Tulane Sports Law Director Gabe Feldman shares the following takeaways: The fact that all
Ivy League schools are private makes it more likely that the full NLRB will uphold the ruling because all Ivy athletes will have the ability to unionize. Although collective bargaining in pro sports is b/w the players union and the entire league, the Regional Director held that it's ok for the union to represent a single team and negotiate with a single school. … The key to the employee status is that Dartmouth exercises significant control over the basketball players' work, including travel, practice and play time, and ‘special permission is required for a player to even get a haircut during a trip.’ The Dartmouth basketball players perform work in exchange for ‘compensation’ despite the fact that they don't receive athletic scholarships. Instead, they receive many other benefits, including early admissions reads, apparel, meals, lodging, etc. ‘Employee status will be found where there is a rudimentary economic relationship,’ and payment/compensation ‘need not be large or otherwise significant in amount.’” Feldman also notes the ruling is “careful to explain why it wouldn't make student musicians, etc. employees (because they're not subject to the same control as athletes and don't have to ask permission to get a haircut), but it could make most college athletes employees, even in
DIII.” (link, link) |
University of Illinois labor law professor Michael LeRoy tells
USA Today’s Steve Berkowitz: “I think it's historic. The context has shifted dramatically in 10 years. [...] (Northwestern) was an oddity. This is a much colder reality.“ LeRoy also believes the Dartmouth decision will have an impact on the USC-NLRB case: “It changes the psychology of what the reality of the unionization of college athletes means. ... The
NCAA and its leadership have to be deeply worried.” (link) |
Extra Points publisher Matt Brown considers the possibility that the ruling is the first of many that result in a “wide swath of programs, from the P5 to the
ASUN, basketball to swimming, [being] awarded such classifications” and notes that international students could be adversely impacted. “Absent changes or significant clarification on immigration law, I believe there is legitimate reason to fear that many international athletes could lose their visa status under an athletic employment model. After this ruling, I would hope that efforts to fix this potential problem would kick into overdrive. It’s also important to ask…if employment status potentially extends far beyond high revenue football and basketball players, what is going to prevent
DI institutions from closing programs en masse? Will athletes be able to file
NLRB complaints to say that dropping swim programs is akin to busting unions? Will the NLRB protect them? If schools attempt to drop programs due to increasing costs, will the federal government, or Olympic Movement, or other stakeholders step up to bail them out? Is there any effort underway to attempt to mitigate the potential unintended consequences of such a far reaching decision? If not, how many programs will need to be cut before one starts?” (link)
|
Major League Baseball Players Association Executive Director Tony Clark says in a statement that “today’s landmark
NLRB ruling will improve the lives of all college athletes for generations to come. In the history of the sports labor movement, change has always been initiated by the courageous efforts of players who decided to stand up and demand their fair share. While there is still work to be done, the message of this ruling is clear. College athletes are employees, entitled to basic rights and fair compensation for their labor that has created a multibillion-dollar industry. These
Dartmouth basketball players should take pride in knowing that their efforts will be cemented in the history of sports labor activism.” (link) |
|
|
