The NLRB & college sports: Day of judgment
The cartel that is college athletics has been whistling past its day of judgment for decades. It makes billions of dollars off the backs of student athletes — primarily those playing football and basketball in nothing less than the minor leagues of the NFL and NBA — in return for academic scholarships that are no piddling amounts but whose value pales by comparison.
Adding insult to exploitation, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) then imposes draconian outside earnings rules on student athletes, deepening and widening exploitation's gulch.
Now comes the National Labor Relations Board and the United Steelworkers, the latter footing the bill for a union organizing effort by football players at Northwestern University through the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA). An NLRB regional director ruled Wednesday that scholarship players indeed are “employees” and, thus, legally able to unionize.
Collectively bargaining for “wages” is not CAPA's goal. Rather it says it seeks guaranteed short- and long-term coverage for injuries, injury-reduction efforts and pursuit of commercial sponsorships. These are hardly unreasonable requests given the profits Division I schools reap from these players.
College athletic unions are far from a done deal. Appeals will wend their way through the legal system for years. But even if CAPA prevails, the ruling will apply only to private schools.
Still, the writing is on the campus walls. And the NCAA and its member schools would be stupid to not make — outside of unionization — such modest accommodations to those responsible for so much of their wealth.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- An NLRB ambush
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Easy-money mortgages: Not worth the risk
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Sunday pops
- The Kane chronicles: Meaningless moves
- THE BOX
- Greensburg Tuesday takes