The Death Knell of College Athletics?

Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board, Region 13 in Chicago, ruled that football players at Northwestern University had the right to unionize.  The NLRB ruled that the players were not "student-athletes" but instead were "employees" of the University.  The end result of this ruling is that college athletics as we know it, including the NCAA Tournament, is done.


The immediate reaction from the NCAA, and all major conferences (and by extension, their member schools) was to condemn the ruling.  Of course, the major fear is that the players will strike at some point, or the athletic department will lock out the athletes.  There are certainly compelling arguments that the athletes are more like employees than students.  They put in many hours during the week, sacrificing study time and class time in order to practice extensively, travel, and perform at a high level.  Let's face it, many athletes' scholarship to the university is more often based on athletic performance than academic performance.  Too many straight A students likely means an inferior performance on the field, as practice time gets sacrificed for studies.  Coaches who graduate their kids, with many of them making superior grades, but lose on the field of competition will lose their jobs.  Meanwhile, coaches who win, win, win and do a poor, poor job graduating kids and preparing them for life beyond college will make millions.  Other goals for the college athletes' union are guaranteed medical expense coverage for sports-related injuries (especially concussions), and the freedom of the athlete to pursue commercial sponsorships, such as shoe endorsement deals.


For now, the recruitment of athletes to a particular university's team could also change dramatically.  This ruling, for now, is a huge possible win for private universities over public institutions.  The NLRB does not have jurisdiction over public universities.  Imagine a scenario where a highly sought after athlete is contemplating an offer from a public university and one from a private university.  The public university's pitch is something like this, "You can come to our school, with our great coach and contend for conference and national titles year after year.  We will help you academically with tutors as needed, and we will excuse you from practice if needed so that you tend to school work.  We will practice 17 hours per week (or whatever the NCAA allows), and you will also have study hall time.  You will be provided the cost of tuition, room, books, board and fees."  The private institution's pitch goes like this, "When you come to our university, you will not be a student, you will be an employee.  We will pay you $100,000 per year, and you are under no obligation to ever go to class since you are not a student.  We will practice 3 hours per day, plus you will be expected to be in the weight room another two hours per day.  You will play for Coach X, who has sent numerous players to the professional ranks.  If you want to enroll in any classes, we have an agreement with the university, but you do that on your own time.  You are here to play ball.  All that is required of you is to pay your union dues to remain eligible and we'd encourage you to pay your taxes to keep the IRS off your butt.  That is all."  Perfectly legal under the NLRB's ruling.  Which option do you think the kid will take?  Of course, I would expect this loophole to close very quickly.  Democrats would be all for welcoming in new union members and Republicans would have to grudgingly go along in support of their (oftentimes) alma mater.


At some point, this will ultimately lead to a break between a university and the athletic department.  The athletic department's number one function will be to prepare its top athletes for professional careers.  These people will never attend an actual class at the university.  Instead, there will be some sort of agreement to allow the team to wear the name of the university in exchange for some kind of consideration.  There will also need to be agreements on what to do about athletic facilities that sit on university property.  Will the university sell the facilities to the athletic department?  Will the athletic departments lease the facilities?  Who will own the parking lots?   Who will be responsible for maintenance?  Who will be responsible for insurance payments?  But I do ultimately believe that if this ruling stands, there will be a separation of the athletic department from the university.  And that will hurt the honest student-athlete.  And there are many student-athletes at any university, both in the minor, or non-revenue, sports and the major revenue producing sports.  What happens to the softball player, the tennis player, or the swimmer?  What happens to the student who truly wants an education, that comes under the supervision of a separate athletic department that is not interested in seeing that the athlete receives a solid college education?  These are the people that yesterday's ruling will hurt.


Finally, what happens to the NCAA in this situation and most specifically, what happens to the NCAA Tournament?  For one, the Tournament is too profitable to let sit idly by.  This Tournament does cover the majority of the NCAA's budget.  Remember, the football bowl games are not governed by the NCAA.  With athletic departments free to pay players, and not having to worry about their academic eligibility, the enforcement arm of the NCAA (which is its primary purpose) will no longer be necessary, and this will free up athletic departments everywhere from having to continue their membership in the NCAA.


Reminds me of that old saying:  Be careful what it is that you pray for.  You might actually get it.  Ultimately, I would like to see the NLRB's ruling overturned.  There are better ways to address the athlete's grievances without destroying college athletics.