of paying players. Does Dartmouth make much on its Basketball program? Outside of football and mens basketball, it seems that most teams are not profitable, and even men's basketball is not a big profit maker if they make a profit at all for most schools. It also seems to me that Title 9 was partially built on the concept that the revenue generating sports would help pay for the other required teams. Does Title 9 need to be revisited if the money is being spent to pay the players in the revenue generating sports instead? Plus competition for top players will cause salaries given to players to eat up athletic revenue if the school wants to be competitive. For some schools bringing in P2 level money they can afford all of this, but most schools do not fit this situation. I can see a lot of lower level schools having to be exempted from these requirements or they will just drop most or all sports, which will be unfortunate for students looking for athletic scholarship to pay for college. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 2/7/2024, 6:27:18 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 2/7/2024, 6:28:37 PM

They simply issued a ruling that college athletes are "employees" and may form/join a labor union. They did not, and will not, examine details of each sponsored sport's profitability. They are all now employees and must be paid. NRLB will not say how much pay, salary or wages, seasonal or year-round. That's for the schools/conferences/unions to work out. Title IX will be a factor. The way that this can be organized into a workable system is to simplify it into: 1. Athletes are employees; 2. Pay everyone the same, even if that's minimum wage.

If suddenly their are sports employees working for the Commonwealth, how does that go down with some board telling the Commonwealth that their employees must unionize?

Not that employees can't organize. In non right to work states, employees are forced to join the union or at least pay into the union if one exists for their job. NLRB says they have a right to organize (of course this version would say that since 4 of 5 members are former union organizers), not that they have to. The employees must chose to organize and in Right to Work states, those that chose not to be part of the union can do so. In other states, if the vote to organize is successful, everyone on that team will have to join or leave.

permitted for public employees, the employer must be a third party company. This is the most efficient structure anyway, and should be done by all schools/conferences/states.

public universities in that state won't be able to unionize. ** Edited by tarheelblue at 2/9/2024, 12:20:52 AM

** Edited by tarheelblue at 2/7/2024, 2:57:13 PM

If a student is considered a troublemaker on the team, can the coaches tell their professors to flunk them out of school? Will athletes actually need to be enrolled and attend classes? There are a lot of questions to be answered, since colleges don't currently sponsor fully professional leagues. How will the educational side of college play into this?

And I don't think striking workers get to keep employee benefits like health insurance unless they pay for them out of their own pocket. So if striking student athletes still wanted to attend classes, they would have to start paying their own tuition (and room and board) if they went on strike. ** Edited by tarheelblue at 2/7/2024, 3:02:01 PM

Are there any examples of collective bargaining agreements that say that employees who are on strike get to keep their employee benefits? ** Edited by tarheelblue at 2/7/2024, 3:09:56 PM

all of the athletes at all of the schools should be direct employees of a third party and assigned to the schools as contractors.

They can just take out massive student loans like all the other students do. ** Edited by tarheelblue at 2/7/2024, 3:10:32 PM

ability to bid for players, and outspend their peers.