The NCAA vs. the courts, in an effort to stop the employment model (On3)W
Why the NCAA has put all efforts to derail employment model in Congress' hands
-- Eric Prisbell, On3
As Charlie Baker fielded questions from federal lawmakers for the first time since becoming NCAA president in March, the focus of the 10th NIL hearing on Capitol Hill turned to the industry's most consequential matchup:
The NCAA vs. the courts.
The NCAA has decided that begging Congress for federal legislation – that specifically includes limited antitrust protection and a designation that athletes are not university employees – is its best, and perhaps only, defense against what many see as an inevitability: the coming employee model.
The employment train is barreling down the tracks. Amateur hour is over. And the NCAA views a congressional lifeline as the only way to derail it.
This is the NCAA's fourth-down Hail Mary pass – throwing into the wind.
"Even employee status, all this is about is, 'We don't want to pay them [athletes] fairly," witness Ramogi Huma, a longtime athlete advocate, said during the hearing. "We're talking about equal rights. And this industry is operating in illegal fashion. It is breaking antitrust law. Breaking labor law. And now it's coming home."
Don't be distracted by Senators describing the NIL world as "dangerous chaos" or "absolute chaos" or mere "chaos."
The beleaguered NCAA sees the writing on the legal wall: In a post-Alston world, federal courts are increasingly looking askance at the association.
Plenty of battles are afoot: The high-stakes House antitrust case is proceeding in Oakland, while the Johnson lawsuit is ongoing in Pennsylvania. Meantime, the important National Labor Relations Board hearing begins next month over the unfair labor practice charges against the NCAA, Pac-12 and USC.
Baker's contention is that an employment model would force Division II and III schools to drop sports to club level because they wouldn't be able to afford them.
David Ridpath is a professor of sports business at Ohio University who has appeared before numerous congressional committees regarding college athletics. He saw Baker, Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick and Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti acting like college athletes are students while treating them as employees – but not giving the full rights of either category to the athlete.
"The sad reality is people on that panel put us where we are now," Ridpath told On3. "It is not about education. It is largely professional sports. The leaders do not want to unwind that because of the money and pressure to win, so they are hoping to have it both ways – and that will never work." – Eric Prisbell
Posted by Will Stewart on another board, since many of you are from other schools, I thought it deserved a lively discussion here too. It sure got many post on the other board that is almost all Hokies. What do you say about the future of college sports?
** Edited by Stech at 10/18/2023, 9:51:22 PM
31 Replies
M
Mercury
2y
The expert from ohio university speaking about football with his lense of ohio univeristy. No comtext at all
Explain the difference between ohio and ohio st?
(In response to this post by Stech)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Let the NFL and NBA shell out bucks for their feeder leagues?
If not, should NFL and NBA teams have to pay colleges for developing these players? It seems like pro leagues are pushing for colleges to pay players, so let them start "putting skin in the game."
(In response to this post by Stech)
M
Mercury
2y
However i can see them only subsidizing about 32 - like minor league teams. Just return of investment business decisions best use of money
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
players that graduate or declare for the draft each year. That's not even counting the FCS, D2, or D3 players. Maybe the NFL could sign development deals with maybe 1,000 incoming freshman each year, but the NIL already covers that so the NFL can save their money.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...they draft them. If a player isn't drafted, but makes the team, they pay the college program. If a player changes teams, the money is evenly split among the schools that player played for, since all worked on his development. Base that on the number of years that player played for that team. For example, if a player played for WF for 3 years, then transferred to Clemson for his last year, WF gets 3/4 of a share and the remaining quarter goes to Clemson.
That model only has the NFL paying for the players they get, and not the ones who aren't quite NFL material.
(In response to this post by VTNuke)
2y
And zero incentive for the NFLPA to do this. Any scheme that takes money out of the players' hands is a non starter with the NFLPA, and I can't see the incentive for the NFL owners to do this either.
There is no other place for elite players to play after college, so the NFL owners won't start paying the colleges to develop players, and the NFLPA is more interested in protecting the current players instead of the potential players of the future.
Also, the last thing the NFL wants to get involved in is any potential anti-trust litigation, so they want to keep an arms length distance from the college game.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
The market for the players is higher than what the NFL would be paying. The NIL has already covered this. There are redshirt freshman OL players that will never actually play getting paid $100K a year right now. The current system means the NFL doesn't have to spend a dime on college players.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
a minor league football breakaway would either eliminate their tax exempt status OR violate title IX. If they break away from the NCAA, they would no longer fall under the University's tax exempt status, if they stay and the players are making money, Title IX would kick in and female athletes would have to be paid the same.
Also, if they broke away the female sports programs would be decimated because the funding for the athletic department would be wiped out.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...should they still fall under Title IX?
Asking for a friend...
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
2y
players are enrolled, marketed by the schools, use the school's trademarks, etc, it would be impossible to argue they aren't part of the institution and thus would count for the institutions title ix requirements.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
2y
"Title IX protects everyone who interacts with a school from discrimination, including parents and guardians, students, employees, and applicants." So I am not sure it matters if the athletic team is made up of "employees" or "students" particularly when you factor in the Department of Education published its "Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Interpretation" (aka the "three-part test" or "three-prong test") in 1979. The courts (or Congress) will likely have to decide if the three-part test only applies to students or it can apply to employees too given the college/university is still receiving federal funding and sponsoring a professional sport.
US Department of Education Intercollegiate Athletic Policy
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title9-qa...
Also, keep in mind the purpose of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 was to update Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned several forms of discrimination in employment, but did not address or mention discrimination in education. In cases where Title IX doesn't apply to private schools, because the school doesn't receive any federal funding, then it is possible that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would apply to those schools.
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
First, most school administrations tend to be to the left on these issues no matter what the makeup of the school's board is.
Second, no school is going to jeopardize their ability to receive federal funding.
Third, no school wants the negative PR that would come out if there is a hint of a Title IX violation.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
college athletics seems to be heading in. At least it seems like the courts will rule at some point that colleges must reclassify the football and men's basketball players as "employees" to force the schools to share a portion of the revenue they earn from those sports with the players which will only raise questions about what that means for the women athletes at the school. I know the NCAA (aka schools) are fighting it in court, but it may be too late for that now given the horse and cart have already left the barn.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
2y
Can you imagine the outrage in the media if only the men are classified as employees?
The media outrage when the Women's National Team said that they were paid less than the Men's team even though the Men's Team is the one that brings in the overwhelming majority of the income to US Soccer was national news and got politicians involved. Now, just think what will happen if that is happening on college campuses.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
to go down that path given the cost that would be involved vs. seeking an alternate path (i.e. turning all athletic teams into club teams, opt for the DIII model by eliminating all athletic scholarships, etc). At least I would think the smaller schools in DI, DII, and DIII may not be able to financially afford treating all their athletes as employees. Even a school as large as VT may have trouble or be forced to have long hard discussions about whether continuing down that path is the right decision for the school.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 10/25/2023, 6:48:23 PM
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
2y
"Title IX applies to schools, local and state educational agencies, and other institutions that receive federal financial assistance from the Department." If a school is receiving federal funding and the school is supporting athletic programs, then the athletic programs are subject to Title IX. If someone can find a way to break that connection between the school and an athletic program, then that athletic program is no longer subject to Title IX. Remember Title IX applies to club, intramural, and interscholastic (aka NCAA, NAIA, etc.) teams.
Link:
Title IX
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...number of schools to compete for titles.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Let the P2 battle for their own championship. Let everyone else remain "as is" for now...
(In response to this post by Mercury)
2y
as well. Screw them.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...in the lower divisions move up.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
If you are a really good team, you aren't stuck in a lower division forever. You can win your way into the higher level teams. Also if you really suck, you get dropped into the next lower division. I think they have something like 5 soccer levels in the UK, with the EPL at the top.
Link:
Click me!
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
D
daveinop
2y
truer words were never spoken; and it's why the NCAA has a history of significant defeats in court.
relying on congress? in my lifetime, the congress has never been more dysfunctional than it is now; they can't get out of their own way. so it will be up to the courts and the NCAA will lose...again.
and fwiw, nothing prevents any level of the NCAA from having a student-athlete model; they just have to stop focusing on how much money they make. but like any good addict, they won't do that and they'll blame everyone else; but all of their woes are self-inflicted.
i have zero sympathy...and really...zero concern
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
revenue sharing, and we know how that goes with conference realignment. The athletic departments are supposed to be 501c3's, and they will lose that status if they have to play their athletes.
It's a mess as we all see with the money they are throwing around. How will USC and UCF (examples) claim they are exempt from taxation or paying athletes' when they both throw history, tradition, and the student athlete under the bus for the almighty dollar. The travel is insane, and it undermines the integrity of college athletics (if there ever was such a thing).
(In response to this post by daveinop)
2y
501(C) status is because they are an organization that's "primary focus is on the public good". All 501(C) organizations pay their staff, in fact, they pay them very well in many cases, especially the Sr leadership.
The risk to college athletics is if football were to break away from the NCAA, an argument could be made that by doing so it is a for profit enterprise and no longer falls under the non-profit umbrella of the University.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
D
daveinop
2y
My point is that the traditional student athlete model is simple; and legal. It is basically club sports...and NIL is still available, as it is for all students. But that kind of sports is not what we're/they're all addicted to nor is it the level of play the conferences have signed mega-contracts to deliver.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
have paid employees. I think the NCAA is just dragging this out, buying time. Small schools in Division II & III will need only comply to state laws for minimum wage, etc. Large, rich programs will offer a percentage of the media revenue, which makes it likely these deals will be made at the conference level, not at each school. NIL will be the per-school differentiator. The programs in the financial "gray area" will have decisions to make. We might lose some Division I football teams.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)