Pac-12 Disagrees with NLRB that USC Student-athletes Should be Employees

[NJDuck]

 

By Pac-12 Conference: The Pac-12 Conference strongly disagrees w-12ith the complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, which alleges that the students at the University of Southern California who play football and basketball should be treated as employees, and not students.

 

The General Counsel’s allegations are completely at odds with decades of established law and, more importantly, if accepted by the NLRB and the courts, would have a profound and negative impact on college sports and the many student-athletes in our Conference.

 

Pac-12 Statement on NLRB Complaint below.

 

Pac-12 Statement on NLRB Complaint

PAC-12.COM

---

The Pac-12 Conference strongly disagrees with the complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, which alleges that the students at the University of...

 

[1Funduck]

Uh Oh!!

 

I foresee massive blowback. 

 

     1) The value of the scholarship will be front and center and the 'Wages' one receives will come off the debt owed for said scholarship. This in turn harks the question of interest accrued on scholarship. Room and Board? What a ridiculous mess

 

     2) The elimination of all sport not cash flow positive. Of course, a school has the option of keeping noncash generators but why? Why 'Pay' every single kid to play a sport that makes no money? Its a compounding negative. Its tough enough that some sports programs are cash flow negative, but than you have to pay them as well? I'll bet it comes with scholarships as well. I'm aware of partial scholarship offers, but this is going to set a precedent. 

 

It will be interesting to see the landscape over the next few years. Conference realignment, NIL, College Student Athlete wages, etc. etc.

 

The times....They are a Change'n

[Just Ducky]

Watch the unions jump in and take college sports down another notch. The end of college sports may be closer than we think. Like it or not sports are an incentive for a lot of students to pick a school even if they are there to study. Look out!!!

[Drake]

 Student athletes have tried to unionize before, and they needed to be classified as employees. This opens the door.

[Rufus]

This is another reason why we need to join the B1G. When we inevitably have to pay student athletes, we need to be in a conference that provides the proper amount of revenue to do so.  Otherwise, we will lose recruits to schools like Rutgers and Mississippi State because they can pay them more than we can. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Rufus

[EastBayDuckDad]

If this all comes to fruition, college sports will become indistinguishable from the workplace, an amalgam of public-private spheres of labor management. Think AFSCME and NFLPA/NBPA all wrapped into one. 

 

Players will unionize and collective bargaining will become standard. Strikes and walkouts will occur. Coaches will not be able to bench kids for labor conflicts but will be able to 'terminate contracts' if a position group needs an off season 'modification'. The portal will become free agency for the best players and a graveyard for the rest (I guess it's like that already).

 

'Student-Athletes' will be a quiant old saying from the history books. Ditto the NCAA. As such, scholarships should be paid full freight by the now employed players. Wages will be wages. The 4-5☆s will get the NIL deals. If they want to spend it on tats, face jewelry and sick rides instead of tuition, that's on them. They can apply for grants and loans at usurious interest rates to cover expenses like every other shlub student that can't run a 10.5 sec 100m or dribble two basketballs simultaneously while balancing another on their head. 

 

Title IX will protect some, but not all, women's sports. Low revenue sports will get dropped or severely reduced. ADs will become true GMs. Figure bake sales to support baseball, softball, soccer, volleyball, lacrosse, gymnastics and water polo. Also anticipate higher ticket prices for football and hoops to fund this juggernaut. 

 

This is just a starting point for the changes that will occur. I'm certain I'm leaving out a million other factors. What started as a legitimate effort to reimburse college athletes for their efforts and bankablility has morphed into something else. Some positives will likely come of this but right now it sure looks like there will be significant negative unintended consequences and the end of college sports as we know them.

 

Don't forget that since the suit is being brought by the NLRB, the government will have it's bureaucratic sticky fingers in every aspect of the process. All in the interest of fairness, transparency and accountability. How could that not work out for the best?

Edited May 19, 2023 by EastBayDuckDad
More complete

[Jon Joseph]

This is egregious selective enforcement against a conference that can least afford it. 

 

If you want a private school defendant? How about Northwestern? 8 years ago the NLRB held against NW football players attempting to form a union. Why? Because the athletes were not employees. What has changed so dramatically in the last 8 years?

 

Vanderbilt and the SEC could also have been filed against instead of SC and the Pac. 

 

Instead of choosing a conference that can ill afford the cost of defending against this complaint. And against a school that will be in the B1G in 2024, the federal government chooses to file against a defendant whose finances are uncertain. I'm shocked. 

 

The NCAA should step in and pay all costs associated with this selective enforcement action. Good luck with that happening.

 

The NLRB wins this complaint and the baby will be thrown out with the bath water. How many schools awarding athletic scholarships today will continue to do so if athletes are found to be employees? 

 

If the NLRB wants CFB to morph into the NFL's minor league this should do the job.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Jon Joseph

[Jon Joseph]

On 5/19/2023 at 9:48 AM, Rufus said:

This is another reason why we need to join the B1G. When we inevitably have to pay student athletes, we need to be in a conference that provides the proper amount of revenue to do so.  Otherwise, we will lose recruits to schools like Rutgers and Mississippi State because they can pay them more than we can. 

Yes, 'mergers' with the B12 or the ACC are fun to ponder but you can put 100 bronze medalists into a room and there is no alchemy that will turn them into silver or gold medalists.

[Jon Joseph]

On 5/19/2023 at 9:46 AM, Drake said:

 Student athletes have tried to unionize before, and they needed to be classified as employees. This opens the door.

The NLRB, on appeal from a lower-level bureaucratic ruling, found that Northwestern football players were not employees of the university. 

 

Now, the NLRB decides to challenge its own precedent. Why? USC and Pac-12 schools are doing nothing different today than they did 8 years ago. 

 

Yes, NIL and the portal are here but neither was created by USC and the Pac-12 member schools.

 

Male bovine excrement!

[Jon Joseph]

On 5/19/2023 at 9:15 AM, 1Funduck said:

Uh Oh!!

 

I foresee massive blowback. 

 

     1) The value of the scholarship will be front and center and the 'Wages' one receives will come off the debt owed for said scholarship. This in turn harks the question of interest accrued on scholarship. Room and Board? What a ridiculous mess

 

     2) The elimination of all sport not cash flow positive. Of course, a school has the option of keeping noncash generators but why? Why 'Pay' every single kid to play a sport that makes no money? Its a compounding negative. Its tough enough that some sports programs are cash flow negative, but than you have to pay them as well? I'll bet it comes with scholarships as well. I'm aware of partial scholarship offers, but this is going to set a precedent. 

 

It will be interesting to see the landscape over the next few years. Conference realignment, NIL, College Student Athlete wages, etc. etc.

 

The times....They are a Change'n

And, FUTA, FICA, Group Insurance, contributions to a state's retirement fund, etc., ad nauseum. 

 

IMO, at least half if not a whole lot more of the schools offering athletic scholarships today will go the Ivy/D3 route. 

[Tandaian]

I'm confused on how only some student athletes will be unionized.  I believe the NCAA requires all athletes to be treated equal?  Unionizing only 3 sports, makes that unequal.  I'm not sure how the unions can win.  I'm not sure what angle they are trying for.  The majority of the NIL money goes to those 3 sports, so they are already treated better than the other sports.

 

Making those 3 sports "special" is a great way to destroy the rest of college sports.  I'm not sure the courts will want to do that.

[lownslowav8r]

Well, when a coach can "fire" 90% percent of his "student athletes" and shove them out the door, then maybe schools and coaches are already treating players as employees. If schools move to conferences that pay more without consulting or considering the needs of their players then maybe the schools are treating their players as employees. Every time fans says their school needs to chase sports money then maybe they are treating college sports as a business (with players working for teams, e.g, employees). 
 

If schools and fans prioritize money then they are saying players are employees. 
 

Don't blame the players. College sports increasingly act as a business. 

 

 

 

[Jon Joseph]

On 5/19/2023 at 12:58 PM, Tandaian said:

I'm confused on how only some student athletes will be unionized.  I believe the NCAA requires all athletes to be treated equal?  Unionizing only 3 sports, makes that unequal.  I'm not sure how the unions can win.  I'm not sure what angle they are trying for.  The majority of the NIL money goes to those 3 sports, so they are already treated better than the other sports.

 

Making those 3 sports "special" is a great way to destroy the rest of college sports.  I'm not sure the courts will want to do that.

There is a clear demarcation between sports that drop money on the bottom line, CFB, CBB, a few women's basketball programs, and non-revenue sports.

 

But I believe you are correct in that a union for just Men's CFB and CBB could violate the Equal Protection Clause. 

 

This is going to be a huge mess. My guess is that many programs will assign all of their football and basketball indicia to a 3rd party. Possibly the NFL for football and the NBA for basketball? 

 

And players would join the existing pro unions and there will be restrictions on free agency and team salary caps, but no cap on NIL deals. And players will be subject to being traded. 

 

I think we will see a high school draft of football and basketball players. I doubt that these athletes will be required to take any classes.

 

One thing the above would do is drastically reduce the amount of money being paid to college football and basketball coaches.

 

Obviously, schools like Stanford, CAL, Duke, Northwestern, BC, Wake Forest, and many others will not go along with this model. We are likely to see many schools going the Ivy and D3 route. No athletic scholarships.

 

Is this what the federal government and certain state governments want to happen?

[Steven A]

On 5/19/2023 at 9:58 AM, Tandaian said:

Making those 3 sports "special" is a great way to destroy the rest of college sports. 

Ah contraire . . . I think this will do away with all College sports. 

 

Taking any piece of the revenue plus sports (and I am not sure every school has one) will kill all sports as I am assuming many schools will just abandon all non-intermural sports due to budget constraints.

 

Will unionized schools picket/refuse to play non-unionize schools?

 

Perhaps the reason the NLRB chose the Pac 12 and USC is to set up an appeals process in the Ninth Circuit.

 

Leave it to the lawyers to try and kill the golden goose.

 

 

 

[Charles Fischer]

When college football players unionize....there will be very little money left in athletic budgets for Olympic sports, thus they will be cut by the vast majority of institutions.  Hence we will see women in the courtroom demanding that their thousands of scholarships across the nation should not be lost to football players who are primarily black athletes.

 

Who wins that one?  (Both sides have compelling points...)

 

[Just Ducky]

Another can of worms for sure.

[David Marsh]

Shouldn't these athletes just wait a year and go after the B1G instead? They have much deeper pockets now.

 

Also what happens if this case continues on after the conference realignment? I know legally all parties will continue but at that point the PAC might file a motion for dismissal as USC isn't in the conference. 

 

Granted if these attletes have graduated they may be looking for back wages or something of the like and that keeps the PAC still in the case. 

 

Just going to wait for realignment problems. 

[Jon Joseph]

My bad. The NCAA was also named a 'defendant' in the claim filed by the NCAA.

 

I wonder what appetite after the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the NCAA in the Allston case the NCAA will have to counter this action by the NLRB.