BREAKING: The NLRB has ruled that Dartmouth's men's basketball players, who are attempting to unionize, are employees of Dartmouth.The landmark ruling is likely to be appealed, but the case could shatter the NCAA's amateurism model, writes @achristovichh ⬇️— Front Office Sports (@FOS) February 5, 2024
The NIL end game is rapidly approaching. Are you ready? Feels like the whole system is crumbling before our eyes and it's only speeding up.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Huh? I thought ivy league had no scholarships. Are they unpaid interns?
You are correct about no scholarships, but from an article at The Athletic:
So if compensation is below minimum wage can the players sue?
EDIT: wait sorry, does this mean I was an employee of my high school when I got travel and food and lodging paid for to swim? Are there no amateur sports in high school? Was I exploited child labor?
No - according to this ruling (which will probably, but not definitely be overturned) employment status is not defined by being 'compensated' but rather by universities
blocking student athletes from receiving or doing things that regular students can do.Correction/clarification: my previous comment was not entirely correct - the ruling focus more on 'control', rather than what the student athlete can/cannot receive. From the ruling:
What did the University block the student from doing?
EDIT: response to clarification: That seems extreme, like sure Dartmouth players were regulated WAY higher than a VT player. Things like practice times and what hotel the players stay at makes sense because that's done at a team level so that everyone can easily participate. But haircuts while on travel? WTF. That's not employment that's some psycho stuff.
... and therefore taxed.
The can of worms has been opened.
NLRB rulings are tricky. This was a ruling by a regional office and can be appealed to the centralized office. The NLRB is also very political and would very likely have a new director of NLRB if a Republican wins the election. Unions also come at a price, and without direct fungible payment from the University, may not be desired by the players yet.
That said, the ability to unionize at a university level is the first step to a collective bargaining agreement.
Would this ruling, if it stands, mean that Dartmouth could go nuclear and drop all non-club sports?
I would think that they might. I mean, how many people go to Dartmouth just to play a sport. If you are any good, you can still get scholarships on the FCS level if not top level. However, I do believe that some of these athletes get academic scholarships or grants of some sort (usually from private individuals) that they would not be getting otherwise if they are not athletes.
I would. I would also let them know that now that they are interns with compensation, they owe taxes on those benefits. If I was the school, I would make sure they know exactly what the costs are going to be.
Scholarship money is specifically excluded from taxable income.
The idea is that somebody gets a degree. Makes more money. Pays more tax.
Not saying I agree, but that's what's already on the books
EDIT: how the hell do I embed a GIF!
Copy the link to it and then click the top left box above the comment box and paste in the link
Copy/paste the below and delete the space directly behind the less than symbol
< img src="GIF link goes here"/>
to add to this, first you have to find a GIF on a website (not your device) and copy the link for it. On a computer, you right click and select something like "copy image link." On an iphone, you press and hold on the image and select "copy" when it pops up options.
If you click the icon on the comment box to the far left (mountains and sun, not the chainlink one), you can just paste the link in there then click insert.
Thanks ya'll!
I think it was because I was trying to use one from some site called get-yarn...I had a prime Dartmouth meme from there but nothing from the site would work.
I feel embarrassed and accomplished at the same damn time
Get-yarn actually has an embed option so you can copy the code and paste it right in the comment box
The system has to be torn down if we're to have something sustainable one day. All I can do is hope that new system keeps some of the magic.
Have you seen anything recently that's been torn down and built back up that doesn't suck? Especially when there's so much short term money involved?
College athletics is on its death bed. Basketball and football are going to split off into 2 super conferences. Colleges outside of those 50 aren't going to have enough revenue to keep up their sports programs. Casual fans and fans of any non-super conference teams will quickly lose interest in what has become a minor league for NBA and NFL.
Once again, the powers that be are valuing short term gains over long term stability. What a great system we have.
I know college sports will be very, very different in the next 10 years. I'm trying very hard to not confuse 'different' with 'worse'.
First of all, football needs to be separated from the rest of the ncaa. I don't think it's that big of a deal that USC plays Penn State in football. Its absolutely stupid that USC women's volleyball has to play a Tuesday night game at Rutgers.
I also think there needs to be a delineation between the top third of FBS, the middle third, and the bottom third of FBS. We should not pretend that New Mexico State and Ohio state are playing the same game.
That said, I also think that there should be room for upward/downward mobility.
Promotion/relegation is literally the perfect solution. Maybe the SEC and B10 will realize that. Probably not.
Regardless, I'm not convinced it would be bad to have a top 50, a middle 50, and a bottom 50, even if they all have their own postseason.
I wish I had your optimism. The magic is gone, imo, and it isn't ever coming back. It's a real business now, one that isn't hiding behind the scenes pretending to be about upholding the "student" part first of the whole "student-athlete" charade.
I just never thought the 'magic' had anything to do with athletes not making money
Athletes make (or stand to make) money because they entertain people. That is it. People are entertained because they feel that collegiate sports are 'magic'. Therefore 'magic' may directly impact making money or not.
I feel like the old man yelling at the cloud, but I always thought the compensation was the education and all the things that went into that (tuition, room, board, etc). Either the generations the preceded didn't care, were grateful, or too fearful to speak-up, or this generation of athletes is too entitled. I am NOT saying that the student athletes now, or in the past, should have had to deal with the same employment restrictions BS that the NCAA has levied. They have stuff that is marketable, and the shouldn't be disallowed from using that to their financial advantage. Now, we have courts ruling that student-athletes are employees, mega corps pulling strings to
getkeep the financial advantage in their favor, and the fans pouring money into NIL conglomerates and not as charitable donations towards the athletics department... I'm beyond the point where I just dont care and I'm going to forever live in the Fall of '99.The compensation was always more that the education, there were always envelopes of cahs passed to players, there were always extras. But they were small, mostly things that were hidden, not a million in NIL. But at the same time the coaches weren't paid a ton, the money wasn't there, the schools had to have donations for scholarships and other items. Why would a player demand more of the pie when the coaches are making professor money?
So the players get the same compensation they got in the 70s. The coaches salaries sky rocketed, there is so much TV money and donation money that the facilities are better than the pro facilities. When everyone is getting rich and you are compensated by getting to use a juice bar that cost millions to build, I mean WTF? We are increasing their compensation using juice. I mean if you worked for a company that have been earning record profits every year for 10 years and you get reward by no wage increase but you get a pizza party, I mean fuck that.
It's very easy to not complain when no one is making millions. It's hard to not see everyone getting rich but you when you're all the same team.
A lot of kids are going to get a quick dose of watching 1/3 of their paycheck disappear to social security, Medicare, and 401k contributions...
2/3 of something is better than 3/3 of nothing.
Tuition, room, and board were never "nothing".
Now that's taxable income.
Seems that it should be, the way things are going.
If they are getting NIL money, then the tuition, rooms, food vouchers, travel expenses are all part of their compensation package. Wait till they have to pay taxes on the benefits of flying to games, etc.
Travel expenses are not part of compensation and would not be taxable. Those are university or athletic department business expenses. Do you pay taxes on your airfare to conferences and supplier/customer sites?
tuition, books, and materials for school (e.g., computers) are exempt from taxation for everyone. But room and board and general stipend are taxed.
I thought there was some limit after which tuition also was taxed, if a corporation was paying for it.
That wasn't the case 30 years ago, but a lot may have changed since then.
IRS Website
And which category do you think the "athlete for hire" will fit into?
I'm going to say "taxable".
Perceptions of football scholarships are going to change with the influx of money. These aren't amateurs playing for a university. They're professionals, being paid for their work. The associated scholarship isn't to better them in their chosen career field, it's compensation.
what? did you even read it?
The two categories are for types of compensation, not who. It applies to everyone who is pursuing a degree at an established institution for higher education....
Here's the tl;dr:
Tax-free: Tuition, books, and supplies (must be pursuing a degree)
Taxable: room and board, general stipend
I did read it, but I didn't research the context of your cut and paste.
Perhaps you should be a little less critical of the commentary.
And my point is that while athletic scholarships are currently exempted from taxation, if it's a professional business and no longer an academic pursuit (and it is) that may be subject to change.
It may well be that the athletes we're discussing are no longer there to play school.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend. The context and link were there and I thought the response ignored it. I'm still not sure why the disconnect.
And it is not an exemption for just athletes. It applies to every tax paying individual that receives tuition as compensation.
I read it and upvoted him. Under taxable. Amounts received as payments for teaching, research, or other services required as a condition for receiving the scholarship or fellowship grant. What do you think playing on a football/basketball team would fall under.
I agree it should change to taxable income if they are going that direction. Again this is based on the assumption that they are employees. Not under normal circumstances.
Thank you.
It was likely more that I didn't explain what I was saying very well. I sometimes assume folks are on the same page, and at some point it becomes clear they are not.
that underlined portion is compensation in the form of a general stipend, which is taxable, but not the tuition, which would be tax-free.
Maybe the IRS changes it laws, and maybe they do it specifically for athletes, but why?
Currently, if an employer compensates an employees via tuition for college, the employee-student does not pay taxes on that compensation. Why change that just for athletes and not everyone else? And if you do want to change it for everyone else, why now?
Seems to me that payments for playing football for the team would constitute a payment for a service required as a condition for receiving the scholarship.
So nil money would be taxable. Tuition and course-required supplies would be tax free. Am I understanding this properly?
yes
The point, however, it why even require it?
A college education isn't required in order to play football.
The only thing required here is a relationship with the school, and if it's strictly a pay for play situation, the relationship is established by paying them.
There is a difference that you're choosing to ignore.
Like I said before, why are we forcing them to play school? At a certain point, the charade is over.
In my mind, the charade was over decades ago.
True, but now it's REALLY over.
require what? The education?
Regardless of whether an education is a requirement for playing football, there are still some players who might want to get a good education alongside their playing career. For them, the additional benefit of having their education paid for via scholarship is a nice perk.
I don't think I'm ignoring the difference. I think you're changing the discussion here. This whole thread started with a debate around what's taxable and what's not. A scholarship isn't. Direct payments for a service are. Whether the the education is valuable, or even required, is irrelevant.
The thread started with a discussion of whether athletes are employees, and whether this is the direction in which college football is moving.
This does have a certain impact on taxes, as there is a limit on the employer education benefit with regard to taxes.
(from the IRS website):
It's no longer a scholarship provided by the university if the recipient is an employee. It's an employer benefit.
Previously, educator-student athlete was the relationship with the university. If the relationship is employer-employee, that does have an effect on rights, compensation, and taxes.
Wait a minute. I don't recall any tax liabilities when I was a graduate student teaching labs. Was I not an employee then given an educational benefit? Or was I being paid a stipend for teaching labs while on scholarship?
I believe you were working in the educational field.
We are no longer pretending about football.
What really is the difference? In grade school they pay you do do research and you learn while doing so.
Now they pay you to pay football and hopefully learn while you do so. It's not quite the same learning, but there aren't a lot of freshman that know enough about football to play I'm the pros.
Foot all players are honing their craft the same way grad student researchers are.
When we start saying playing football is pretty much equivalent to academic research, I believe we've jumped the shark.
How so? What does a grad student do that makes them an employee?
Academics? Research? Teaching? Helps the university achieve it's basic mission of education?
It's only nothing to athletes
To everyone else it's lifelong debt
But please, remember to donate to keep the schools woth ridiculous expense sheets financially afloat! They need our money!!
This is what I will never be able to get past.
Some interesting commentary:
I find this^ interesting because it speaks directly to the pro-athlete talking point that regular students can do whatever they want, but athletes cannot enjoy that freedom.
You had to get permission to get a haircut at Dartmouth if you played sports? WTF?
Wait does that mean the Corp of Cadets are employees? /s
Especially Cadets representing Virginia Tech for Army ROTC to play sports.
#Winning
We're a basketball school!
I interpreted it as 'if you are forced to say no to free things because of arbitrary rules, then you're not not an employee
This makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the interpretation.
They think they are the NY Yankees
So say all NCAA/college athletes are classified as employees. Do the schools still have an obligation to field the teams and would title IX scholarship count etc. still be enforceable?
Not advocating either way and there are big time athletic departments that could weather/may thrive more with an official employer, employee model, but the majority of lower level schools and in turn athletes would probably be worse off if the program they play or would play for got cut.
Businesses carry certain business units/lines of business due to growth potential or viewing the costs/loss valuable enough to the larger business or regulatory requirements. Wonder what the regulatory requirements to field a professional college team would be.
From what I've read, it's not obvious how employment status would impact Title IX. The only things informed people seem to agree on is IF students athletes are defined as employees it means:
Title IX will play a factor, but the specifics seem to be unclear.
And who do we think is gonna get squeezed to foot that bill?
Yup, the rest of the students through out of control tuition hikes.
Coaching salaries will take a huge hit. Locker rooms will be renovated every 25 years instead of every 5. Some Olympic sports will get cut.
When the college bubble eventually bursts, it won't be due to sports fees. It will be due to everything else.
Man its only a matter of time before the walls between the athletic departments and academic pools of money are torn down. Now that the NLRB has deemed athletes employees of the university, that day is coming quick. And before you think that legally they cannot, those laws can and will change overnight to keep the gravy train running.
Those who are currently making the most aren't going to suddenly give up their share. They're going to squeeze the paying customer for more. Its what happens in EVERY industry.
I personally think it's more likely that football teams distance themselves from the university (becoming closer to an actual minor league team) than become a more core part of the university.
I don't think it will be given up; I think it will be taken. Just wait until a school hires a coach for $1.1m instead of $11m, and then uses the extra $9.9m to attract players.
Would you be surprised if Deion did this, then had success? I wouldn't.
Treading out on thin ice here, but I don't think any laws will change anywhere near close to overnight. There's going to be a lot of disruption before anything happens on the lawmaking front.
I mean you're talking about a dam being help up with toothpicks. As airtight and rigid as we think it all is right now, it just takes one state to open it up and set an unbalanced playing field for everyone else to follow shortly thereafter. The first crack will have the whole thing crumbling within a year or 2.
This is true, but I was referring to your statement about laws changing, which requires a certain group of people to actually do something productive, which recent history has shown they're not very capable in that respect.
Not going any further than that. Apologies if that's too far.
The ironic part about all of this is we're collectively pining for a system that was clearly illegal from day 1.
I'm not saying that athletes don't receive value in the form of scholarships, or that I'm not jealous having incurred 6 figures of student debt myself, but the whole "amateurism" concept was illegal from the start. Hard to feel sorry for the NCAA or any of the schools who were unjustly enriched for so long.
Just consider it a windfall and do it legally going forward. No bans on actual name, image, likeness activities if the players can generate them. Pay them as employees. Make them either employees at will or subject to contracts of a definitive term: 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc. Scholarship money can be fringe benefits just like health insurance, 401k, disability plans, etc.
Were the schools actually enriched?
I mean, certainly, they got a lot of PR out of it, but many schools spent a lot of money on sports, administration, scholarships (yes, they cost money), room, board, support, health care, facilities, etc.
I expect some schools made a lot of money, and a lot of schools are sporting a net loss.
The successful ones certainly were. How much money do you think virginia tech made on #7 jerseys from 1999-2001? Then every year after that selling the jersey of our best player, just with no name on the back. Why did they sell blank jerseys? Because they knew it was illegal. They just couldn't be quite that bold.
How much money has VT spent on football, to get to those years? A lot.
I'd say VT has managed it better than most programs outside of the top 10.
Don't get me wrong. I've been a fan a long time, and I have one of those #7 jerseys.
But many of those NCAA football programs are lucky to break even.
sports merch sales revenue goes to.... drumroll... the athletic department.
And what does the athletic department do? pay for facilities, equipment, coaching (athletic and academic), medical support, nutritional guidance, etc etc. Stuff that all circles back to benefit of the students participating in athletics
who is "getting rich" are the most effective head coaches who are capable of organizing all the moving pieces to 1) recruit talented players and 2) guide the development of those players into effective contributors and 3) turn that into winning games
the "school" benefits from the fame and publicity of having successful sports team(s). Helps attract talented students who want to have fun things to do around campus. (big part of the college arms race)
The flute effect is a real thing.
Look at how Alabama's class profile has changed over the last 15 years. Better students, more students paying out of state tuition, etc