Unionizing Players and Dividing Fans

Should college athletes be given the right to unionize? This is the major question that has been batted around for the last couple of weeks leading up to, and following, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision. After a thorough investigation by the NLRB, it was decided that college football players with full scholarships at Northwestern University do indeed have the right to unionize. As one can image, this verdict has set off waves of debate among politicians, sports writers, and even casual fans. Although this issue is getting large amounts of attention right now, it is unlikely that this issue will be settled for many more years.

Countless articles have been written defending both sides of the issue. This article, "How Would an NCAA Union Actually Work? A Guide for Perplexed Pundits" by Billy Haisley, defends the unionization of college athletes, while also answering some very important questions. The author specifically provides a rebuttal to this anti-unionization article. In his piece, Mr. Haisley notes that the ruling looks to answer whether Northwestern players could unionize, not how this would be put into place. He also points out that this ruling only applies to private schools. If public universities want to follow Northwestern’s lead, they would be required to appeal to their state’s laws. Other critics may wonder how the union would work. Again, this will be left up to its members. Citing another article from the New York Times, the author believes that Title IX will have little effect on the ruling. This article says “The rights of workers in the highly commercialized college sport entertainment industry ought not to be pitted against the civil rights of athletes in an educational sport system.”

In addition, the current rules would apply to an athlete’s ability to switch teams. Simply because they are employees, it does not mean that an Ohio State lineman can choose to play for Michigan at halftime of their game. Just as players can “quit” or leave the team now, they will also be able to if part of a union. While some sources believe that college “employees” would have to pay taxes on their income, others disagree. Citing a past ruling by the NLRB, the author raises the question “If they're employees, why isn't their income taxable?” This will be an interesting topic to follow. Finally, the amount that these athletes would be paid will become a serious problem if, and only if, the decision is not repealed. The author closes by noting that the NCAA’s system is seriously messed up and only catastrophic changes can fix it. People should not worry about the specifics and instead focusing on the positives of this change.

I attempted to read the official ruling in this case, but the complex language of it gave me a severe headache. This is a serious problem, but a completely different topic. I can see both sides to this argument. Part of me sees nothing wrong with the current system. College athletes are students who willingly give their time and effort to a specific sport. Very few of them will go on to play professional sports, so their time in college is often their last taste of competitive athletics. Many of these athletes are given full scholarships that pay for their education, in addition to their housing. Mark Emmert, the President of the NCAA and obvious opponent of unionization, brings up a very important idea when he says that the revenue from sports such as football and basketball is used to support track and field, soccer, and rowing, among other sports. The decision to unionize would be a crippling blow to some of these sports. Finally, unionization would likely be hard to regulate. Not all colleges are able to provide a certain amount of money for their student athletes. The great parity that makes the NCAA tournament thrilling would likely be stripped away.

On the other hand, athletes spend an exorbitant amount of time training and practicing. Despite a limit of 20 hours per week of required practice time, most schools have found ways to bend the rules by making some events “strongly encouraged.” Athletes are spending much more time on the field than in the classroom studying. They have no extra time for a job to support their needs that are not paid for by scholarships (clothes, food, dates, etc.). I could understand the argument that athletes deserve some extra money. However, they do not need large amount of money. College students and large sums of money do not mix well together. This amount would have to be set by the process of collective bargaining. It seems odd that athletes playing basketball and football generate billions of dollars each year, yet they are the only ones to not be paid for their services. Coaches, for instance, are paid millions and bowl organizers reap the benefits of college athletes. It just does not seem fair that these student athletes are not compensated, even a little bit. (Note: this does not apply to the University of Miami and Ohio State University where players are clearly already being paid.)

This whole situation creates a very sticky situation for the NCAA, who has always stressed that fact that these men and women are “student athletes” who will “go pro in something other than sports.” Although I can see both sides of the issue, I ultimately think that players should not be compensated. Allowing compensation would create too many issues that, frankly, the NCAA is not able to handle. These athletes primary goal should be to get an education in college, with sports being something they do for fun and enjoyment. Stricter regulations need to be put in place to limit the number of hours that these students are spending on the field or the court. Unfortunately, this issue is unlikely to be resolved soon. Mark Emmert believes that this case will end up finding its way to the Supreme Court. Whatever the finally ruling is, it will no doubt have serious implications on college athletics forever.

What do you think? Should the NCAA continue not to pay their student athletes? Or should they compensate their athlete employees?