Skip to content

NLRB ruling gives Northwestern players first labor union win

Kain Colter AP

While not immediately, the course of collegiate athletics is in the midst of what will ultimately be monumental changes.  Whether that’s good or bad for sports in general and football specifically remains to be seen.

In a historic ruling Wednesday afternoon, the Chicago regional office of the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Northwestern football players meet the standards under federal guidelines to form a union.  The initial petition was filed by the National College Players Association on behalf of former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter and the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA), and had the backing of the United Steelworkers union.

The NLRB ruled essentially what CAPA had argued in stating its case: football players are employees of the university.

“Players receiving scholarships to perform football-related services for the Employer under a contract for hire in return for compensation are subject to the Employer’s control and are therefore employees,” an excerpt of the NLRB’s ruling read.

For now, the goals of the NCPA/CAPA are “better concussion and other medical protections, and for scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance” as well as “a trust fund that players could tap into after their NCAA eligibility expires to finish schooling or be rewarded for finishing schooling.”  This ruling does, though, have the potential to open up the possibility of salaries or other financial streams — endorsements, revenue sharing from merchandise sale, etc. — on down the road.

It should be noted that this decision, for the moment, applies only to private institutions such as Northwestern.  Public universities, which make up the vast majority of FBS institutions, are under the jurisdiction of state laws, not federal.

Northwestern is expected to issue a statement on the decision in the very near future, at which point the university will likely announce an appeal.

Permalink 59 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Northwestern Wildcats, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
59 Responses to “NLRB ruling gives Northwestern players first labor union win”
  1. barkleyblows says: Mar 26, 2014 3:25 PM

    This is the end of college football. Typical Chicago.

  2. iwishwvuwouldbeatbama says: Mar 26, 2014 3:29 PM

    These kids deserve a little piece of the pie. I have herd many people say that these kids get a free education and that’s enough. First, these full ride scholarships cover most not all the cost of schooling.Second,these kids blood, sweat, and tears fuel the BILLION dollar industry that is college football. Finally, the player’s accumulate injuries that will impact them for the rest of their lives.Not saying they all end up crippled but four years of a sprain or concussion here and there add up.

  3. chrispdx77 says: Mar 26, 2014 3:37 PM

    So the biggest universities with the biggest payroll can now get the best athletes? This will leave smaller universities/conferences out and many schools will be dropping their athletic programs.

  4. justsomerandomguy24 says: Mar 26, 2014 3:38 PM

    Good. I honestly don’t think this will have nearly as big of an effect as people think (let’s be honest, things like strikes are unlikely because these kids want to play football), but I think they ought to get a little bigger piece of the pie.

    And, at this point, anything that undermines the NCAA is probably good for college football.

  5. iwishwvuwouldbeatbama says: Mar 26, 2014 3:47 PM

    @ chrispdx77,

    You know why the top recruits usually go to the big schools, its because the big schools which reside in the power conferences have bigger budgets for recruiting which is not fair to the smaller schools but that doesn’t destroy college football. Paying the players would be regulated by the NCAA and a standard amount would be set.It would be actually more fair then the recruiting process is today.

  6. bamadan says: Mar 26, 2014 3:52 PM


  7. iwishwvuwouldbeatbama says: Mar 26, 2014 3:53 PM

    @ chrispdx77,

    If college football drooped a few smaller schools it would be alright for the sport. The cream would rise to the top and we would be left with a better more competitive group of schools. Would college football still be great without the U Mass’s of the world. I say yes.

  8. bobkenner says: Mar 26, 2014 3:54 PM

    Ah, the STUPID LIBERALS strike again!!

  9. ralphross373 says: Mar 26, 2014 3:56 PM

    It’s fair that the football and basketball players get paid. The head of the NCAA made a mistake recently when arguing against these athletes being employees. What he said on CNN or ESPN basically was that there are 450,000 athletes in various sports like lacrosse, tennis, golf etc., and implied that the monies collected from football and basketball help pay for all these programs so therefore the football/basketball players should not be paid – wtf ! What a dummie, this is ammo for the athletes’ lawyers, and I expect to see this very point raised when the athletes win the ultimate ruling that requires them to be paid. There are so many obvious points, but here’s one: even Duke basically gives a one-year scholarship to Jabari Parker, knowing he’ll never get a degree. So how does this and many other one-and- done situations equate to being a student-athlete. Pay them because you are using them.

  10. chrispdx77 says: Mar 26, 2014 4:05 PM

    The Unions will have to collective bargain with individual schools and States. The NCAA doesn’t and won’t have jurisdiction to bargain on behalf of States. Each state has different bargaining rules and laws for State employees. So what happens when one states says we will pay each student athlete 50k a year yet another State says no you get nothing but what you get now, a full scholarship. Now we have an uneven playing field. Then after that schools in this set of states who won’t pay will only play each other while states who will pay play each other.

  11. chrispdx77 says: Mar 26, 2014 4:10 PM

    They have no idea what kind of harm they have just done. (a) their income now should (and probably will) be taxable. So their 40k education has now just produced a 12k tax bill that has to be paid. And (b) -and more importantly as it related to college sports, they have just ruined college athletics as we know it. Good luck having any small school have an athletic team now. I went to Central Michigan University. 9/10 years the team is not very good and is not self supporting. Do they really think the state of Michigan is going to fork over money for whatever compensation they are claiming to be entitled to? There is no way. Thus, the MAC has now more or less been demolished as well as any other conference not named B10, Pac12, Big12, ACC, or SEC.
    Well done guys, you got what you wanted. You have created a semi-pro league out of the NCAA system.

  12. steeltroll says: Mar 26, 2014 4:15 PM

    Universities should function as institutions of higher learning, not entertainment. People say that these students have a free ride to get a great education. BS. Big time, big athletic programs demand so much from the “student” athletes, that being a serious student is all but impossible. These athletes don’t have the time to be earnest students and will not be as competitive on the open market as those who did. So when they don’t go pro, they are at a disadvantage. People complaining about liberals need to be complaining about a corrupt university system.

  13. sailbum7 says: Mar 26, 2014 4:17 PM

    Wait until this gets applied to public universities and the players start demanding lifetime pensions from the state. They will claim they are entitled to this because they are state employees by virtue of playing football on scholarship at a state university. Since the rules say they can only play four years (five if they red shirt their first year) they will claim that they are being forcibly retired and therefor deserve a pension. Oh, and then what about the players who are not on scholarship – after all, not every player is. Are they still going to be considered employees? Will there now be some collective bargaining agreement that all players have to be given scholarships if they make the team.

    This ruling is going to open up one giant can of worms that is going to end up completely altering the face of college sports, and not for the better. This is also going to inevitably cause major conflicts and legal battles where labor rules or bargaining demands conflict with NCAA rules. Is this also going to be the end of the NCAA as we know it – many would say that this would not necessarily be a bad thing!

  14. steeltroll says: Mar 26, 2014 4:21 PM

    @ sailbum7
    “Wait until this gets applied to public universities and the players start demanding lifetime pensions from the state. They will claim they are entitled to this because they are state employees by virtue of playing football on scholarship at a state university.”

    No, being state chartered does not make the university part of the state government. The university is supported through tuition, gifts, endowments, and land grants. Nothing like what you suggest in the quotes will happen.

  15. psousa1 says: Mar 26, 2014 4:26 PM

    They want to unionize? Great. Scholarship revoked.

  16. thraiderskin says: Mar 26, 2014 4:27 PM

    This us such a joke… seriously, you pro-union guys are idiots

  17. chrispdx77 says: Mar 26, 2014 4:29 PM

    Scholarships will be kept. They will make sure it’s included when it is time to bargain.

  18. steeltroll says: Mar 26, 2014 4:33 PM


    So? You think Johnny Manziel spent a lot of time studying for his PHIL 100 course? LMFAO. Student athletes at these big time programs aren’t getting an education anyway. Let’s be honest about what the deal is. I’m not pro union, I’m anti-university-pretending-it-educates-its-big-program-athletes. I teach at a big name program. These “students” are not getting an education.

  19. tientzu1 says: Mar 26, 2014 4:40 PM

    Do you know that the term “student athlete” was coined in order to prevent the NCAA from being liable for worker’s comp when players were injured? Under the current construct a player could be injured, lose his/her scholarship and the school not be liable for their medical care (this actually happened in the case which birthed the term “student athlete”). In fact the man (Walter Byers) who came up with the phrase has since spoken out against the very system he helped create.

  20. doggeatdogg says: Mar 26, 2014 4:49 PM

    The reform was needed but the unions may not be the way to go. I know how this will descend into and the main focus for the unions will be how to get a bigger piece of that pie and they will make it extremely difficult for athlete to negotiate.

    “I won’t have my guys play unless you pay him x amount of money. That’s the union foreman talking.” And of course, no amount is ever enough. We lost manufacturing in this country because the unions and owners could never agree how to split things up. Greed is king.

    Ultimately what will happen is the severance of colleges from athletics where their relationships will become something we haven’t figured out yet.

    Minor farm systems managed by the school themselves is more likely where all athletes (male and females) get money in exchange to attend that school. How much??

    They don’t know it yet but they the colleges are the biggest losers in this thing. The NCAA has been dead man walking for some time. They took too long to come up with an equitable solution.

    The formation of the super conferences has been slow with no guidance. They can’t even figure out a playoff system. They got too big and too rich. I almost see the aura of Mark Cuban in all this.

    This will no doubt end up in federal court and maybe even the Supreme Court. But what legs does the NCAA have as it is constructed now to argue for its survival.

    No more free labor, or do away scholarships for everyone and make them all pay through well constructed stipends (to cover classes, books, dorms, etc.). In any event, the player will always say he/she is putting their body out there, there’s got to be compensation for that. This is the other can of worm. Yes I put my body out there, but what do I get if I get injured. Look at that kid from Navy and many other schools. What do they get for dying doing their job. There are lots of legal things to consider once labor unions get involved.

    Changes will be coming for all colleges that produce a sports product and how they view the non professional athlete.

    I think the farm system will finally become the actualization of what it has been pretending to be all this time under this thing called the NCAA. They better work it out.

  21. witchrunner says: Mar 26, 2014 5:10 PM

    So, if they are employees, now what? First thing I can think of is the usual taxes have to be taken out. Of course, the question then becomes: How much are they making? Obviously, the students who come in from out of state usually have to pay higher tuition at a state run school. So, some students are “making” more than others. What specifically is their job? Since maintaining academic eligibility is a necessary part of the job, it’s conceivable that they will be “working” more than 29 1/2 hours a week, and thus have to be covered under Obamacare. Then you have the workers comp. issues as well as unemployment coverage. Yup, this could be fun to watch.

  22. philliephaninva says: Mar 26, 2014 5:18 PM

    I can hear the next team meeting now. “Sorry boys but we’ve decided to move your jobs to Mexico. Good luck and God bless.”

  23. teedraper says: Mar 26, 2014 5:28 PM

    About time. It’s time for us to get PAID!

  24. thetooloftools says: Mar 26, 2014 5:46 PM

    Hey Folks, just remember… according to Title 9, women’s sports will have to receive every single benefit that men’s sports do. That is the law.
    So the starting QB and the stud on the basketball team cannot make one more penny then the 3rd string WOMEN’S field hockey player if the school receives any state funding.
    Put that in the conversation.
    Title 9 was just an insanely STUPID law.

  25. wethog66 says: Mar 26, 2014 5:55 PM

    My initial reaction to this news was positive for the players, but then I realized the possible side effects. Could mark the end of D-1 College Football as we know it.

    The SEC, Big10, ACC, Big12 and PAC10 conferences make money from TV deals. Other conferences like the MAC, MW, AAC, Conf. USA and Sunbelt don’t. Are they forced to drop to D-1AA or lower to afford football? What about the lower division teams now? How many schools throughout the NCAA College Football system stop fielding a football team all together?

    My favorite CFB team is the Navy Midshipman. How will this impact the Service Academy college teams in general? Service Academy’s might drop from Varsity level sports to the club college team level for all sports. No more Army vs Navy football games. Its possible.

    The extreme consequence of this is the death of College Football as we know it. Conferences like the SEC could just decide to become their own professional football league. And why couldn’t they? They already own a dedicated, and significant, fan base throughout the South East. The Big10 could do the same thing. Sure the NFL is big in northern towns like Green Bay, Chicago and Pittsburgh, but teams like Mich, OSU, Wisc., MSU, PSU, just about the entire Big10 would have the fan base to support a professional level football team.

    Enough crazy talk. Big change is coming, regardless.

  26. barkleyblows says: Mar 26, 2014 6:05 PM

    I hope this shuts down other sports like wrestling, swimming, soccer and so on. And don’t forget, if athletes start getting paid don’t forget the other students that should get paid. For example, 4.0 students.

  27. tientzu1 says: Mar 26, 2014 6:10 PM

    Y’all forget that the schools set the price of tuition. So in essence they pay themselves the cost of the scholarship. No real monetary value has been exchanged. Meaning if player A did not attend school on a scholarship more than likely player A would attend said school. So the school is not losing player As tuition money. If he attends the school the school essential pays itself.

  28. derekgorgonstar says: Mar 26, 2014 6:27 PM

    Goodbye college football. I’ll truly miss you.

  29. manik56 says: Mar 26, 2014 6:28 PM

    Funny how Jim Delany proposed all the stated goals of the NCPA last summer, yet is viewed as a vilain.

  30. manik56 says: Mar 26, 2014 6:33 PM

    “Y’all forget that the schools set the price of tuition. So in essence they pay themselves the cost of the scholarship. No real monetary value has been exchanged. Meaning if player A did not attend school on a scholarship more than likely player A would attend said school. So the school is not losing player As tuition money. If he attends the school the school essential pays itself.”

    Not true. The money is spent by the school so he or she can attend it. Professors, desks, dorms, electrity, computers and other things you don’t even think about do not come free.

  31. sparky151 says: Mar 26, 2014 6:42 PM

    This isn’t that big a deal. It only applies to private schools. Athletes function as employees, working for the benefit of the university under the supervision of the university and not free to bargain terms of service as independent contractors. So legally they are employees. No shock there.

    What’s interesting is that if the players unionize, once a labor agreement is in place they will be shielded from NCAA laws against paying student-athletes. So Northwestern could offer a star QB prospect 100K per year and the NCAA couldn’t do anything about it, probably including expelling Northwestern.

    There is an anti-trust lawsuit in progress in New Jersey that says the NCAA is a cartel (which it certainly is) and is a much bigger threat to the current NCAA business model as it would affect public schools too. One of the basic purposes of the NCAA is to prevent member institutions from competing with each other for athletic talent via financial considerations. That’s classic cartel behavior and in the case of universities has been punished by the courts in non-athletic contexts. So extending it to sports is logical.

  32. coachbeck says: Mar 26, 2014 7:08 PM

    Today college athletics die. Semi pro leagues will take over. Just a matter of time. Then athletes can spend their money on school or trades.

  33. doggeatdogg says: Mar 26, 2014 7:44 PM


    It’s phantom money. If the average football scholarship is $70,ooo per annum, this athlete would want that and then some. The problem has been money he has not been able to get money via jobs to pay for a car, food, dates with the girlfriend, movies, and other incidentals.

    Convert the scholarship to a job, he will want $70,000 plus the cost of the incidentals. Needless to say, the union machine once involve, decides how much, not the athletes. The greed monster is now a behemoth.

    In essence if this stand, college athletics as is now is lost forever. Expect every other athlete in other sports to want their cut and the women as well (and let’s not put this on the women).

    I think the supreme court will debate this one because we are talking billions of dollars and a collegiate structure never seen before.

    Like every body says, this is headed for the formation of minor league systems but still under college governance. Maybe the colleges can keep dominion over intramural sports or the sports that stay behind such as badminton and field hockey. And if that happens, the badminton athlete will sue sue sue.

  34. goirishgo says: Mar 26, 2014 7:47 PM


  35. onbucky96 says: Mar 26, 2014 7:58 PM

    Burn in Hell Koultergeist!

  36. keltictim says: Mar 26, 2014 8:11 PM

    First of all you guys are all getting way ahead of yourselves. There are years and years if appeals and lawsuits before this issue will be settled. Second, this ruling came from the very pro union labor board in Chicago. It means almost nothing nationally until the federal labor board weighs in. Under the current president the federal board has also been very pro union, but the courts have not hesitated to smack them down when their rulings are clearly pro union as opposed to the down the middle rulings they are supposed to issue. Like when they tried to stop Boeing from building a plant in SC just because SC doesn’t have unions. The board said they couldn’t build it and the courts slapped it down pretty quickly. I have a strong feeling this issue won’t be settled until the Supreme Court gets involved, and if the political winds keep blowing the way they are now the Supreme Court will have another conservative judge sitting on it by the time the case gets there and you can forget about anything pro union.

  37. barkleyblows says: Mar 26, 2014 8:57 PM

    I guess if I played for a shitty team like northwestern I would need to be paid too!

  38. voteforno6 says: Mar 26, 2014 8:58 PM


    The athletes at the service academies are already getting paid, just like all of the cadets there.

  39. suprmous says: Mar 26, 2014 9:41 PM

    This can only be happenin within the BiG and other Northern Conferences because if my memory and papa’s right the SEC and Southern Conferences don’t have to worry bout the unions or anything concernin em.

  40. amosalanzostagg says: Mar 26, 2014 9:41 PM

    This is a death knell for college athletics.

    You B1G fans had better hope this this is overturned at the federal level with the NLRB because Commissioner Delany is serious about going to Division III level rather than face increased costs and liability with Division I.

    Three factors in which the Mensa’s from Northwestern failed to factor in their pursuit of unionization.

    (1.) The NCAA is more than Division I Men’s football and Men’s Basketball. It’s Division II and III athletic programs which NEVER make money. It’s over 600,000 student athletes in sports that make NO money, yet obtain college degrees because of Men’s Football and Men’s Basketball.

    (2.) Title IX. You think Women’s and Men’s non revenue sports are going to sit quietly and let increased athletic stipends go to Men’s Football and Men’s Basketball players WITHOUT them getting their “fair” share?


    (3.) $1,200,000,000 per year for 600,000 student athletes @ $2,000 a year.

    That doesn’t even begin to cover workman’s compensation costs for athletes
    decades after they have left the playing field, court or course. What cost does a school put on a concussion incurred in a football game suffered 30 years ago?
    Yet unionization could hold Universities and conferences hostage for generations on reserving for such contingencies. What happens to Universities
    when the Union sues for lack of economic opportunity for kids that make the poor decision to leave school early and not make it in a pro league? What happens when the union sues the University for mental and alcohol problems
    that kids develop while at good old State U?

    Face it, unionization of College Athletics benefit the Union attorneys and the Attorneys representing the University and Conferences.

    That is why I’ve always said enjoy college athletics today because these are the good old days.


  41. gborange says: Mar 26, 2014 9:44 PM

    Hell why does it matter? They have been paying the players out west for years anyway.

  42. keltictim says: Mar 26, 2014 10:07 PM

    Amos why do you assume the union will get everything they ask for? Let’s just pretend that after all the appeals and lawsuits that the students can unionize. The players have almost zero leverage backing their demands. If they strike, the schools will be able to fill teams with “scabs” in a heartbeat, and without at the very least a year of college ball to showcase talent/potential, and no true minor league to speak of it will be the end if the line for the striking players. Given these facts the schools would have all the ammo they need to come to very school friendly collective bargaining agreements. I’m sorry but I just don’t see the scenario your projecting ever happening. I could see something along the lines of independent contractor style benefits. Yes they will get an increased stipend with a cap on workers comp style pay offs. I can see the schools trying to be fair with a slight edge towards the school and if the students don’t go for it, bring on “Footsteps” Falco and the rest of the scabs.

  43. 6superbowls says: Mar 26, 2014 10:49 PM

    In five to 10 years NW will be out of Big10 football (as will others) and playing away games in front of 5,000 to 15,000 fans because scholarships will be nonexistent. The only kids playing for schools like this, as well as the others like it, will be kids of alumni that have to pay for their own education. More schools will follow and we’ll end up with only about 50 schools getting the TV money each year. Good luck relying on ticket sales to pay for scholarships.

    Say goodbye to the 36 bowl games a year. Say goodbye to Thursday and Friday night college football on ESPN.

    Maybe if the NCAA had just upheld academic standards over the past several decades, they wouldn’t be in this predicament??? Then again, like pro sports, greed took over.

  44. wethog66 says: Mar 27, 2014 7:13 AM


    I know they get paid already. Just like any other military volunteer. The problem I see is the USNA and the other service academy’s saying “screw it” and relegate to club status for all sports to avoid the BS a unionized NCAA would provide and ensure all midshipment continue with their academic requirements.

    The ripple affects from this could be typhoon sized sweeping over all college sports.

  45. floridacock says: Mar 27, 2014 8:26 AM

    So now they should pull the scholarships, pay the players the equivalent and require them to be students in the University? STUPID! The VAST majority of players, especially at Northwestern will never play pro ball. Be careful what you wish for.

  46. packergator says: Mar 27, 2014 9:11 AM

    These players don’t get 4-year scholarships; the scholarships are year-to-year and coaches can decide not to renew for any reason, which is equivalent to an employer termination-at-will agreement. So how are the players NOT employees?

  47. packergator says: Mar 27, 2014 9:16 AM

    Could be pivotal for the sport, but not for several years and dozens of legal challenges. The NCAA brought this on itself for its greed, hypocrisy, and inflexibility though.

  48. wmocmo says: Mar 27, 2014 9:20 AM

    anddddd…it’s gone!

  49. shaunypoo says: Mar 27, 2014 9:24 AM

    The players are not being given a free education, they are getting the opportunity to get a free education. I have no sympathy if some kid doesn’t have the foresight to realize he won’t be making money off of football someday and doesn’t take advantage of the fantastic opportunity that most of us never get.

    Do the kids need some more compensation? Yes, but since living space, food, and education and healthcare are all covered, it shouldn’t be that much.

    These kids are screwing themselves. Somebody is footing the bill for this and they are taking advantage of ignorant kids. Shame on them.

    The universities already take advantage of these kids to a degree, now they are a pawn for both sides. What happens when the university decides they don’t want to deal with a union and revokes all the scholarships and brings in a bunch of scabs?

  50. diablos67 says: Mar 27, 2014 11:06 AM

    Interesting comments and the players do have a point, but this is what we’re dealing with and why it won’t go anywhere. Most college football programs lose money. Unless your a Texas, Alabama, Florida, OU, UCLA, Notre Dame, or any of the other slew of large schools out there, you lose money or break even. A school like Rice loses money, a school like Baylor until recently loses money on their football programs. So what most likely happens is that instead of dealing with all that, the schools will most likely just drop the programs completely. We’ll be stuck with 30 teams for College football. Now once you’ve gone through that, your scholarships will be reduced, plus now that you are working for the university, that money will be taxed. No longer will school be paid for, meals paid for, books paid for, housing paid for. You’ll have a set amount you “work” for and all of it will be taxed as income. Plus a lot of your college athletes, are just dumb. Quite a few can’t even read above a 4th grade level. Their only chance to make a real living out there, is on the off chance that they get picked up by an NFL team. So say what you want about these guys deserving it, you may not like what they get in return.

  51. taintedlombardis says: Mar 27, 2014 12:59 PM

    So many “experts” in here. Most of these opinions are ignorant and underinformed. Every asshole on the internet thinks they understand the complexity of this issue, when they do not.

  52. taintedlombardis says: Mar 27, 2014 1:17 PM

    I’m talking about in general. The absolutist remarks about the demise of collegiate athletics is very “Chicken Littlesque.” The 2nd and 3rd order effects of this are not written in stone, as the players and the NCAA will actually decide their own fate.

  53. tientzu1 says: Mar 27, 2014 3:10 PM

    Y’all forget that the schools set the price of tuition. So in essence they pay themselves the cost of the scholarship. No real monetary value has been exchanged. Meaning if player A did not attend school on a scholarship more than likely player A would attend said school. So the school is not losing player As tuition money. If he attends the school the school essential pays itself.”

    Not true. The money is spent by the school so he or she can attend it. Professors, desks, dorms, electrity, computers and other things you don’t even think about do not come free.

    It is very true. It is like depreciation for rental property on your taxes. No real money was lost but you get to write it off. If you really think 85 football players (i know there are other scholarships to include academics) make a difference in the real cash flow of an institution that already has facilities and faculty on the payroll you are crazy.

  54. tientzu1 says: Mar 27, 2014 3:11 PM

    Anybody who has Netflix should watch the documentary “Schooled”. It will serve as an enlightening experience for how we got to this point. And it all originally started with schools not wanting to be liable for “student athlete” (NCAA made up term) injuries.

  55. amosalanzostagg says: Mar 27, 2014 8:21 PM


    Easy, 45+ years of working with Universities and Conferences on University and Athletic financing. You think pay for play and Unionization is a new concept? UCLA coach Tommy Prothro was wanting to pay the players back in 1967 under the guise of a players “Association”. It died when the California University system said they would agree to it if the players would agree to accept the Grant in Aid as taxable income. Since the athletes was going to be taxed, California regents went further and wanted all scholarships, academic and athletic, to be taxed. Imagine how quickly it died when grad students and doctorate candidates found out the “scholarships” funded by alumni would be taxed at Federal, state and local tax entities.

    Unions take, they do not concede. They do not create anything of value that an individual cannot
    achieve on their own. There is no such thing as a
    “University friendly contract”.

    The kids playing at Northwestern could never afford the 60K a year Northwestern, much less pay taxes on the 60k assessment for tax purposes as an employee.

    This is a pure money grab by Union attorneys to
    go after the revenue sports under the guise of “fairness”. What value do you put on a Northwestern degree? Does a football player use the Union representation to sue Northwestern should he fail to obtain and NFL try out? Does s football player sue because he fails to complete a degree and is flipping burgers in South Bend? No,
    unionization for college athletics is a very bad idea,


  56. ksctychiefs says: Mar 29, 2014 2:41 PM

    playing further devil advocate…..say i’m the nonfootball playing student at Big State U. and i’m here majoring in chemistry,going to class all the time…. the football player is getting paid to ‘major’ in football,so why shouldnt i get ‘paid’ to major in chemistry….besides i the chemistry major have a claim to the ‘Big State U. ‘ brand, and benefits, as much as the advantage that the football player is getting out of his association withe the ‘brand’… some point every student on campus could claim some type of discrimination,civil rights, etc to all that ‘big money”….besides the ‘brand’ doesnt exist without me the regular joe student… possible scenario is as above mentioned like the USNA,to be ‘fair’ to all,is that students will go to class,all sports will on campus will be intra- mural,and there will be no intercollegiate competition……just sayin’…..a whole can of worms by the time some angling lawyers join in…..but the end of ‘big time’ college sports…..

  57. gaconservativepolitics says: Mar 29, 2014 5:04 PM

    Hopefully, the NCAA will strip the players, that unionize, of their Amateur Status, label them as Professional Athletes, and ban them from any and all NCAA competition. The NCAA can do that!

  58. gaconservativepolitics says: Mar 29, 2014 5:43 PM

    A few more items that I read in the comments:

    The service Academies’ Players cannot unionize, as Federal Laws prohibit unions in the Military, period. And even if they do go to “Club Status, the rivalries will continue, just like they do in the Active Duty and Reserve Components.

    If the Unions are upheld, and the NCAA don’t strip their eligibility, then treat the scholarship and all other amenities as 1099 contract income, with the athlete being solely responsible for the taxes, and Self Employment Tax, Workman’s Comp and Insurance premiums.

    Then, you might get more states to finally say enough is enough and outright outlaw Labor Unions, like many states in the Southeast, and become Right to Work, since Labor Unions are nothing but legal organized crime!

    And to the idiots that think Title IX is stupid, you must think that a woman’s place is barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. I have two daughters who will soon be in High School playing Athletics, and that could help them to get into a top rated college or university, as they are mostly discriminative about where their students come from. But my daughters know that the chance of going professional in their sport is about that of an ice cubes chance to exist on the sun. They, however can have doors opened for them to get their degrees from the prestigious schools, and give them a better chance in a corporate leadership career. That is what Title IX has done for College and High School Athletics.

  59. taintedlombardis says: Apr 1, 2014 1:04 PM

    The Southeast is what other states strive to avoid becoming. True takers.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!