How will the new unions affect basketball?

[BenJammin63]

With Northwestern getting the ok  to form a union, how will it affect the way college sports,  particularly basketball.  I didn't read the entire thing, and since I'm a young adult and know the basics of unions and not much more, how much will this affect the sport.  I'm sure there are people on this board who know a lot more about this than me and I would love to get their insight, especially if this thing doesn't get over turned.  I know the main thing will be players wanting to get paid, but will they be able to like try and over rule NCAA rules and just try to like make new rules or what?  Like I said, I'm not the brightest tool in the shed, especially when it comes to laws or whatever you call this.  So please someone enlighten me...

 

P.S. I'm starting this to 1)Try to redeem myself after the last thread I started, which I didn't think would turn out the way it did. 2)Learn some politics and stuff like that. 3)Get a new thread going to try and move away from some of the disagreement this board has been having recently. 4)I'd like to thank Norm for the poll because thats what made me think about this topic and kind of surprised there wasn't anything made for it yet. 

[KZRider]

Interesting question!

 

Unions are very valuable when a business entity is effectively a monopoly controlling access to employment and oppressive in the use of that monopoly against those who depend on it. Case in point would be the conflict between steel workers and Andrew Carnegie (and his lieutenant Henry Fricke) who controlled the only real jobs worth having at Carnegie's plant at the point of gunfire (the Pinkertons). It is known as the Homestead Steel Strike and took place in 1892. The result of all this effectively began unionization on a large scale in America.

 

When the conditions mentioned aren't present, however, since the union doesn't really have the best interests of the business entity in mind, the union tends to pursue practices that ultimately harm the business entity.

 

In the this case, I don't think an NCAA basketball program is BOTH a monopoly controlling access to employment AND oppressive to those who depend on it. In the long run, IMO, forming a union will be counterproductive for the well-being of the sport of college athletics.

 

My two cents' worth.

[tcp]

Dimes, brother, this needs to stop. I realize some folks can't help themselves, but this needs to stay a basketball board and not an adjunct of a political site. Thanks.

[BenJammin63]

Dimes, brother, this needs to stop. I realize some folks can't help themselves, but this needs to stay a basketball board and not an adjunct of a political site. Thanks.

Maybe I didn't make this clear.... And maybe that was sarcasm too... But since northwestern and I believe any other teams can now start unions and have more say in what happens with them, that means any NCAA team in any sport can form one. I'm not trying to get political or anything like that. I'm seriously wondering how this will affect NCAA sports and basketball in general. I'm sorry if I didn't word it right and made it sound political, but I would definitely say this affects Nebraska basketball and basketball in general.

[nebrasketball10]

Dimes, brother, this needs to stop. I realize some folks can't help themselves, but this needs to stay a basketball board and not an adjunct of a political site. Thanks.

Really??

[tcp]

 

Dimes, brother, this needs to stop. I realize some folks can't help themselves, but this needs to stay a basketball board and not an adjunct of a political site. Thanks.

Maybe I didn't make this clear.... And maybe that was sarcasm too... But since northwestern and I believe any other teams can now start unions and have more say in what happens with them, that means any NCAA team in any sport can form one. I'm not trying to get political or anything like that. I'm seriously wondering how this will affect NCAA sports and basketball in general. I'm sorry if I didn't word it right and made it sound political, but I would definitely say this affects Nebraska basketball and basketball in general.

 

 

The irony is that sports oozes politics, and the number of "topics" that can be turned into political circle jerks is boundless. So the notion that you can discuss sports all the time without venturing into politics is, to me, ludicrous. But it remains the ethos of the board world that "political neutrality" be maintained. In order for that illusion to be maintained, topics like these need to be shut down or quarantined immediately unless you want to conduct a social experiment on how strong fan identity is versus political identity.

 

For those of us who hold views very much in the minority, these kinds of threads are hostile, because we either not engage in order to allow peace to be maintained or we engage and rip the board to pieces, not to mention the relationships on it.

[BenJammin63]

Dimes, brother, this needs to stop. I realize some folks can't help themselves, but this needs to stay a basketball board and not an adjunct of a political site. Thanks.

Maybe I didn't make this clear.... And maybe that was sarcasm too... But since northwestern and I believe any other teams can now start unions and have more say in what happens with them, that means any NCAA team in any sport can form one. I'm not trying to get political or anything like that. I'm seriously wondering how this will affect NCAA sports and basketball in general. I'm sorry if I didn't word it right and made it sound political, but I would definitely say this affects Nebraska basketball and basketball in general.

The irony is that sports oozes politics, and the number of "topics" that can be turned into political circle jerks is boundless. So the notion that you can discuss sports all the time without venturing into politics is, to me, ludicrous. But it remains the ethos of the board world that "political neutrality" be maintained. In order for that illusion to be maintained, topics like these need to be shut down or quarantined immediately unless you want to conduct a social experiment on how strong fan identity is versus political identity.

For those of us who hold views very much in the minority, these kinds of threads are hostile, because we either not engage in order to allow peace to be maintained or we engage and rip the board to pieces, not to mention the relationships on it.

Alright. That's understandable. I understand what you are saying. I'm not trying to make this political at all, and I understand that unions do have politics involved. But I'm not trying to get into politics and I think we can avoid politics. I was just wondering like what they can and can't do and how it would affect the game of basketball. So ya I agree, we need to avoid the politics. I'm just wondering what they can and can't do really. I'm just trying to learn some stuff here. But I do understand that this does involve politics, And that was not my intention. But like I said, I do understand where you are coming from.

[Dean Smith]

Interesting question!

 

Unions are very valuable when a business entity is effectively a monopoly controlling access to employment and oppressive in the use of that monopoly against those who depend on it. Case in point would be the conflict between steel workers and Andrew Carnegie (and his lieutenant Henry Fricke) who controlled the only real jobs worth having at Carnegie's plant at the point of gunfire (the Pinkertons). It is known as the Homestead Steel Strike and took place in 1892. The result of all this effectively began unionization on a large scale in America.

 

When the conditions mentioned aren't present, however, since the union doesn't really have the best interests of the business entity in mind, the union tends to pursue practices that ultimately harm the business entity.

 

In the this case, I don't think an NCAA basketball program is BOTH a monopoly controlling access to employment AND oppressive to those who depend on it. In the long run, IMO, forming a union will be counterproductive for the well-being of the sport of college athletics.

 

My two cents' worth.

Actually.......the Union movement was much stronger before that strike. The Railroad strike of 1877 effectively shut the nation's transportation system down. Even though it was Frick that hired the Pinkertons it was the labor union that the media and then the public blamed for the violence. Union membership plummeted after the event. It took quite a while for the union membership to recover from the Homestead strike. And if you look at statistics like wages, benefits, overall health and life-expectancy, unions are very valuable even when there isn't a monopoly. Personally I think not dying is a definite positive.

 

Now in dealing with the Northwestern issue, the decision was only made by the regional NLRB. The university is appealing to the national NLRB and then if they lose there, you can count on the issue moving into the court system. So in reality, if this is going to have any affect at all it will be quite awhile from today. As well, the ruling doesn't even mention the NCAA, only the university and the issues the players are talking about are working conditions and health insurance to cover long-term injuries after they leave college. If things move forward I'm sure at least a stipend for the players will be involved. The players have historically received a stipend previously and the world didn't fall apart. It is just my opinion, but I see the NCAA becoming increasingly less relevant as super conferences want more control of the dollars and players demand to be allowed to join the discussion at the table.

[BenJammin63]

Interesting question!

Unions are very valuable when a business entity is effectively a monopoly controlling access to employment and oppressive in the use of that monopoly against those who depend on it. Case in point would be the conflict between steel workers and Andrew Carnegie (and his lieutenant Henry Fricke) who controlled the only real jobs worth having at Carnegie's plant at the point of gunfire (the Pinkertons). It is known as the Homestead Steel Strike and took place in 1892. The result of all this effectively began unionization on a large scale in America.

When the conditions mentioned aren't present, however, since the union doesn't really have the best interests of the business entity in mind, the union tends to pursue practices that ultimately harm the business entity.

In the this case, I don't think an NCAA basketball program is BOTH a monopoly controlling access to employment AND oppressive to those who depend on it. In the long run, IMO, forming a union will be counterproductive for the well-being of the sport of college athletics.

My two cents' worth.

Actually.......the Union movement was much stronger before that strike. The Railroad strike of 1877 effectively shut the nation's transportation system down. Even though it was Frick that hired the Pinkertons it was the labor union that the media and then the public blamed for the violence. Union membership plummeted after the event. It took quite a while for the union membership to recover from the Homestead strike. And if you look at statistics like wages, benefits, overall health and life-expectancy, unions are very valuable even when there isn't a monopoly. Personally I think not dying is a definite positive.

Now in dealing with the Northwestern issue, the decision was only made by the regional NLRB. The university is appealing to the national NLRB and then if they lose there, you can count on the issue moving into the court system. So in reality, if this is going to have any affect at all it will be quite awhile from today. As well, the ruling doesn't even mention the NCAA, only the university and the issues the players are talking about are working conditions and health insurance to cover long-term injuries after they leave college. If things move forward I'm sure at least a stipend for the players will be involved. The players have historically received a stipend previously and the world didn't fall apart. It is just my opinion, but I see the NCAA becoming increasingly less relevant as super conferences want more control of the dollars and players demand to be allowed to join the discussion at the table.

Thank you both!! But to just clarify, this hasn't had any deal with NCAA yet? It's just been with the university of northwestern? And then if this doesn't get over turned, it will go to court?

[Dean Smith]

 

 

Interesting question!

Unions are very valuable when a business entity is effectively a monopoly controlling access to employment and oppressive in the use of that monopoly against those who depend on it. Case in point would be the conflict between steel workers and Andrew Carnegie (and his lieutenant Henry Fricke) who controlled the only real jobs worth having at Carnegie's plant at the point of gunfire (the Pinkertons). It is known as the Homestead Steel Strike and took place in 1892. The result of all this effectively began unionization on a large scale in America.

When the conditions mentioned aren't present, however, since the union doesn't really have the best interests of the business entity in mind, the union tends to pursue practices that ultimately harm the business entity.

In the this case, I don't think an NCAA basketball program is BOTH a monopoly controlling access to employment AND oppressive to those who depend on it. In the long run, IMO, forming a union will be counterproductive for the well-being of the sport of college athletics.

My two cents' worth.

Actually.......the Union movement was much stronger before that strike. The Railroad strike of 1877 effectively shut the nation's transportation system down. Even though it was Frick that hired the Pinkertons it was the labor union that the media and then the public blamed for the violence. Union membership plummeted after the event. It took quite a while for the union membership to recover from the Homestead strike. And if you look at statistics like wages, benefits, overall health and life-expectancy, unions are very valuable even when there isn't a monopoly. Personally I think not dying is a definite positive.

Now in dealing with the Northwestern issue, the decision was only made by the regional NLRB. The university is appealing to the national NLRB and then if they lose there, you can count on the issue moving into the court system. So in reality, if this is going to have any affect at all it will be quite awhile from today. As well, the ruling doesn't even mention the NCAA, only the university and the issues the players are talking about are working conditions and health insurance to cover long-term injuries after they leave college. If things move forward I'm sure at least a stipend for the players will be involved. The players have historically received a stipend previously and the world didn't fall apart. It is just my opinion, but I see the NCAA becoming increasingly less relevant as super conferences want more control of the dollars and players demand to be allowed to join the discussion at the table.

Thank you both!! But to just clarify, this hasn't had any deal with NCAA yet? It's just been with the university of northwestern? And then if this doesn't get over turned, it will go to court?

 

Yes but first the national National Labor Relations Board.

[BenJammin63]

Interesting question!

Unions are very valuable when a business entity is effectively a monopoly controlling access to employment and oppressive in the use of that monopoly against those who depend on it. Case in point would be the conflict between steel workers and Andrew Carnegie (and his lieutenant Henry Fricke) who controlled the only real jobs worth having at Carnegie's plant at the point of gunfire (the Pinkertons). It is known as the Homestead Steel Strike and took place in 1892. The result of all this effectively began unionization on a large scale in America.

When the conditions mentioned aren't present, however, since the union doesn't really have the best interests of the business entity in mind, the union tends to pursue practices that ultimately harm the business entity.

In the this case, I don't think an NCAA basketball program is BOTH a monopoly controlling access to employment AND oppressive to those who depend on it. In the long run, IMO, forming a union will be counterproductive for the well-being of the sport of college athletics.

My two cents' worth.

Actually.......the Union movement was much stronger before that strike. The Railroad strike of 1877 effectively shut the nation's transportation system down. Even though it was Frick that hired the Pinkertons it was the labor union that the media and then the public blamed for the violence. Union membership plummeted after the event. It took quite a while for the union membership to recover from the Homestead strike. And if you look at statistics like wages, benefits, overall health and life-expectancy, unions are very valuable even when there isn't a monopoly. Personally I think not dying is a definite positive.

Now in dealing with the Northwestern issue, the decision was only made by the regional NLRB. The university is appealing to the national NLRB and then if they lose there, you can count on the issue moving into the court system. So in reality, if this is going to have any affect at all it will be quite awhile from today. As well, the ruling doesn't even mention the NCAA, only the university and the issues the players are talking about are working conditions and health insurance to cover long-term injuries after they leave college. If things move forward I'm sure at least a stipend for the players will be involved. The players have historically received a stipend previously and the world didn't fall apart. It is just my opinion, but I see the NCAA becoming increasingly less relevant as super conferences want more control of the dollars and players demand to be allowed to join the discussion at the table.

Thank you both!! But to just clarify, this hasn't had any deal with NCAA yet? It's just been with the university of northwestern? And then if this doesn't get over turned, it will go to court?

Yes but first the national National Labor Relations Board.

Thanks! And then let's say everything passes and nothing gets over turned and they are able to form the union, what can they do and can't do?

[AuroranHusker]

This particular case came about because Northwestern is a private institution...

[Dean Smith]

 

 

 

 

Interesting question!

Unions are very valuable when a business entity is effectively a monopoly controlling access to employment and oppressive in the use of that monopoly against those who depend on it. Case in point would be the conflict between steel workers and Andrew Carnegie (and his lieutenant Henry Fricke) who controlled the only real jobs worth having at Carnegie's plant at the point of gunfire (the Pinkertons). It is known as the Homestead Steel Strike and took place in 1892. The result of all this effectively began unionization on a large scale in America.

When the conditions mentioned aren't present, however, since the union doesn't really have the best interests of the business entity in mind, the union tends to pursue practices that ultimately harm the business entity.

In the this case, I don't think an NCAA basketball program is BOTH a monopoly controlling access to employment AND oppressive to those who depend on it. In the long run, IMO, forming a union will be counterproductive for the well-being of the sport of college athletics.

My two cents' worth.

Actually.......the Union movement was much stronger before that strike. The Railroad strike of 1877 effectively shut the nation's transportation system down. Even though it was Frick that hired the Pinkertons it was the labor union that the media and then the public blamed for the violence. Union membership plummeted after the event. It took quite a while for the union membership to recover from the Homestead strike. And if you look at statistics like wages, benefits, overall health and life-expectancy, unions are very valuable even when there isn't a monopoly. Personally I think not dying is a definite positive.

Now in dealing with the Northwestern issue, the decision was only made by the regional NLRB. The university is appealing to the national NLRB and then if they lose there, you can count on the issue moving into the court system. So in reality, if this is going to have any affect at all it will be quite awhile from today. As well, the ruling doesn't even mention the NCAA, only the university and the issues the players are talking about are working conditions and health insurance to cover long-term injuries after they leave college. If things move forward I'm sure at least a stipend for the players will be involved. The players have historically received a stipend previously and the world didn't fall apart. It is just my opinion, but I see the NCAA becoming increasingly less relevant as super conferences want more control of the dollars and players demand to be allowed to join the discussion at the table.

Thank you both!! But to just clarify, this hasn't had any deal with NCAA yet? It's just been with the university of northwestern? And then if this doesn't get over turned, it will go to court?

Yes but first the national National Labor Relations Board.

Thanks! And then let's say everything passes and nothing gets over turned and they are able to form the union, what can they do and can't do?

 

That' to be determined later. Right now the Wildcats aren't discussing issues like "Pay us," but I got to believe the conversation will go there if athletes are allowed to unionize. I can't remember the name but there is already an organization that the athletes worked with that they want to be their collective bargaining agent. I don't think pay for play will come up until all (if that ever happens) the sports are involved. Right now they are only discussing football & men's basketball - the revenue sports. As well, this ruling only covers private universities and not public, as well Nebraska is a right to work state that limits the collective bargaining power of unions. If we get to paying athletes we will then have to factor in Title IX. If you have to split the revenue 50-50 with male & female athletes, then football players would probably have to get paid less than other sports because there are so doggone many of them. The possibilities are endless right now. Much too early to have any clear idea of where this is going to end.

[Dean Smith]

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting question!

Unions are very valuable when a business entity is effectively a monopoly controlling access to employment and oppressive in the use of that monopoly against those who depend on it. Case in point would be the conflict between steel workers and Andrew Carnegie (and his lieutenant Henry Fricke) who controlled the only real jobs worth having at Carnegie's plant at the point of gunfire (the Pinkertons). It is known as the Homestead Steel Strike and took place in 1892. The result of all this effectively began unionization on a large scale in America.

When the conditions mentioned aren't present, however, since the union doesn't really have the best interests of the business entity in mind, the union tends to pursue practices that ultimately harm the business entity.

In the this case, I don't think an NCAA basketball program is BOTH a monopoly controlling access to employment AND oppressive to those who depend on it. In the long run, IMO, forming a union will be counterproductive for the well-being of the sport of college athletics.

My two cents' worth.

Actually.......the Union movement was much stronger before that strike. The Railroad strike of 1877 effectively shut the nation's transportation system down. Even though it was Frick that hired the Pinkertons it was the labor union that the media and then the public blamed for the violence. Union membership plummeted after the event. It took quite a while for the union membership to recover from the Homestead strike. And if you look at statistics like wages, benefits, overall health and life-expectancy, unions are very valuable even when there isn't a monopoly. Personally I think not dying is a definite positive.

Now in dealing with the Northwestern issue, the decision was only made by the regional NLRB. The university is appealing to the national NLRB and then if they lose there, you can count on the issue moving into the court system. So in reality, if this is going to have any affect at all it will be quite awhile from today. As well, the ruling doesn't even mention the NCAA, only the university and the issues the players are talking about are working conditions and health insurance to cover long-term injuries after they leave college. If things move forward I'm sure at least a stipend for the players will be involved. The players have historically received a stipend previously and the world didn't fall apart. It is just my opinion, but I see the NCAA becoming increasingly less relevant as super conferences want more control of the dollars and players demand to be allowed to join the discussion at the table.

Thank you both!! But to just clarify, this hasn't had any deal with NCAA yet? It's just been with the university of northwestern? And then if this doesn't get over turned, it will go to court?

Yes but first the national National Labor Relations Board.

Thanks! And then let's say everything passes and nothing gets over turned and they are able to form the union, what can they do and can't do?

 

That' to be determined later. Right now the Wildcats aren't discussing issues like "Pay us," but I got to believe the conversation will go there if athletes are allowed to unionize. I can't remember the name but there is already an organization that the athletes worked with that they want to be their collective bargaining agent. I don't think pay for play will come up until all (if that ever happens) the sports are involved. Right now they are only discussing football & men's basketball - the revenue sports. As well, this ruling only covers private universities and not public, as well Nebraska is a right to work state that limits the collective bargaining power of unions. If we get to paying athletes we will then have to factor in Title IX. If you have to split the revenue 50-50 with male & female athletes, then football players would probably have to get paid less than other sports because there are so doggone many of them. The possibilities are endless right now. Much too early to have any clear idea of where this is going to end.

 

[BenJammin63]

Alright! Thank you guys a lot for the info. Definitely had a lot of info come to me and it's very appreciative!! Thank you KZ and Dean!!!

[HuskerFever]

I'm glad Northwestern football players are getting closer to making royalties off of the 5 jerseys they sell each year.

[KZRider]

 

Interesting question!

 

Unions are very valuable when a business entity is effectively a monopoly controlling access to employment and oppressive in the use of that monopoly against those who depend on it. Case in point would be the conflict between steel workers and Andrew Carnegie (and his lieutenant Henry Fricke) who controlled the only real jobs worth having at Carnegie's plant at the point of gunfire (the Pinkertons). It is known as the Homestead Steel Strike and took place in 1892. The result of all this effectively began unionization on a large scale in America.

 

When the conditions mentioned aren't present, however, since the union doesn't really have the best interests of the business entity in mind, the union tends to pursue practices that ultimately harm the business entity.

 

In the this case, I don't think an NCAA basketball program is BOTH a monopoly controlling access to employment AND oppressive to those who depend on it. In the long run, IMO, forming a union will be counterproductive for the well-being of the sport of college athletics.

 

My two cents' worth.

Actually.......the Union movement was much stronger before that strike. The Railroad strike of 1877 effectively shut the nation's transportation system down. Even though it was Frick that hired the Pinkertons it was the labor union that the media and then the public blamed for the violence. Union membership plummeted after the event. It took quite a while for the union membership to recover from the Homestead strike. And if you look at statistics like wages, benefits, overall health and life-expectancy, unions are very valuable even when there isn't a monopoly. Personally I think not dying is a definite positive.

 

Now in dealing with the Northwestern issue, the decision was only made by the regional NLRB. The university is appealing to the national NLRB and then if they lose there, you can count on the issue moving into the court system. So in reality, if this is going to have any affect at all it will be quite awhile from today. As well, the ruling doesn't even mention the NCAA, only the university and the issues the players are talking about are working conditions and health insurance to cover long-term injuries after they leave college. If things move forward I'm sure at least a stipend for the players will be involved. The players have historically received a stipend previously and the world didn't fall apart. It is just my opinion, but I see the NCAA becoming increasingly less relevant as super conferences want more control of the dollars and players demand to be allowed to join the discussion at the table.

 

 

You make a good point about the influence of the Railroad Strike on the development of unions. The reason I chose the Homestead Strike was because it was a major shutdown actually called for BY a union. Fricke and Pinkertons were absolutely awful in how they responded.

[jimmykc]

An interesting, but academic, discussion. I would hope that NCAA athletes never adopt the union route since it will inevitably lead to unintended consequences. No one can say that unionization has not improved the remuneration of pro athletes immensely. However, has it really done anything for the fans? Are we ready to have our football weekend plans changed because our team is on strike? And how about the student actors at Northwestern who make money for the institution when people pay to see their productions and the members of the marching band? Shouldn't  they also be allowed to form unions? I think it has been demonstrated in the US that workers must be allowed to organize to prevent abuse by management and improve pay and working conditions. But I just don't think it applies to college students who really have it pretty easy, get valuable educations,and who voluntarily participate in sports. The NCAA should cough up a little spending money for the athletes and the players should forget the unionization unless we want to see intercollegiate sports end up like the city of Detroit.

[HuskerFever]

And all this time, I thought that collegiate sports was a 1-5 year internship...

[TomEadesSucks]

Maybe these players unions can refuse to work with sh*tty refs, in which case I say, bring them on!

[KZRider]

ESPN posted this article on the subject.

[jimmykc]

By the way, do college refs have a union? Just wondering. And I imagine I should fess up and explain my interest in this topic. My real name is Jimmy.....Hoffa. Now on to opening day of the real baseball season.

[hhcmatt]

Short term, nothing is going to change.  This might never evolve from just being a Northwestern thing and it might never evolve from only occurring at private institutions.   

 

Long term you could potentially see

• athletes either going to or avoiding institutions with an union
• this being the starting point of athletes being paid stipends 
• this could influence the rules regarding if/how long guys have to wait outside of high school to enter the draft
• The NBA deciding to pay for the NBDL to be their minor leagues instead of college basketball
• the NCAA being dissolved

[Norm Peterson]

The argument that I've always seen that I suspect is driving this union movement beginning at Northwestern is that (some) university athletic departments are making tons of money by exploiting the college athletes who go there to play.  Notre Dame makes millions in TV revenue on football while the student athlete gets 3 square meals and a dorm room and gets to practice all the time and beat up their bodies, etc.  And the argument is that the student athlete who is putting his body on the line should be able to share in the prosperity.

 

The question is how do you divvy it up?  I suppose each union bargaining unit will get to decide that as between them and management.  If the argument, though, is that the players are helping to create the revenue and should therefore be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, then you'd have to share the revenue weighted by who helped create that revenue, huh?  And let's be real, here.  People aren't showing up to Northwestern football games to see the third string punter.  They're showing up to see the starting QB and his primary receiver.  So, if the logic is that you spread the wealth to the players who helped create it, you have to say that the punter shouldn't get as big of a chunk.

 

And, by that same token, the girl's water polo team didn't create ANY of it.  Instead, they bled the athletic department budget through a non-revenue sport that cost a lot more than it made in terms of tickets sold.  And if you follow that path to its logical conclusion, and if universities start paying the athletes in the major, revenue sports thereby depleting the money that used to be available to spend on non-revenue sports, those non-revenue sports will probably have a difficult time surviving.  Which means fewer opportunities for kids in non-revenue sports to continue playing their sport in college.

 

Aside from the Pandora's box argument, I just think it's absurd to call college athletes "employees."  Show me a kid who went to Northwestern on a football scholarship who didn't want to go there to play football and didn't want to accept the free education and wasn't thrilled when he signed his letter of intent, and I'll show you a rainbow-farting unicorn.  Because that person doesn't exist.  Most kids who play small fry football do so because they love it.  And that's why the want to be on their high school football team.  And the kids who go on to play at small colleges who can't offer scholarships play the game anyway because they love to play and want to continue their playing careers.  It's not about a scholarship or free education for them because there isn't money attached.  Yet, small colleges still field football teams.  Hmmmm.

 

And those kids who are good enough to go the D1, scholarship route aren't typically playing football because it's a pathway to a college scholarship.  Most of them do it because they want to keep playing football.  And some do it because college football is the best pathway to pro football. 

 

I think it's absurd to call college students who play sports "employees" and I think this ruling, if it holds, could have loads of unintended bad consequences.  But, oh well.  Let the chips fall where they may.