“There will be people, universities, programs that have to fall along the wayside for the greater good of college athletics”
- Thread starter HailToPitt725
- Start date
Somehow I don't think the law would look at things the same as your odd worldview.
So your application of who gets to be an employee is inconsistent.
Got it.
Oh, I get what your definition of employee is (anyone who you think should be one). My guess is that those in charge would disagree with its inconsistency.
Obviously. Which is why there was just an NLRB ruling that people on the debate team are employees.
Did they rule that volleyball player are employees? How about football players? How about women's basketball players?
If you're hanging you hat on their ruling, your prior are so, so wrong.
You understand that they can only rule on the case in front of them, right?
Anyway, it's one ruling that is going to help drive the process to football and basketball players being recognized as employees.
If you are hanging you hat on the NLRB and the courts ruling that football and basketball players are no different than debate team members then you are going to be so, so wrong. All the while having your priorities completely out of whack.
Since they have yet to rule on other groups, including groups like the band, maybe you shouldn't include other groups in your assumed list. You are aware that the same NLRB turned down Northwestern football players' request to unionize, right? You also are aware that the Dartmouth ruling was based on a completely false premise that Dartmouth was compensating the basketball team, right?
I think Dartmouth basketball only has a decision from a regional director of NLRB ... Northwestern football players also obtained a favorable decision from the regional director, but then lost when the school challenged it at the next level up within the NLRB. So it will be interesting to see if the NLRB goes in a different direction this time.
Janitors are necessary and arent willing to work for free. Band, cheerleaders, dance team arent "working" and they are willing to do what they do for free. As I said, if too many of them decided they wouldn't do so for free anymore, then maybe you decide to pay them.
Right but there was a rule against paying them, which has since changed. There is no NCAA rule against paying the band. The tuba player doesnt lose eligibility if the band boosters pay him. Pitt is free to pay the band now but there is no need because they are happy to perform for free and there is no risk of Pitt band members transferring to the SEC for big paydays.
How many athletes are willing to participate for free? Since when is playing a game considered work? Are 12-year olds working when they play Little League?
That's you, I'd watch Pitt football no matter who they were playing over any top 10 or blue blood matchup.
It’s usually troublesome when someone is defining what ”greater good” is for me……
Generally no as they’re not generating any revenue. But since the little league World Series has been monitized and on tv so much yea maybe they should be paid.
So "generating revenue" is your qualifier for employment? You probably should think that through a little more.
I"m watching Pitt no matter what. I'm hoping in the end they are in a Big XII/ACC hybrid conference after the FSUs, Clemsons, UNCs of the world leave. They won't be in the BIG/SEC juggernaut, but if some schools eventually odn't make the cut for the semi pro leauge like Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota or schools like that, I'll be fine.
I wont' be watching the mini NFL though. But it will be successful because enough people will. And they will complain about it, but still watch it and feed the beast.
Same with when the NFL evenutally puts all of their playoffs on streaming, people will complain, but will still subscribe and watch.
I wont' be watching the mini NFL though. But it will be successful because enough people will. And they will complain about it, but still watch it and feed the beast.
Same with when the NFL evenutally puts all of their playoffs on streaming, people will complain, but will still subscribe and watch.
I fully admit I don’t know all the intricacies of labor laws. I’m only speaking of what I think should be. If it’s generating money, those who are producing the content should be compensated.
Also don’t know where independent contractors fit in. Golfers and pro wrestlers are that, they are not employees.
I’m certain I’m leaving myself wide open in a legal sense so bash away if you’d like. But again, just my opinion of what should be. Nobody should be making money off the backs of others who are performing for free.
And yea I’m sure the little league kids all think it’s cool being on tv.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Labor law pretty much just says that if someone performs duties for you, you have to compensate them for their time. There are laws that say when a person is an employee versus an independent contractor but that usually has to do with how you're using their services. Usually a contractor is for a limited and defined period but there are always caveats.
The reason schools have chosen to avoid whether an athlete or a cheerleader or a member of the debate team is an employee boils down to responsibility for things like injury and holding responsibility for their actions. Did the cheerleader fall and break her leg during a stunt? Workman's comp. Did the football player do something illegal in the locker room? Liability. Even something as common as a coach/player interaction would be subjected to labor laws if college kids were employees. Coach tells a player he "hits like a girl" and you suddenly have a harassment issue. It's murky and I get why schools are avoiding it at all costs. Those are all things you may be dealing with now but at least you don't have labor laws overshadowing your decision making.
If you want to make them contracted workers, now you have to deal with minors that can't exactly negotiate contracts on their own. Now you have agents involved or you have to deal more directly with parents in order to seal the deal. Schools see that as murky and you have to deal with things like buyouts and the likelihood that players will want some sort of collective bargaining ability.
Honestly, probably most of them would play for free as they did for years but with the rules being the rules now, they wouldn't. If Pitt decides we arent going to pay players, we would be recruiting MAC level or FCS kids. So there is now a market for paid football and basketball players. If a market happens organically or legally for band and cheerleaders then we may have to pay them too but currently their market value is $0
I want to see what happens when they are employees and not living up to their expectations and get fired.
Yup, if they make the players actual employees and if they are busts at the college level, it should be ok to cut them and fire them at anytime, F'em
They would be given contracts. This would also prevent transfers. Sign them to a 4 year contract out of HS with buyout language if they leave early for the NFL. This wouldn't be much different than any other sport. They wouldn't be free agents every year like they are now. If a kid like Eli Holstein signs a 4 year contract with Bama but both parties agree that he isnt going to help the program at some point, they can agree to terminate the contract.
I'm not disagreeing that those who generate money should be compensated. They should be. I'm not yet in the camp they should be employees yet.
My question to you why others - who don't necessarily directly generate revenues - should also not be compensated. Cheerleaders and bands add to the entertainment value of attendees at sporting events, for example. Its part of the package of the event. They are representing the university as well and have to spend time away from studies to practice. The same is true of other representatives of the university such as the debate teams.
The whole thing is a mess, it's college football but will have zero to do with actual "college", they just want to use the names, colors and logs because they are already popular.
I never said they shouldn’t be. I don’t disagree that they add value but I also think if they went away people very few if any would stop attending (other than perhaps family). No easy answers with some of this. But I don’t think a small stipend for some pocket money is an outrageous idea.
If you owned a business and there was a big market of people willing to provide entertainment for free, would you pay them? Lets say you owned a restaurant and there were a bunch of bands knocking down your door asking if they can perform for free. Why would you pay them?
I would follow the law.
Since you admit that many players would play for free, why do you insist on paying them?
Wouldn't title IX say the girl athletes have to get paid the same as the guy athletes?
You asked a question, I answered it. Yes, there are people who get paid to play sports, video games, and everything in between. You obviously didn't think about that when you posed your question. If college players got paid, they'd be "professional" too.
Similar threads
