Northwestern Players Unionize

MattK said:

TLC- Couple things...Unless you are a marque player, there may be a limited amount of Universities that are offering scholarships. Once you sign on the dotted line, the University may change a lot about the staff (ie. head coach). You may sign because of Nick Saban and end up with first year head coach. The NCAA makes it so you can't switch teams without sitting out a year or drop a division. Again, you have no real choice. The fact is, once you sign, you do as they say. It's a "shut up and play" mentality. I think it's about time that players stand up for themselves. The NCAA is a billion dollar industry. If you get hurt as a player, you may or may not get to finish your scholarship (depends on the school) and your blown knee, concussion, etc. may effect you for the rest of your life but the NCAA's job stops when the scholarship ends. One of the main things these athletes want is better medical care. I don't blame them one bit. The irony is, everyone wants athletes to act as a "team" except anywhere off the field.

BBD92- BTW, it's the QB from Northwestern (Kain Colter) that is getting this started, not a thug...

Click to expand...

Matt, but again, as you say, there may be more than ONE school offering them something. if that's the case, then they have a choice. also, if they don't like what they are receiving from school A, they can always pay to go to the school of their choice. and yes, they do have a choice after they sign. if they don't like whatever changes may or may not occur, they can quit at any time. as far as injuries go. if you make them provide insurance, wouldn't the same thing apply to high school players? aren't they taking the same chances of being hurt? maybe permanently? and not to turn this into a political thread, but with the new health law, these kids are, or can be, covered by their parents plan.

don't really care one way or the other what they do. yes, agree with some things on both sides of the aisle. but these kids are getting a free ride to play a kids game. and they do get preferential treatment while they are in school.

1. NCAA schools make money off of football. You are being naïve if you think schools have football programs for their student's sake, and not monetary gain. Sadly, often times the former has little to do with a benefit of the rest of the student body.

2. Football players are compensated for their work.

3. Therefore, football players are essentially employees. Any argument to the contrary will require an arbitrary criteria of what constitutes an employee.

4. Employees should be able to negotiate the terms of their employment, and to choose whether or not that employment is for them. To tell someone they may only engage in one or the other seems at odds with a free-market system.

The fact that they are young adults makes no difference. The fact that they are playing a "kid's game" makes no difference. The fact that their compensation is indirectly monetary (scholarship/stipend) makes no difference. The argument that players choose to go to these schools could just as easily be flipped on its ear. These schools choose to hire these players. If in the future, schools don't want to hire players who have unionized, they can hire scabs.


It's strange to see people rush to the defense of one of the most corrupt aspects of the U.S. Collegiate Athletic System - The NCAA. Football is dangerous, players educations are not only controlled, but their ability to work outside of football often is as well, and the money is there. These priorities are unjustifiable - both morally and economically.

1.Schools spend money on Sports to get exposure for the school, which increases applications, raises entrance scores, donations, etc... For example Wichita St has had applications go way up after their great BB season. It definitely effects students. aTm had donations go up hundreds of thousands of dollars after Johnny Football came to town. At least some of that money went to education for students. Schools like UT actually pay money from the AD to the school for academics. Most mid major FBS, FCS, and others don't make any money from their AD. So the money from football supports other student athletes. Yes it is a fact that other students benefit from sports such as football at universities.

2. How are walk on football players compensated? According to your logic they would not be employees. So now we should only allow the kids on scholarship to negotiate terms but those walk ons can't because they are not employees? What about practice squad kids? Redshirt kids? Kids who never play a down?

3. So according to your logic any student that gets a scholarship is being compensated and thus an employee of the school? I don't even know where to start with this. If you believe the girl who gets a academic scholarship is an employee I dont' see it that way. If you believe the girl who got a partial scholarship for volleyball is an employee I dont' see it that way. You can't just say football players who have scholarships are employees but all other scholarships for students are not considered employment.

4. So we should allow any student who has a scholarship to negotiate terms of their "employment" with the university? That makes absolutely no sense. We can't allow 18 year old kids to run universities and AD's. What exactly do you think they should negotiate?

Rodeo is pretty dangerous, so should they be compensated as well? What about softball, volleyball, baseball, lacrosse, hockey, etc...

Your map is incorrect. Jimbo Fischer makes more than Billy Donovan so Florida is incorrect. I dont' have time to look up the others but I suspect there are other mistakes such as California.

What about high school kids. They receive meals and other benefits for playing sports. They can appear on TV does that make them employees? The school makes money selling tickets and concessions at the games, so are they employees of the school? Should they go union so they can negotiate deals with the principal? Hell no.

2. How are walk on football players compensated? According to your logic they would not be employees. So now we should only allow the kids on scholarship to negotiate terms but those walk ons can't because they are not employees? What about practice squad kids? Redshirt kids? Kids who never play a down?

Click to expand...

Whether or not students who are currently not compensated would be part of the union would be up to the union. Whether or not an individual ever plays a down is irrelevant. Whether or not that individual would be obligated to play if asked is relevant.

You can't just say football players who have scholarships are employees but all other scholarships for students are not considered employment

Click to expand...

No where did I say all scholarships are created equal. They are not. Some scholarships are given for past performance, like one for community service from the local ELKS club, others are given with the expectation of services to be provided, such as a commitment of 6 days a week - 9 months a year, to which different criteria would and should be applied.

So we should allow any student who has a scholarship to negotiate terms of their "employment" with the university? That makes absolutely no sense. We can't allow 18 year old kids to run universities and AD's. What exactly do you think they should negotiate

Click to expand...

Student athletes unionize, therefore, "18 year old kids run universities"? I think you're the one who needs to check your logic. I could imagine student athletes negotiating things like, pay, health insurance, time to study, etc. Also, we have a word to describe that cohort of the population over the age of 18. They fight for us in wars, they enter the free market and work, they vote for our leaders. They're called adults.

Rodeo is pretty dangerous, so should they be compensated as well? What about softball, volleyball, baseball, lacrosse, hockey, etc...

Click to expand...

Sure. If what they are asking for is too rich, then the university is free to disengage the deal. Obviously, certain sports have more pull than others, but what's wrong with that?

According the Orlando Sentinel, Jimbo Fisher(2.75 million) made less than Billy Donovan(3.7 million) last year. But you miss the point entirely. BOTH are public employees. Society can afford lavish and decadent salaries for coaches but recoils in horror at student athletes getting their due. Many student athletes deserve better compensation for the risks they are taking. Not allowing them to collectively negotiate is nothing more than corporate control of perceived dispensable young adults that are so disproportionately compensated in respect to the profits they produce it's nothing more than exploitation if they are not allowed to negotiate terms. Last year the NCAA made over a billion dollars in TV ads during March Madness. That did not go back to the student bodies of the respective schools in the tourney.

To quote Journalist Greg Johnson:
"Coaches and athletic directors can negotiate million-dollar contracts, billions are available for installing state-of-the-art facilities, but the whole enterprise hinges on maintaining an arbitrary benefit to the student athletes.
Please, that’s ridiculous."

#1I take it you realize you are wrong about #1 so you chose not to post about it.

#2. So now you think the union should allow kids who are not compensated with scholarships to join. Wow.

#3 so now you are saying that elks club scholarships are considered "employment" and they can join the union as well. This is hilarious.

#4 so now you think the 18 year old kids should decide when and how they practice, their pay, etc.. You must not have kids.

Why is it that people from Montana are so opinionated about this? This is about big time college sports, something that Montana will likely never have. It has nothing to do with schools who could never afford to pay what is being proposed by the power conference schools.

As far as Jimbo Fischer, the fact that you think he makes 2.7 million after winning a NC shows that you have no clue about how big time college football works. Understandably, have you ever been to a big time CFB game? And no I am not talking about 20k fans at UM or MSU games.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...bo-fisher-florida-state-new-contract/3905847/
The new five-year deal, which will be announced this week, is expected to pay him more than $4 million per year and run through the 2018 season.


Another piece of incorrect information from you. NCAA did not make a billion from the NCAA tournament, they made 681 million. They did pay the majority of those profits back to the schools which in turn benefited the students, the total was 527 million..
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...a-expenses-revenue-money-mark-emmert/6651133/
The NCAA had nearly $913 million in total revenue in fiscal 2013, according to the statement. It had a little more than $852 million in total expenses, including a record $527.4 million distributed to Division I schools and conferences.

Of the NCAA's 2013 revenue, $681 million came from the multimedia and marketing rights agreement with CBS and Turner Broadcasting that primarily is connected to the Division I men's basketball tournament, the statement said.


So in your opinion how should these kids get compensated? Cash, insurance, etc..

And which specifically kids should be compensated? Any scholarship, just FB, BB, club sports, walk on's, etc..

You are completely missing the point Roadhunter.

I said, "Whether or not students who are currently not compensated would be part of the union would be up to the union"

Then you said:

So now you think the union should allow kids who are not compensated with scholarships to join. Wow

Click to expand...

I said, "No where did I say all scholarships are created equal. They are not. Some scholarships are given for past performance, like one for community service from the local ELKS club, others are given with the expectation of services to be provided, such as a commitment of 6 days a week - 9 months a year, to which different criteria would and should be applied."

Then you go and say:

so now you are saying that elks club scholarships are considered "employment" and they can join the union as well. This is hilarious.

Click to expand...

Hi Roadhunter, this is my friend Strawman.

As to #1, in the age of the internet we can each use our own sources and come up with different numbers as to whether the NCAA's profits are truly benefiting the schools or are disproportionately making a very small percentage of individuals filthy rich. My position is that the players are getting screwed.

You are right about Jimbo Fisher. The map was made during his old contract.His new contract is 4.1 Million. Which only bolsters my point.

You keep asking how would players be compensated. What would be the terms of the negotiation? I understand that not all schools make money for the NCAA. I have repeatedly pointed out that not all sports are created equal. I have said that not all scholarships are created equal. Perhaps some schools of a certain size would not be included. My point, as it has been all along, is that they should be able to attempt to figure that out themselves.

If the idea of college athletes unionizing is as incoherent as you claim it is, then it should fall flat on its face. The fact that the NCAA is fighting tooth and nail to prevent unionization is powerful evidence to the contrary.