Skip to content

Ex-Mizzou WR T.J. Moe: ‘Union isn’t the answer’

Jerrell Wedge, T.J. Moe AP

Former Mizzou wide receiver T.J. Moe offered up a string of thought-provoking tweets last night after the NLRB ruled in favor of Northwestern football players.

Moe isn’t in favor of unionizing college football, and offered up a compelling counter-argument:

These are all compelling points, and I’m sure they’ve crossed Kain Colter’s mind. The biggest win from yesterday was the NLRB ruling that college football players really aren’t student-athletes. Perhaps this all ends with players at Northwestern and other private universities becoming unionized, but even if it doesn’t there can still be positive change for college athletes moving forward.

Permalink 17 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Missouri Tigers, Northwestern Wildcats, Rumor Mill, Southeastern Conference, Top Posts
17 Responses to “Ex-Mizzou WR T.J. Moe: ‘Union isn’t the answer’”
  1. ytownjoe says: Mar 27, 2014 10:13 AM

    Every American has an inalienable right to have a voice in the conditions surrounding his everyday life and the consequences of actions that he is subjected to when engaged in an endeavor that is regulated by others.

    This includes his share of any monetary value that goes to parties in charge the activity and in determining what obligation is owed to the individual following an injury, however long it is felt by the individual.

    Individuals often form legal entities (labor union, NCAA or NFL) to provide a stronger voice in supporting their interests. It’s the American way.

  2. bender4700 says: Mar 27, 2014 10:30 AM

    Sitting on a plane isn’t work. Sitting on a bus isn’t work.

    I get that people think a union isn’t the answer, but NOBODY has put fourth a real answer yet, so they should stop trashing the ONLY group DOING something.

    What, should they stop and we just all keep TALKING about it?

    America, the land of the non stop talk, and little action. So ridiculous.

  3. rolltide510 says: Mar 27, 2014 11:43 AM

    It’s amazing how different the phrase “free college” sounds to an 18 year old vs. a 36 year old who pays a student loan payment every month and will be doing so for the next 10+ years or so.

  4. patriottony says: Mar 27, 2014 11:51 AM

    FINE,,,ALL YOU unionists,,thugs that want to line your pockets (TEAMSTERS/UAW)…here you go,,,,unionize…good for you…
    Guess what instead of the athlete getting a break on his sat score to get into ohhhh GT, or Duke or ND etc.
    He has to meet the same # as the brainy kid in physics. (LIKE thats gonna happen)
    Then No more scholarships,,zip,,zero,,nada,,,,here is your salary,,and now you owe me back ohhhhhh 35K for your tution and board,,another 5 or so for books and fees. Btw,,,oh that money that the Football and Basketball teams WERE making and parsing out to Womens Volleyball,,,soccer,,,,lacrosse,,,thats allllll gone now..
    No more soccer scholarships,,or track scholarships,,,and LOL best of all,,,,you have 18 year old kids who can’t stay out of trouble with 50.00 in their pocket,,,will have a bank account with $50,0000,,yeah thats a good mix.
    Unionist really earn their reputation as idiots

  5. deadeye says: Mar 27, 2014 11:52 AM

    Once a union forms, the employee-athlete will become responsible for paying income taxes on their compensation. How much is tuition and all associated benefits worth?

    It’s possible that the “cost” of unionizing might be writing a check to uncle sucker for 5 or 10 grand per year.

  6. deeboy says: Mar 27, 2014 12:39 PM

    It appears that Mr. Moe did not waste his educational opportunity at Missouri. Good for him.

  7. guinsrule says: Mar 27, 2014 1:00 PM

    Actually, a scholarship would still be considered grant-in-aid and not be subject to taxes, even if athletes are deemed “employees.” It would take a change in the tax code to change that. However any monetary compensation players may get in the future would be taxable.

  8. detectivejimmymcnulty says: Mar 27, 2014 1:01 PM

    Student-athlete is a joke. Listen to an interview from a lot, not all, players. They don’t even understand basic grammar.

    Athletes deserve compensation, but the university paying them will have negative consequences on other athletic programs that are in existence because of money generated by the football programs. Then you have the problem of paying each player equally. Should Manziel be paid as much as a redshirt offensive tackle that won’t even take the field all season?

    My solution is to let athletes get paid through endorsements. If Subway wants to pay Manziel for doing commercials then let him take advantage of that opportunity. Same with selling their autograph or equipment that was given to them. If Nike wants to pay Winston to wear Nike gear then let them. It sure beats the hell out of the solution of players forming a union.

  9. thraiderskin says: Mar 27, 2014 2:55 PM

    Guinsrule, wasn’t the impetuous of their eligibility that the scholarship shows payment for services (but not at a fair rate) in an employee/employer relationship? If the athletes get paid cash, doesn’t that just get added to overall compensation?

  10. mckludge says: Mar 27, 2014 4:48 PM

    @bender4700 says: “Sitting on a plane isn’t work. Sitting on a bus isn’t work.”

    It is if you would get fired (lose your scholarship) if you don’t.

    I don’t fault the players at all for wanting a union. It is probably the only way they can get the protections they were asking for. And they are really only asking for health and injury related protections.

  11. Professor Fate says: Mar 27, 2014 8:27 PM

    Moe’s arguments would be a little more “thought provoking” if he wasn’t contradicting himself.

    Maybe players don’t spend 60 hours a week on football, but that isn’t the issue. The combined hours necessary to fulfill both athletic and academic requirements is the issue.

    Moe then breaks down the average in-season week for a player, which includes “a ton of hrs” on the weekend. Combine the requirements of being on the team with going to class (as well as homework) and I bet it’s on the far side of 60.

    The rest of his tweets are arguments against paying the athletes based on what-ifs, speculating that motivated men who regularly balance athletic and academic loads (and for the most part do so quite successfully) cannot somehow manage the transition to the very world that awaits a mere few years away under the current system.

    Today’s youth are extraordinary examples of the continuing evolution of the human race. To assume they cannot handle something because you might not have been able to handle it in your own youth is narrow-minded and defeatist. Is it just me or are people settling into the get-off-my-lawn mindset at an earlier and earlier age?

  12. auburntigers34 says: Mar 27, 2014 8:46 PM

    Unions aren’t the American way….unless you’re talking about the most effective way to destroy the country. Look at what unions did to Detroit.

    College football and basketball are already paying for Title IX sports. If this passes, get ready to see a lot of universities shutting down the athletic programs that aren’t paying for themselves.

  13. 6thsense10 says: Mar 27, 2014 9:25 PM

    rolltide510 says:
    Mar 27, 2014 11:43 AM

    It’s amazing how different the phrase “free college” sounds to an 18 year old vs. a 36 year old who pays a student loan payment every month and will be doing so for the next 10+ years or so.
    ———————-

    What’s even more amazing is that grown men think scholarship athletes are going to college for “free”. My definition of free is receiving something without giving anything in return. I believe scholarship athletes give plenty in return as far as their time, injuries, and in major college sports being the driving force behind a multi million dollar industry. Free? Your definition of free is vastly different than the dictionary definition.

  14. 6thsense10 says: Mar 27, 2014 9:29 PM

    auburntigers34 says:
    Mar 27, 2014 8:46 PM

    Unions aren’t the American way….unless you’re talking about the most effective way to destroy the country. Look at what unions did to Detroit.

    College football and basketball are already paying for Title IX sports. If this passes, get ready to see a lot of universities shutting down the athletic programs that aren’t paying for themselves.
    ——————————
    None unions aren’t the American way unless you’re talking about the most effective way to destroy the country. Look at what non unions did to the state of Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia and Alabama which are consistently ranked as the poorest states in the country.

  15. deadeye says: Mar 28, 2014 8:07 AM

    “Actually, a scholarship would still be considered grant-in-aid and not be subject to taxes, even if athletes are deemed “employees.” It would take a change in the tax code to change that. However any monetary compensation players may get in the future would be taxable.”

    =========================

    This might be true. But don’t kid yourself, if athletes choose to unionize, the university will provide funds directly to the union-employee-athlete (employees get paychecks, right?) causing them to then have to account for their income to the IRS. They will be paying taxes on those funds and quite possibly will come out worse off financially. Moe is right, these kids are not thinking this through. This is a stupid ploy to try and make unions relevant again.

  16. ytownjoe says: Mar 28, 2014 8:21 AM

    College scholarships are, and always been considered grant in aid and non-taxable. If the tax code is changed it must also be changed to apply to the millions in profits that go to universities from TV broadcasting and ticket sales. Who’s gonna open that can of worms?

  17. dretwann says: Mar 28, 2014 8:58 PM

    I don’t believe these kids were fighting (yet) for compensation. More so for better treatment (practice and training requirements) and better healthcare and assurances regarding there scholarships should they be injured and say never able to play again. That kid shouldn’t be subject to losing their scholarship and access to continue their education.

    I’m not down for paying a salary but would be fully on board with allowing those who can to be able to market themselves and earn money on the side. I mean, suspensions and such for being paid for an autograph?! How anyone can find THAT reasonable is crazy to me. If Joe Football can get anlitle local (or national) endorsement deal whole playing, why block him? The benefit? Perhaps the Clowneys, Manziels, etc would feel pressed to jump to the pros all of a sudden. Perhaps the kid who was a stud in college but a bust in the pros will have a little financial head start for the real part of his life. It isn’t all doom and gloom.

Leave a Reply

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