Northwestern football players seek to join union

The lawyers and unions will have more interest in this than the players. Lets look Northwestern. The senior class that was part of this process will be graduating in a few weeks. Do you think they will stay engaged and be willing to contribute money to the cause?

How about the incoming freshman? What will there interest be>

 

No, but it helps to have read at least something about it, or to use your example, to have listened to at least a couple of Jay-Z songs.

The points that were made in the ruling, such as athletes spending more time on their sport than they did on academics and that scholarships are based upon how well an athlete plays, were quite valid and totally destroyed the Northwestern's borrowed-from-the-NCAA talking point that playing sports is about academics.

 

I think right now, the labor union is donating their time and resources until a dues system is eventually set up.

 

But where will the money for the dues come from? Its a long hall before players are getting paid?

How would you guarantee nationwide participation? SEC country seems like it is pretty anti union.

Players at those schools might have no interest in a union

 

Right now, it's just at Northwestern, and I believe the ruling only applies to private colleges.

I would think each team at different schools might make the choice to unionize. SEC teams, as you note, may not want to unionize. Big Ten schools might. What it might do is force schools and coaches to negotiate with players and sweeten their offers in the hope that they don't unionize.

What's important about the ruling isn't that teams will unionize, it's that they're allowed to at all. The NCAA might try some BS that unionized teams aren't eligible to play, but that would bring up another whole can of worms that they might not win. Such as half their membership being ineligible.

 

You don't think Larry Scott and the Pac-12's leadership are well-versed on the larger issue of amateurism and unions?
They hadn't read this specific ruling. Maybe it wasn't available yet or they hadn't had time before they were asked about it. The Pac-12 and its membership are likely involved in the case to the extent that they'd be affected by a larger ruling. They're not directly involved in this case. I don't think it's uncommon in situations like that to issue a statement that says, "We aren't familiar with the specifics of the case/ruling, but we are aware of the issues involved and agree/disagree with it."

 

The threat of a union can be as effective as actually unionizing in this case.

 

The lawyers and the unions will always have more interest. It's what they do. It's what they've studied. It's their passion. The players have more interest in playing their sport but they also want to be treated fairly and they will rely on these folks to inform them and work on their behalf.

The reason these cases are finally rising is because the players are becoming increasingly aware that they are generating the revenue in multi-billion dollar industries yet they're being told they can't share in that revenue because of some quaint notion of "amateurism."

FYI, none of the unions or labor lawyers will be getting rich off the creation of fledgling collegiate unions. The Steelworkers' are underwriting much of the initial costs to get this off the ground. Yes, eventually there will need to be a dues structure but it will be very little at first and it will be years, maybe decades, before the individual unions reach the point where they are in position to bank a "war chest."

Because these athletes help generate billions of dollars, however, their unions will eventually pay for themselves (just like they do in other professional sports) without underwriting by established unions or the players going out of pocket. I doubt you have you ever heard of a professional athlete who complained about union dues because dues represent a pittance relative to the dollars their unions redirect to them through compensation, benefits and licensing.

Lester Munson's Q&A for ESPN:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10678393/nlrb-director-decision-follows-road-map-laid-northwestern-quarterback-kain-colter-legal-team

 

It's also the lawyers and union meal ticket.

Good link to Munson Q & A. Addresses the question that I raised earlier on
ability to unionize at public institutions.

Assuming the players still turn over every 4 years I still think it's going to be
hard to sustain a union. As it stands now there are 24 right to work states which
would mean that players could not be forced to join the union. In looking at map most
of these states are in areas where football is prominent sport.

Could really change the dynamics of recruiting. Do you want to go to a union shop
or non? If public universities stay non unionized this could give them a major advantage in recruiting ..... or not.

 

Has Scott Walker weighed in on this yet?

 

If you use the defense that they play in a right to work state, are you drifting closer to the line of they are employees and should be paid?

If you tell someone they cannot unionize, are you indirectly calling them paid workers?

 

I sincerely doubt that, given the opportunity, many football or basketball players would decline being part of a union that brings them benefits and protection that far exceed the value of any relatively small amount of dues they would be required to pay. Are they going to turn down, say, a $3,000 licensing check because they oppose paying $1,000 in dues? I have seen exactly zero instances of this occurring in professional sports, all of which have many markets and players in right-to-work-for-less states.

And I dare say that schools providing better compensation and benefits will have a distinct advantage in recruiting over those that do not. Just a hunch.