On January 28, 2014 the College Athletics Players Association petitioned that the players on athletic scholarships at Northwestern University are employees of the university. If the claim that the students are employees is supported, the players can unionize. This will allow the players to manipulate the hours they practice reducing the coaches control over the player's schedule.
Northwestern football coach Pat Fitzgerald does not support the unionization of his football players. He believes that this will have a negative result on the realationship the university has developed with the players. He urges his players to vote against the union. He does not see the need for others to intervene with the relationship the players have with the university because the university will provide everything the players need.
“I just do not believe we need a third party between our players and our coaches, staff and administrators. ... Whatever they need, we will get them,” Fitzgerald said in a 2014 Huffington Post article.
Stanford football coach David Shaw also questions the need of a player union in college football.
“I think Northwestern does a phenomenal job providing for their kids, and it's weird to try to unionize but still compliment Northwestern and compliment their coaching staff on being taken care of. Those things don't seem to go hand in hand," Shaw said in a 2014 ESPN article.
The Ohio Valley Conference Commissioner Beth DeBauche participated in a conference discussing the commercialisation of college sports on Tuesday, April 15, 2014. She participated in this conference to give her input on how the NCAA business plan may change to give student athletes what they think they deserve. The student athletes believe they deserve a portion of the large revenue the NCAA receives.
"The landscape as we know it for Division I is going to certainly change in some form or fashion," DeBauche said in a 2014 Associated Press article.
DeBauche admits there must be a change in the format of the business plan in the NCAA. She sees this situation to change the business plan of the NCAA into a positive direction. Many administrative influences on the NCAA like the Big Ten do not see a need for change.
"I have a really hard time envisioning what it would be," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said in a 2014 Chicago Business article.
The opinions on unionization of these two coaches and administrators are mostly negative. They believe this idea of a union will conflict with the university’s preparation of the players and it will not fit into the business plan set by the NCAA.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
How will college football change if Jeffrey Kessler's antitrust lawsuit succeeds?
Northwestern’s effort to unionize college football players will cause major changes to college football should it succeed. Unionizing will result in the scholarship players becoming employees and will cause financial issues to arise for the NCAA and colleges associated with it.
Many of the changes to college football will stem from the financial issues associated with the new employee status of the players. With the hundreds of football players in the NCAA, there will be a lot of extra money being spent if they become employees; however, it is still unclear how these financial issues will impact college football for the NCAA.
If student-athletes become employees, then the schools will have to pay extra expenses for them. These schools that are going to maintain Division I football teams are going to have to pay 20% in excess of the student’s tuition because of health care, pensions, disability insurance, and unemployment insurance. This is going to lead to a decrease in the amount of money that can be spent to maintain football teams across all divisions in the NCAA.
For the student-athletes, the status change from player to employee will also have its own effects. Colleges can offer its own financial backing plan for each athlete and players can choose which plan is best for them. As a result of that, colleges that have more of a financial backbone can pay for better players than those that do not.
“If you're USC or even Rice, you could say to a recruit, 'I know you're talking to these other two schools, but if you come here we'll pay your medical insurance for five years, plus you can collectively bargain for other things you want, plus if you graduate early you'll get extra dough in a trust fund, and perhaps you can capitalize off marketing value if you become our star quarterback,'” SMU athletic director, Rick Hart, said in a 2014 CbsSports.com article.
Taxes are also another problem that has to be considered. An athlete receives a scholarship to play for a team and study at school as a student. If they are going be employees of the school, the scholarship and wages that they will receive is taxable by the IRS. It would make it increasingly difficult for college football players to pay for and attend college because of the taxes they will be responsible for on both accounts.
"The fact that the players were not considered employees in the past is essentially the reason why their scholarship or parts of it weren't taxed before,” Garret Higgins, a partner of the Exempt Organization Tax and Advisory Services group, said in an ESPN article. ”The IRS may be able to make the argument that the scholarship is really payment for services, and therefore compensation, and is now taxable to the athlete.”
Financial issues are only part of the reason as to why the changes are coming to college football in the NCAA, but its impact is going to be felt immediately. Smaller universities may not be able to pay as much as larger ones, widening the skill difference across Division 1 athletics. Some student-athletes may find it harder to attend college because of the taxes they are required to pay. If this lawsuit passes, the NCAA will find their profits cut by a large margin if they want to continue college athletics.
Written by Allan Lee and Sean Santiago
Many of the changes to college football will stem from the financial issues associated with the new employee status of the players. With the hundreds of football players in the NCAA, there will be a lot of extra money being spent if they become employees; however, it is still unclear how these financial issues will impact college football for the NCAA.
If student-athletes become employees, then the schools will have to pay extra expenses for them. These schools that are going to maintain Division I football teams are going to have to pay 20% in excess of the student’s tuition because of health care, pensions, disability insurance, and unemployment insurance. This is going to lead to a decrease in the amount of money that can be spent to maintain football teams across all divisions in the NCAA.
For the student-athletes, the status change from player to employee will also have its own effects. Colleges can offer its own financial backing plan for each athlete and players can choose which plan is best for them. As a result of that, colleges that have more of a financial backbone can pay for better players than those that do not.
“If you're USC or even Rice, you could say to a recruit, 'I know you're talking to these other two schools, but if you come here we'll pay your medical insurance for five years, plus you can collectively bargain for other things you want, plus if you graduate early you'll get extra dough in a trust fund, and perhaps you can capitalize off marketing value if you become our star quarterback,'” SMU athletic director, Rick Hart, said in a 2014 CbsSports.com article.
Taxes are also another problem that has to be considered. An athlete receives a scholarship to play for a team and study at school as a student. If they are going be employees of the school, the scholarship and wages that they will receive is taxable by the IRS. It would make it increasingly difficult for college football players to pay for and attend college because of the taxes they will be responsible for on both accounts.
"The fact that the players were not considered employees in the past is essentially the reason why their scholarship or parts of it weren't taxed before,” Garret Higgins, a partner of the Exempt Organization Tax and Advisory Services group, said in an ESPN article. ”The IRS may be able to make the argument that the scholarship is really payment for services, and therefore compensation, and is now taxable to the athlete.”
Financial issues are only part of the reason as to why the changes are coming to college football in the NCAA, but its impact is going to be felt immediately. Smaller universities may not be able to pay as much as larger ones, widening the skill difference across Division 1 athletics. Some student-athletes may find it harder to attend college because of the taxes they are required to pay. If this lawsuit passes, the NCAA will find their profits cut by a large margin if they want to continue college athletics.
Written by Allan Lee and Sean Santiago
The activities of students versus studnet-athletes
 |
| NCAA Logo/ Wikimedia Commons |
College student-athletes have more benefits than regular students regarding scholarships. There are more than 150,000 student-athletes who receive $ 2.7 billion dollars in scholarships every year from NCAA member colleges. They don’t have the burden that regular students face which is to get a job and eventually pay off the debts they accumulated in college.
“The average college student graduates with $35,200 in debt. Athletic scholarships offset these cost for student athletes,” the NCAA said on their website.
The amount of free time that an average student has compared to an athlete is very drastic. A regular student can sleep in and have their first class close to 11:00 AM. They have much more opportunities and can pick almost all of their classes. They choose, when they eat, sleep and go to bed.
The average student-athlete will have to follow a much more strict and exact schedule. An athlete's life will be controlled by the demands of their coach. On an average day, they can have practice starting as early at 6:00 AM. Their whole schedule revolves around games, travel times and practice.
When college students go out at night, they may consume alcohol or drugs. Even though it’s illegal to do recreational drugs and drink if you are underage, they do it anyway. If you are a college athlete, it is a different story.
“The NCAA shares the responsibility of promoting a drug-free athletics environment with its member institutions to protect the health of student-athletes and preserve fair competition,” the NCAA said on their website.
If a student-athlete is found consuming illegal contraband, then their consequence will be very severe, and they could possibly lose their scholarship.
“Testing positive on an NCAA mandated [performance enhancing or recreational] drug test will result in a loss of 25 percent of an athlete’s total eligibility from the day the athlete tests positive, which is one whole year for most.” said Monica Worsley in a 2012 Times-Delphic article.
The meal plan of student costs a lot of money. The plan combined with the cost of housing take up a majority of their expenses. Some colleges are starting to give their athletes free meals.
“This week, the NCAA ... approved a rule to allow schools to provide all Division I student-athletes with unlimited meals and snacks,” said Stefanie Loh in a 2014 U-T San Diego Article. “Previously, schools were allowed to give athletes one snack and one training table meal per day."
Students who have have scholarships may have the cost of college reduced, but they miss out on the liberties that college has to offer. Students who are non-athletes make their own schedule, but they don't get the prestige of playing on a team. With such a strict schedule to follow, how do student-athletes have any time to relax?
By Willy Herman and Daniella Smith
Professors voice opinions of NCAA athletes receiving pay
The argument whether or not NCAA student-athletes should receive pay has been in discussion almost since the beginning of college sports. In recent issues involving student-athlete pay, college professors have wanted an input on this issue. A sample group of professors were selected by U.S News to voice their decision on the subject of paying student-athletes. The majority of this selected group have been more supportive than opposing on the union being paid, and viewers of these opinions were allowed ratings of the responses and more of the supporting articles received positive feedback.
Professors that feel student athletes should receive no pay at all, say it would be far too expensive to fund all NCAA athletes. Professors argue that if NCAA athletes saw that the football team was unionizing and receiving pay, then they would too push to have more privileges that the NCAA would not be able to afford.
“The Division I colleges could afford this expense when the median DI athletics program loses $11 million a year on an operating basis and much more when capital and indirect costs are included,” said by Andrew Zimbalist in his response article The Cost of Paying Athletes Would Be Far Too High.
Other professors argue that because the NCAA is a big business, the athletes should be paid part of the profit because they are the reason the money is coming in.
“Without them—on the field or on the court, performing and entertaining millions of college sports fans—the billions of dollars that collegiate athletics generates simply would not exist.” said Bobby Rush in his response article towards The Cost of Playing Athletes Would Be Far Too High.
Rush, a democratic representative for the state of Illinois, continued to say how the merchandise that is sold on campus and a games are because of the players and who are entertaining the large audience. Without them receiving pay for their work, there is no purpose to work at all.
From the selected group of college administrators that voiced their opinion, the group that were against unionizing were mainly college professors whereas the members that were in favor of unification were board members and work in the sports administration. This may show a biased selection group of younger administrators or those who are more close to the athletes which would probably give biased opinions against them receiving pay from the professors.
Not until recently however, have professors openly shared their opinions on this issue. Whether or not the athletes will receive pay and be acknowledged as a union will only be determined by the legal system.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
CAPA's reasons for standing up for the Northwestern players
On March 26th of 2014, Northwestern football players went before the National Labor Relations Board in Chicago, Illinois to gain employee status. They want adequate compensation for the revenue they bring to Northwestern and for the time they spend training year-round. In addition, they want the right of collective-bargaining so they will be better cared for by the NCAA and Northwestern. Kain Colter, with the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA) as acting petitioner, made a list of grievances against NCAA policies that they hope employee status can fix. They go on to compare different aspects of a Northwestern student-athlete’s life to that of an employee to further their position for unionization.
In their review of the Northwestern case, the NLRB wrote that the Northwestern players are playing for the benefit of the school, so they should be able to negotiate for pay. They make vasts amount of revenue for Northwestern from broadcasting contracts, merchandising, and licensing.
“Clearly, the Employer's players perform valuable services for their Employer. Monetarily, the Employer's football program generated revenues of approximately $235 million during the nine year period 2003 — 2012,” the National Labor Relations board's judge Peter Sung Ohr said in his analysis of the Northwestern case.
The NLRB also wrote that player scholarships and scholarship agreements are like wages and work contracts. They argued that the Northwestern head coach Pat Fitzgerald is like a boss, since within their scholarship agreements, he gives them demanding itineraries and punishes them if they don’t follow his schedule.
“In the instant case, the record establishes that the players who receive scholarships are under strict and exacting control by their Employer throughout the entire year. Commencing with training camp which begins approximately six weeks before the start of the academic year, the coaches exercise a great deal of control over the players,” the NLRB said.
CAPA contended that the NCAA takes poor care of their athletes, and that collective bargaining will lead to improved player care. Many players get severely injured while playing football, and the NCAA does not force schools to help them. This leaves the players with massive medical expenses, on top of their remaining school tuition.
“The NCAA recently stated in court papers that it ‘has no legal duty to protect college athletes’ from injury, and has failed to investigate and minimize concussion-related deaths,” CAPA said on their website.
“Currently, over $1.2 billion in NEW TV revenue is flooding NCAA sports yet players are too often stuck with sports-related medical expenses, can lose their scholarships if they are permanently injured, and “full” scholarships are capped by the NCAA below the cost of attendance by $3,000-$5,000 per player per year.”
The Northwestern players simply desire to be seen as employees and be properly taken care of. The outcome of this case will determine whether or not these demands are met. Without collective bargaining the players might not get the care or say they want in their college careers, and all the problems that CAPA has identified may remain in college athletics for a much longer time.
By: Austin Carvey and Kofi Odame
In their review of the Northwestern case, the NLRB wrote that the Northwestern players are playing for the benefit of the school, so they should be able to negotiate for pay. They make vasts amount of revenue for Northwestern from broadcasting contracts, merchandising, and licensing.
“Clearly, the Employer's players perform valuable services for their Employer. Monetarily, the Employer's football program generated revenues of approximately $235 million during the nine year period 2003 — 2012,” the National Labor Relations board's judge Peter Sung Ohr said in his analysis of the Northwestern case.
The NLRB also wrote that player scholarships and scholarship agreements are like wages and work contracts. They argued that the Northwestern head coach Pat Fitzgerald is like a boss, since within their scholarship agreements, he gives them demanding itineraries and punishes them if they don’t follow his schedule.
“In the instant case, the record establishes that the players who receive scholarships are under strict and exacting control by their Employer throughout the entire year. Commencing with training camp which begins approximately six weeks before the start of the academic year, the coaches exercise a great deal of control over the players,” the NLRB said.
CAPA contended that the NCAA takes poor care of their athletes, and that collective bargaining will lead to improved player care. Many players get severely injured while playing football, and the NCAA does not force schools to help them. This leaves the players with massive medical expenses, on top of their remaining school tuition.
“The NCAA recently stated in court papers that it ‘has no legal duty to protect college athletes’ from injury, and has failed to investigate and minimize concussion-related deaths,” CAPA said on their website.
“Currently, over $1.2 billion in NEW TV revenue is flooding NCAA sports yet players are too often stuck with sports-related medical expenses, can lose their scholarships if they are permanently injured, and “full” scholarships are capped by the NCAA below the cost of attendance by $3,000-$5,000 per player per year.”
The Northwestern players simply desire to be seen as employees and be properly taken care of. The outcome of this case will determine whether or not these demands are met. Without collective bargaining the players might not get the care or say they want in their college careers, and all the problems that CAPA has identified may remain in college athletics for a much longer time.
By: Austin Carvey and Kofi Odame
What if college athletes get paid?
 |
| Northwestern University/Michael Barera-Wikimedia.commons |
If the football players get a salary and added benefits, there will be cutbacks in the resources in colleges that are not on the top of the NCAA. Title IX will play a role in this because all students will need to receive equal benefits from the unionization.
“How will schools pay for pay and benefits to scholarship student-athletes, Title IX considerations, workers’ compensation insurance and increased taxes due to loss of tax-exempt status,” Glenn Wong, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, said in a 2014 NYTimes.com article. “For 23 schools in Division I, it will be easy.”
All other Division I schools will have trouble financing pay for their athletes. These schools will have to reduce the coaches’ and administrators’ salaries, and remove programs for other students just to pay the players.
The NCAA spends less than ten percent of its resources on both Division II and III colleges, but this will fall lower if student-athletes get paid. Even if Division II or III athletes don’t get paid, budgets could still be decreased. If Division I athletes receive a salary, then more of the NCAA’s resources must be spent to compensate for everyone’s salary.
“If that changed, our budgets would change,” Kris Diaz, the athletic director at Division III Baldwin Wallace, said in a 2014 dispatch.com article.
The best of the best athletes will receive higher salaries and more benefits, including better medical care for injuries and compensation. These added perks will only go to scholarship players not the walk-on players.
“There is no question but that the presence of a union would add tension in terms of creating an ‘us' versus ‘them' feeling between the players it would represent and those it would not," Fox News quoted Northwestern’s 21 page document in a 2014 article.
Contributed by: Nicholas Bohan and Velid Mulic
Off-season training for college athletes: a blessing or a curse?
 |
| Off-season training at Simon Fraser University / SFU Public Affairs and Media Relations - flickr.com |
Although the off-season is an advantageous time for most athletes, it comes with serious drawbacks. The off-season training puts athletes at risk of injuries, both catastrophic and non-catastrophic, and there have even been reported deaths between seasons for several NCAA sports.
Off-season workouts differ among sports, but they all have one thing in common: important progress is made towards improving student-athletes’ physical condition and sport-specific skills.
“Summer participation allows a wrestler the chance to greatly accelerate the training program without the normal pressures and hassles of the winter folkstyle environment,” Southern Maryland Wrestling Club Head Coach Dr. Bruce Gabrielson said in a 1992 article on SMWC.org.
Besides increasing strength and stamina, off-season training also serves as a time to reinforce a sense of teamwork, as well as to set individual goals for oneself and learn to adapt to changes.
“The off-seasons helps you build as a team through all the time spent together and brings you closer together so that you can trust each other on the field,” William Jewell College junior football player DJ Balazs said in a 2012 article on TheHilltopMonitor.com. “Team chemistry is vital in order to perform as best as possible.”
Despite the benefits, off-season training has some serious dangers. Student-athletes increase their risk of injury, usually when they overwork themselves in an attempt to get ready for the upcoming season. The NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (ISP) has implemented multiple methods to document and limit these injuries; however, they cannot manage to record each and every one. In fact, the NCAA ISP does not include off-season injuries in their annual reports.
The NCAA Datalys Center for Sports Injury Research and Prevention wrote a 2013 article about the historical difficulties in the surveillance of injuries during the off-season.
“Student-athletes are at risk of catastrophic injury during off-season training. However, little remains known about the risk of non-catastrophic injury during the off-season.”
An even bigger threat is the risk of death. The off-season is known as the "Kill Season" in the NCAA, as 19 deaths have occurred since 2000. It is important to note that these deaths were non-traumatic, which means there was no impact or injury during a game. They happened merely during workout routines. Many student-athletes even claim that their strength and conditioning coaches went beyond the allowed eight hours a week of workout time, exerting their players more than is legal or, for that matter, safe.
“The way we're training college football players in this day and age is putting them at risk," president of the College Athletics Trainers Society Scott Anderson said in a 2011 article on CBSSports.com.
The off-season can be a beneficial time for student-athletes to improve their skills and prepare for the next season, if they focus their energy effectively and do not overwork themselves. Injuries, and even deaths, are a serious and real problem, and the NCAA has not done enough to limit or prevent these from happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
