APPEALS COURT: NCAA does not employ student-athletes in sanctioned events

[Empirical Cane]

Court: NCAA Does Not Employ or Have to Pay Athletes

A federal court found that the NCAA does not employ the student-athletes that participate in its sanctioned events, and therefore is not obligated to pay them.

www.athleticbusiness.com

Court: NCAA Does Not Employ or Have to Pay Athletes

A federal court found that the NCAA does not employ the student-athletes that participate in its sanctioned events, and therefore is not obligated to pay them.

www.athleticbusiness.com

A correct decision (even for clown circus 9th), but it noticeably doesn't let SCHOOLS off the hook.

Just another piece to a much larger puzzle.

 

[rustywalkedaway]

It is not the correct decision; it is a continuation of the self-serving picture painted by the NCAA and its member institutions for decades. Under any object analysis DI athletes, certainly in revenue producing sports and likely beyond those, are contractually employed via the letter of intent/financial aid agreement combination. The economic realities test gives that clear conclusion.

The article cites a school's or conference's inability to "fire" the athlete. That is inaccurate. Again, this is contractual employment; people need to read the documents at issue. The athlete may lose their financial aid under certain circumstances and the award is annual, meaning it may not be renewed at the discretion of the school/employer. Either terminates services...that means they can be fired, just like other contractual employees.

And don't get me started on the "stipends". That's just straight cash for services.

 

[Empirical Cane]

It is not the correct decision; it is a continuation of the self-serving picture painted by the NCAA and its member institutions for decades. Under any object analysis DI athletes, certainly in revenue producing sports and likely beyond those, are contractually employed via the letter of intent/financial aid agreement combination. The economic realities test gives that clear conclusion.

The article cites a school's or conference's inability to "fire" the athlete. That is inaccurate. Again, this is contractual employment; people need to read the documents at issue. The athlete may lose their financial aid under certain circumstances and the award is annual, meaning it may not be renewed at the discretion of the school/employer. Either terminates services...that means they can be fired, just like other contractual employees.

And don't get me started on the "stipends". That's just straight cash for services.

I think you are missing the point perhaps.

The college athletes are no more employed by conferences/NCAA than pro players are employed by the NFL.

They are employees of the schools and pro teams.

And thats why it was a correct decision.

 

[Number1CanesFan]

I think you are missing the point perhaps.

The college athletes are no more employed by conferences/NCAA than pro players are employed by the NFL.

They are employees of the schools and pro teams.

What is the NCAA made up of? Schools. Most of the representatives of the NCAA are employed by the schools as well. Just look at the CFP. The selection committee chairman is always an AD at an NCAA school. You can't separate them. Nor can you separate the NFL. The schools and teams are subject to the bylaws of the NCAA and NFL. The NFL has salary caps. No NFL team is at it's discretion to pay a roster player whatever they want. Nor can a school participating in an NCAA sport give a stipend beyond what the NCAA allows. The NCAA is made up of its member institutions (schools) and the NFL of its 32 team. One and the same.

 

[Empirical Cane]

What is the NCAA made up of? Schools. Most of the representatives of the NCAA are employed by the schools as well. Just look at the CFP. The selection committee chairman is always an AD at an NCAA school. You can't separate them. Nor can you separate the NFL. The schools and teams are subject to the bylaws of the NCAA and NFL. The NFL has salary caps. No NFL team is at it's discretion to pay a roster player whatever they want. Nor can a school participating in an NCAA sport give a stipend beyond what the NCAA allows. The NCAA is made up of its member institutions (schools) and the NFL of its 32 team. One and the same.

And just like the NFL...the NCAA is a distinct and separate entity from the teams/schools.

Tht was point of decision.

 

[DavidMiami]

 

[warpigs58]

It is not the correct decision; it is a continuation of the self-serving picture painted by the NCAA and its member institutions for decades. Under any object analysis DI athletes, certainly in revenue producing sports and likely beyond those, are contractually employed via the letter of intent/financial aid agreement combination. The economic realities test gives that clear conclusion.

The article cites a school's or conference's inability to "fire" the athlete. That is inaccurate. Again, this is contractual employment; people need to read the documents at issue. The athlete may lose their financial aid under certain circumstances and the award is annual, meaning it may not be renewed at the discretion of the school/employer. Either terminates services...that means they can be fired, just like other contractual employees.

And don't get me started on the "stipends". That's just straight cash for services.

Dude if they had to start paying college football players it would be the death of most other college sports teams. Football is the breadwinner for most other college sports. Do you know how many of those athletes would lose their scholarships? Does that really sound like a good thing???

 

[HurricaneU]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing @Empirical Cane.

Admittedly, haven't read the opinion yet. I imagine it is analogous to a professional association such as American Bar Association that sets forth rules of conduct but does not in fact control the behavior or employment per se of an individual attorney.

Regardless, it may be the right legal conclusion that unfortunately only serves to justify and protect an institution that if it ever had a purpose, has long outlived it. Whose continued existence, like most bureaucracies, seems justified only in its self-perpetuation.

It is past time to end the NCAA.

 

[rustywalkedaway]

I think you are missing the point perhaps.

The college athletes are no more employed by conferences/NCAA than pro players are employed by the NFL.

They are employees of the schools and pro teams.

And thats why it was a correct decision.

I would love to see the opinion. I apologize. You are correct; "student athletes" are not employed by the NCAA or, probably, their conferences. They are, by any objective measure, often employed by their respective institutions.

As to Warpig above, two things.

1. Football does not always make money. The numbers are all over the board, but it probably does not actually make money at about 50% of schools. But it can make a ton sometimes, particularly if your conference has a lucrative media deal.
2. I am not interested in "good" or "fair". Those are usually self-serving terms. If a worker is an employee, then treat them as such. If that changes your revenue market, the labor force, and even the market as a whole...welcome to the world. Additionally, schools are flat out paying some players. Check out what schools like Cincinnatti do with the (straight cash) stipends. They put it in a fund and "pay" players based on performance. This article doesn't fit out say that, but that is what happens. https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinn...ers-get-largest-stipend-in-ncaa-football.html

 

[Empirical Cane]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing @Empirical Cane.

Admittedly, haven't read the opinion yet. I imagine it is analogous to a professional association such as American Bar Association that sets forth rules of conduct but does not in fact control the behavior or employment per se of an individual attorney.

Regardless, it may be the right legal conclusion that unfortunately only serves to justify and protect an institution that if it ever had a purpose, has long outlived it. Whose continued existence, like most bureaucracies, seems justified only in its self-perpetuation.

It is past time to end the NCAA.

You get it.

 

[Empirical Cane]

To be honest...it might open up all three (NCAA, Conferences, and Schools) to some future legal action.

 

[HurricaneU]

To be honest...it might open up all three (NCAA, Conferences, and Schools) to some future legal action.

I definitely think this issue is far from over. Are you aware of any other jurisdictions who have weighed in on this or related matter?

 

[TruCane81]

Dude if they had to start paying college football players it would be the death of most other college sports teams. Football is the breadwinner for most other college sports. Do you know how many of those athletes would lose their scholarships? Does that really sound like a good thing???

Men’s rowing and women’s lacrosse can’t carry their own weight, huh?

 

[Empirical Cane]

I definitely think this issue is far from over. Are you aware of any other jurisdictions who have weighed in on this or related matter?

I think Lower Court in LA. They lost there orginally, appealed to 9th Circus...lost again...

To me that speaks volumes...a "liberal issue" losing in a very "liberal" court.