Student-athlete—not so long ago, I once defined myself as such. It is a title that demands being able to successfully operate in two worlds, one that requires just as much work as the other. As the saying goes, we were always told to “be students first and athletes second.”
But I can decidedly say from personal experience that it’s a position that’s tough to maintain. Balancing a full load of college courses with practices, conditioning, travel, games, and other team functions is no easy task. For four years, year-round training and 60-game seasons were my life. The most challenging season was senior year when we had only eight home games.
There were times when I might have jokingly referred to myself as a “student-slave,” but the thought of calling myself a student-employee never crossed my mind. I don’t think the question crossed anyone’s mind until this year.
Since January, the sports world has been gripped by this question: Are athletes employees? This all came about after Division I Northwestern University’s football team petitioned to form a players’ union. The case has now gone before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for decision-making.
Last week, history was made when the NLRB Chicago regional director ruled that Northwestern football players could be counted as employees and therefore have the right to form a union. Peter Sung Ohr, the man responsible for the 24-page ruling, cited that the overwhelming demands and responsibilities placed on athletes qualify them as university employees.
Under the NLRB, an individual is considered an employee if they are performing work for or under a person, a contract for hire, under entity control, or are receiving arranged payment.
Ohr’s decision has been scrutinized and assailed by critics across the country; Northwestern immediately filed an appeal declaring that Ohr overlooked key evidence in favor of the university.
According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, the group of players is not interested in salaries for college, but is instead seeking an array of reforms that will help close the gap between the cost of attendance and scholarships, improve health care, and allow athletes to profit off of use of their likeness in branding and marketing.
The potential outcome of the Northwestern decision marks a pivotal point for collegiate sports, the results of which could have lasting implications nationwide. David Murphy, a partner at the international law firm of Dorcy & Whitney in Palo Alto, has taken a special interest in the case.
Murphy spoke with the Sun this week to discuss the ramifications of player unionization. A former collegiate basketball player at University of Wisconsin, Murphy shared that the initial decision on the part of the NLRB is monumental for many reasons.
“They are recognizing, for the first time under a legal standard, that student athletes are employees,” Murphy said, adding that the issues that the players want resolved are things the NCAA and various universities have been pressed on for years. He said the cost of college and the amount of scholarship money student-athletes receive differ greatly.
“Division I schools pull in a tremendous amount of revenue,” he said. “What bothers me is you don’t see coaches in this discussion speaking up for their players and campaigning for greater living expenses and health care.”
Football, hockey, baseball, and men’s and women’s basketball pull in the most revenue at the collegiate level.
Murphy said there are a lot of issues that come into play with this situation. If the ruling isn’t overturned, the outlook of sports could change nationwide. How much it changes depends on the labor boards for each state. However, this would be an issue that would primarily affect Division I schools.
Other issues raised include whether walk-ons can be counted as employees, and whether sports have to be revenue producing in order for their athletes to be considered employees. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) could even get involved.
At this point, Murphy said, changes need to happen.
“This really puts pressure on the NCAA, coaches, and universities to take action on these issues and compresses the time for them to do so,” he said.
While the world waits to see what happens next, the Benchwarmer is going to weigh in on the situation.
Let me begin by saying I will forever be grateful for the scholarship and corresponding opportunities I received from my school. I was able to attend a wonderful university and travel all over to do what I loved—softball. On one hand, the grueling schedule and damage to my body were just part of the whole student-athlete identity.
But looking at it from the perspective of Division I players, I can see their frustration and understand why they are pushing for such changes.
The first reality to understand is college is far from a cheap expense; even with scholarships I have a pile of student loan debt looming over my head like a burdensome cloud. The second reality is that Division I schools make a lot of money off of their athletes and the success of their teams. That’s one of the main ways they gain sponsors and hefty donations from former alumni.
I went to a private Division 2 university, so the amount of help I received is different than what is normally expected at Division 1 schools. Even still, it seems like bigger universities are just as stringent about what they award despite the obscene amount of money they bring in.
Perhaps I am playing the proverbial “tiny violin” here, but it’s difficult to find financial help for a college education. Contrary to what people might think, there are a lot of athletes from working-class families who can’t afford to pay for school.
In my mind, it comes down to a matter of compensation. No matter what sport you play, the training is year-round. The word “voluntary” only stretches so far in collegiate athletics. You are committed 40 hours a week minimum to practices, games, etc. And then there is that whole bit about keeping up with school.
I think if an athlete is going to commit to the school and team, and essentially help make them money and bring more people to their school, he or she should be adequately and fairly compensated for doing so. The entity to which the athlete belongs is making a lot of money, and the coaches are well compensated for their positions as well.
Student-athletes should also able to afford school and other living expenses. The argument for athletes getting jobs is out of the question because it’s just not possible.
And I simply refuse to support the business charade of the NCAA, which has been most vocal against the NLRB’s decision, saying student-athletes “play for the love of their sport.”
Yes, we do, but we also need to be able to afford school—to fulfill the most important part of our student-athlete title. The NCAA has an epic business model that uses athletes’ “love of the sport” to generate millions of dollars, of which the athletes barely see any.
Undoubtedly, the NCAA will fight this decision with everything it has. But public opinion will play a huge part in this, and the shaky business of the NCAA could come crashing down if other university athletes attempt to unionize.
Essentially, if the NCAA is going to treat athletics and sports like a business, its employees (i.e. athletes) need to be justly compensated for their efforts and commitment.
The farce is up.
Staff Writer Kristina Sewell says collegiate sports shouldn’t be a business. Contact her at ksewell@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Apr 24 – May 1, 2014.