me to Celina. Not directly, and I wasn't that good of a player anyway tbh, but one of his assistants was the drivers ed instructor for several high schools (including mine). Usually there were several of us driving, but one day the weather was pretty nasty and it was just me and him. We casually drove over to Celina, he stopped to get coffee, then disappeared for 10 minutes to go the restroom. The second he left, several Celina boosters turned around in their chairs and engaged me in intense football-related conversations. They were savvy about it, and I wasn't dreaming of playing at a big college or certainly not the pros, so the conversation shifted, the coach came back, and the topic never came up with him directly. Moore won 8 class AA Championships from '74 to '01. I'm sure that he never broke any rules, not really, but any kids who were interested were getting recruited to Celina (or Pilot Point when he was there).

That's a couple of real, lived examples. I played against Redfearn twice a year for years, he was impossible to guard. "Boosters" from another local school stealth-recruited me while I was driving for drivers ed. And that was for a couple of very small AA high schools in North Texas. What do you think happens at the big 5A and 6A schools in Texas?

They might not be getting paid to go the most competitive public schools in Texas, or SoCal, or Florida, etc etc, but they're bringing in plenty of revenues for those schools to build 10k, 15k, or 20k seat stadiums. If D1 athletes are magically reclassified as employees, this is going to open up a nasty and very real can of worms. I can't even see the bottom of it tbh.

This is an interesting article from the BCS Eagle about the new Texas NIL law.

Texas A&M played major role in new NIL bill that is close to becoming state law

A couple of interesting provisions are it eliminates a restriction on NIL being paid for a student-athlete to attend a university, and makes it a restriction on being paid to enroll at the institution.

The other is to permit the student-athlete to use the uniform, facilities, etc. as part of his NIL deal, so long as the university is compensated and gives permission.

So a player can appear in his A&M uniform at Kyle Field, and speak, "When I need a new Gold Trans-AM, I go to Aggie Pontiac in Sealy, Texas." in the fine print at the bottom of the commercial read at triple speed, "persons appearing in this commercial may be compensated for their endorsement."

The UIL interprets the law as forbidding NIL for high school athletes, because it says that they may not be compensated prior to college enrollment. It is likely that this was intended to prevent use of NIL for recruitment.

Another bill would have allowed sports books to operate in Texas. The House author was going over examples of illegal gambling that Texans engage in on a routine basis.

There is a reading clerk in the House who is always in camera when a representative is speaking. She is quite pretty, and must generally be non-committal to any legislation. Because she is on camera for hours every day, she needs a huge wardrobe, so she must have a NIL deal with a clothing store. She was wearing a top that was shawl-like, so you couldn't see her hands or arms unless she exposed them.

So the author was giving examples, such as entering a NCAAT pool, betting on the Astros to win the World Series, making a prop bet on Jose Altuve hitting a HR in the fourth inning, betting on the Cowboys ending three decades of futility (the read clerk smile on that one). The betting on University of Texas in the Red River Showdown. The reading clerk's hand instantly thrust out and she made a Horns Down gesture.

That is why the expansion of the 2 conferences should not get too cocky on this issue since they would still get sued even more since all the schools from D1 down to D3 athletes are employees. They all would demand equal pay at all the colleges and universities.