The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision this week to not assert jurisdiction and dismiss the petition of Northwestern University’s football players to unionize was met with all forms of hyperbolic reaction ranging from shock and surprise to expressions of moral outrage and aspersions of cowardice and absurdity on the part of the NLRB.
While the decision is thought to have major implications on the movement to pay amateur athletes for their participation, in actuality it was merely a technical one. The NLRB simply determined that it does not have the authority to rule on the labor status of participants for state-run colleges or universities and that providing a ruling with respect to a single private institution, Northwestern, would “not promote stability in labor relations” in Division I college football. So, in other words, the NLRB kicked the can down the road, chaos thus deferred to another day.
The decision does not put an end to the debate over fair treatment of college athletes, nor should it with respect to issues of player safety, full cost of attendance scholarships, and fair application of rules surrounding expense allowances and other aspects of student-athlete well being. But as to the question of whether college athletes are employees with rights to collectively bargain under the nation’s labor laws, the NLRB decision was absolutely the correct one, setting the tone to reject the ill-conceived notion that college students who voluntarily choose to participate in college athletics should be paid to do so. Based on every analysis available, the vast majority of college athletes, including those that choose to play major college football and basketball, participate in their sport of choice to enrich their experience as a college student, with the primary goal of earning a degree in their chosen field of study.
It seems that the vast revenues generated by big-time college sports today, primarily from FBS football and Division I basketball, combined with the all too visible stumbles and questionable actions of the NCAA have triggered a collective outcry that there is an inherent unfairness in the entire system. There is no disputing the foibles of the NCAA as a governing body starting with the archaic and often arcane rules and regulations intended to ensure fairness in competition and compliance with academic standards that it attempts to administer. However, the historical missteps and often misguided decision-making of NCAA administrators in no way invalidates the ideals that the institution was meant to support in the first place. In response to the filing of the Northwestern petition, the NCAA offered this view: “The union-backed attempt to turn student-athletes into employees undermines the purpose of college: an education. Student-athletes are not employees, and their participation in college sports is voluntary, (a matter of personal choice). We stand for all student-athletes, (italics added) not just those the unions want to professionalize.”
Those that suggest that the value of a fully paid college education and other extensive benefits that FBS football and Division 1 basketball athletes receive and that are not available to their fellow classmates is not sufficient “compensation” for their voluntary participation in college athletics have simply not taken the time to evaluate the factual rebuttal to their argument, including:
- Aren’t colleges and universities already massively investing in their athletes and athletic programs, relative to the non-athlete undergraduate student? What we should be focused on is why, for example, public universities spend as much as six times more per athlete than they spend to educate students who do not participate in collegiate athletics (as reported by an independent American Institutes for Research study in 2014)? Is this in any way consistent with presumed inequitable treatment of the athletes who play for these institutions? What about the fact that the gap in dollars available to support athletes in these programs is covered in part by student fees and state and institutional funds because the athletic departments themselves do not generate enough revenues to cover their costs?
- Have we gotten to the point where the concept of the student-athlete is no longer valid? What about the nearly 98% of FBS football participants and nearly 99% of Division 1 basketball players who are not drafted or otherwise signed to play in the NFL or NBA, respectively? Is the free education afforded these athletes in obtaining their college degrees not of sufficient value in recognition of their VOLUNTARY contributions to the athletic teams they represent?
- According to NCAA participation statistics from 2014, there are 125 schools that participate in FBS division college football and the paid tuition and room and board associated with the scholarships offered by these schools are estimated to amount to nearly $325 million annually. The comparable paid education number for Division 1 basketball is estimated to exceed $130 million each year. Together, then, major colleges and universities provide more than $450 million in annual educational financial support to their football and basketball athletes alone.
Those who are increasingly cynical of the notion of the true student-athlete need to reflect on the entire collegiate sports landscape, including the more than 400,000 participants in intercollegiate athletics who legitimately pursue college degrees and, in fact, do go on to a career in something other than professional sports. Those athletes are not a mere sideshow. Somehow the expectation has become that major college sports should mainly serve as a de-facto professional minor league and that the entire system needs to be redesigned around the needs of the NFL and NBA and the very few elite college athletes who are drafted as professionals.
College and university leaders should be steadfast in maintaining the notion of the importance of college athletics to the overall goals of higher education. Perhaps, like-minded educational leaders can develop an initiative that encourages financial restraint in the use of resources in collegiate athletic programs.
As a step in that direction, Alan Cubbage, Northwestern’s vice president for university relations offered a statement in reaction to the NLRB ruling that put the entire issue in simple perspective: “Northwestern considers its students who participate in NCAA Division 1 sports, including those who receive athletic scholarships, to be students, first and foremost”.
Without serious effort to preserve the student-athlete standard, ill-conceived concepts such as college player unionization and pay-for-play, without any logical foundation, will continue to surface and, sadly, eventually destroy major college sports as we currently know and love them.
Main Photo:
