The Bobcat Nation

If you have to start paying the football players, what happens under Title 9?

Does this mean that each player becomes a 1099 contractor? If so, then whatever money they are paid needs to be taxed at the appropriate rate, union dues need to be paid, and the smart players will carry some extra LLC protection in case they are challenged in court by their customers or their employers.

I'm not sure these Northwestern players even know what they are signing up, in terms of how their money will be taxed, and how union dues will need to be paid.

allcat wrote:If you have to start paying the football players, what happens under Title 9?

One of many unresolved questions. Another one is this: Does this apply to all scholarship athletes, or even all athletes at a university? Seems rather short-sighted to have a football player do this. I knew people on the track team at MSU who worked out every day of the year for a partial scholarship. Is the football player's time worth more than that athlete's time?

PapaG wrote:

allcat wrote:If you have to start paying the football players, what happens under Title 9?

One of many unresolved questions. Another one is this: Does this apply to all scholarship athletes, or even all athletes at a university? Seems rather short-sighted to have a football player do this. I knew people on the track team at MSU who worked out every day of the year for a partial scholarship. Is the football player's time worth more than that athlete's time?

Well if FMV is part of the equation then probably.

PapaG wrote:Does this mean that each player becomes a 1099 contractor?

The article said that they were found to be employees.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

PapaG wrote:Does this mean that each player becomes a 1099 contractor?

The article said that they were found to be employees.

Make them minimum wage employees and see how far that money goes when paying 65k in tuition.

GRIZFNZ wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

PapaG wrote:Does this mean that each player becomes a 1099 contractor?

The article said that they were found to be employees.

Make them minimum wage employees and see how far that money goes when paying 65k in tuition.

They'd probably go on strike?

Say goodbye to walk-on players.

Although maybe that's a good thing for FCS schools this point.

CatBlitz wrote:Say goodbye to walk-on players.

Although maybe that's a good thing for FCS schools this point.

I don't think it makes a difference if it's FBS or FCS, as long as the school is a private institution.

GRIZFNZ wrote:

CatBlitz wrote:Say goodbye to walk-on players.

Although maybe that's a good thing for FCS schools this point.

I don't think it makes a difference if it's FBS or FCS, as long as the school is a private institution.

I meant that what union is going to want to pay a walk on the same as everyone else? If that's the case, then a good walk on player at an FBS school may drop down to an FCS school.

The ruling found that only scholarship athletes had the right to unionize. Walk-on athletes were found to not have that right since they could not be reasonably be considered to be employees.

If I didn't read far enough sorry, but what bearing does this have for scholarships? They would not get both a scholarship and get paid. They would get paid and then have to pay for their own education. This would seem to be a boon for BIG schools? Yes-No......
Nothing will probably be settled for at least three years, court "stuff".....And I thought I just heard Napolitano say that the court "appeals" were being paid for by the steelworkers union.....
Yep, I don't think these guys know what can of worms they are opening.

SaxCat wrote:The ruling found that only scholarship athletes had the right to unionize. Walk-on athletes were found to not have that right since they could not be reasonably be considered to be employees.

Walk- ons would be like illegal or undocumented workers....doing the same "job" as these new union "employees" for less money or completely under the table.

GRIZFNZ wrote:

SaxCat wrote:The ruling found that only scholarship athletes had the right to unionize. Walk-on athletes were found to not have that right since they could not be reasonably be considered to be employees.

Walk- ons would be like illegal or undocumented workers....doing the same "job" as these new union "employees" for less money or completely under the table.

Exactly my point. They wouldn't even exist at a unionized school. At an FBS school where normally a good walkon might succeed they might get a scholarship at an FCS school.

I'm not sure where I stand on the idea of college football unions, but I don't think their existence would necessarily lead to the extreme results many are theorizing. Granted, if they start collecting dues and pension receipts and start funneling those to the mob to fund casinos in Vegas, this will all end very badly. However, and far more likely, this would simply result in a formal system where the players were organized in a way that allowed them to have a say in the way college football is operated, which seems quite reasonable.

So the concept itself isn't necessarily catostrophic, and could even be a decent idea. It's all a matter of how it is executed, IMO.

So are those on academic scholarship also employees? I would think so.
Can you imagine the amount of taxes that would need to be paid on a scholarship from Stanford, Harvard, etc…

ddlalum wrote:So are those on academic scholarship also employees? I would think so.
Can you imagine the amount of taxes that would need to be paid on a scholarship from Stanford, Harvard, etc…

The tax laws relating to the taxibility of scholarships aren't impacted by this ruling. Whether you are considered an employee or not for purposes of labor law shouldn't have any impact on whether the tuition waivers they receive are taxable or not.

If they are able to extract stipends from the NCAA/Universities, then those most likely would be taxable.

A big thing to understand is this only applies to private institutions. The NLRB has no authority over public facilities or public institutions.

It doesn't look like there's a way I can link to it directly, but on espn.com there is a great video of Olbermann and Bilas discussing this issue. My takeaway from their discussion is that this effort to form a union is (with a bit of irony) a step toward introducing free market principles to college sports and reducing the enforcement authority of the NCAA.

In theory, I really like that progression. It sounds like its coming from a lot of different places, so it seems like we may well be moving toward a system where the whole "amateurism" standard in college sports is done away with, which would be a good thing on so many levels, IMO.

They also hit on my college sports accounting pet peeve about how schools claim that the athletic departments don't make any money, but leave out the fact that this is all just an accounting presentation resulting from the AD paying the school for tuition for the athletes (creating revenue for the schools and an expense for the AD). So it's skewed to look at the books of the AD on a standalone basis.