Last week, the National Labor Relations Board in Chicago ruled that football players at Northwestern University are, in fact, employees of the university, and therefore, can organize a union. The reactions were swift and often divisive, as the decision threatens the status quo in college athletics.
First, what does being an employee entail?
To begin with, an employee has a signed contract with the employer — in this case, the university. Check.
Second, an employee participates in certain activities and is paid in return. College athletes play football in return for scholarships, so, check.
Finally, and perhaps the most controversial, employers exert significant control over the employees.
In the case of Northwestern University, the labor board found several key examples that led them to agree that football players were indeed controlled by the university, including, but not limited to, restrictions on what activities they can engage in (specifically for pay), requirements on living arrangements, and significant power over the athletes’ class schedules.
Kain Colter, the former Northwestern quarterback who led the charge on this issue, has begun to travel to Washington, D.C., to clarify the players’ positions and intent in seeking the ability to form a union.
So what exactly are the players asking for?
They are not asking for “pay-for-play,” despite media reports to the contrary, as they acknowledge their scholarships are a form of payment (thus making them employees). Instead, their primary requests revolve around health and academic issues.
Brain injuries are a growing concern for athletes at all levels. In 2012, a study found that the rate of concussions among college football players had doubled since 2010. A report published in the journal Neurology in December 2013 noted that even players who did not display the typical warning signs of concussions, or other head trauma, still can face problems in the future due to small, frequent hits during the training and the regular season.
Did you know universities are not required to pay for medical treatment resulting from sports-related injuries? A scholarship that covers basic costs is certainly not going to cover a $10,000 medical bill. Even more shocking is that some universities will revoke scholarships from athletes who suffer injuries, leaving them unable to complete their degree, or pay their medical bills.
As expected, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) — who, let’s not forget, made nearly $1 billion in total revenue last year — issued a swift response, criticizing the ruling. A spokesperson from the NCAA said, “We want student-athletes, 99 percent of whom will never make it to the professional leagues, focused on what matters most: finding success in the classroom, on the field and in life.”
What a disingenuous statement. A survey conducted by the NCAA itself in 2006 found that college athletes devoted nearly 45 hours per week to their sport, which well exceeds the NCAA’s “20-hour” rule. Moreover, of Division I athletes, two-thirds felt that their GPAs would have been higher had they not participated in athletics in college. Currently, college football and basketball players have about a 1 in 2 chance of graduating. The NCAA should be ashamed.
At the very least, the actions by the players at Northeastern have started an important dialogue about college athletics and the NCAA. Perhaps, it points to the beginning of a bigger trend: the revival and strengthening of labor unions around the country. One can only hope.
Whatever the outcome might be, I don’t think anyone would disagree that the discussions to be had and decisions that will be made in the months to come will be interesting.
