NCAA NIL Settlement / Revenue Sharing for P5

apple.news/AknDP6ZyeRGGqSrrEYZdQ1g

Extremely detailed article by the Washington Post that will likely answer many of the questions regarding what happens next and how this could be implemented.

This is far from a 'done deal'. It is a proposal to stake holders that address most of the key issues... except title 9

Do you think there were many people prescient enough to see all of the coming? Do I have this right; schools have to pay players and boosters can pay them as well thru NIL.

Equilibrium will be reached. Future HC teams will be similar to past HC teams. The sky will not fall.

Too bad he doesn't realize that Holy Cross has traditionally been a great place to prepare for medical school. 

House Panel Advances Bill to Ban Student Athlete Employee Status
Bill would likely end athlete unionization campaign
Employment question lingering in agencies, courts
By Lilah Burke and Parker Purifoy / June 13, 2024 04:16PM ET / Bloomberg Law
Legislation that would bar student athletes from being considered employees by virtue of their participation in college sports advanced in a House committee.

The House Education and the Workforce Committee voted 23-16 along party lines Thursday to advance the Protecting Student Athletes’ Economic Freedom Act (H.R. 8534).

The bill, introduced last month by Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee Chair Bob Good (R-Va.), would establish that college athletes may not be considered employees of an institution, conference, or association under any regulation as well as any federal or state law.

When introducing the legislation, Good said it was an attempt to “maintain a balance between athletics and academics” and to ensure that college sports “remain viable, beneficial, and enjoyable for all student athletes.”

During Thursday’s markup, Good pointed to recent gains for student athletes, including the right to profit off their name, image, and likeness and the flexibility to transfer and retain eligibility to play.

“While employment status might initially sound like the way to get more benefits, I sincerely believe student athletes don’t want the consequences of union dues, employment contracts, awkward relationships with coaches, and the inability to be regular students,” Good said.

Several unions and nonprofits submitted letters opposing the bill, including the AFL-CIO, the National College Players Association, and the Service Employees International Union.

SEIU said in its letter that the bill was “grossly over-broad, clumsily constructed, and fails to take into account that our legal system has developed various tests in statute, regulation, and common law under myriad federal and state legal regimes to determine employee status.”

“Instead of clarifying employment laws, this legislation uses a sledgehammer to demolish the legal rights of the players it purports to protect – with a ‘solution’ that leaves players completely unprotected,” the union said.

Ongoing Litigation

The measure is aimed at a burgeoning unionization campaign among student athletes that began with Dartmouth College basketball players voting to join a union in March—a move the Ivy League institution is challenging.

A National Labor Relations Board judge is also contemplating whether players at the University of Southern California are employed by the university, the Pac-12 Conference, and the NCAA.

Separately, a case regarding whether student athletes should be considered employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act for minimum wage and overtime purposes currently is awaiting a decision in federal appeals court.

The House committee action also follows the NCAA and Power Five conferences agreeing to pay $2.75 billion in damages to college athletes to resolve three pending antitrust lawsuits. The agreement includes a framework for revenue sharing between universities and the athletes, but doesn’t go as far as to call them employees.

Employment status for college athletes would open several new legal questions, such as whether tuition benefits would become taxable, whether athletes could be “fired” from their institutions, and whether athletes would be covered by workplace safety and employment discrimination laws.

Republicans have called the classification of college athletes as employees an “existential threat” to university athletics. Yet despite being pro-union, Democrats have struggledto balance their support for workers with consideration for the total transformation in sports that would occur if student athletes won employment status.

Sally Jenkins, a long-time sports columnist for the Washington Post, has a column on the consequences of classifying athletes as employees.



www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/06/16/college-sports-unionization-employees/

I don't think Sally thought this up all by herself. One of named sources is a former member of the NLRB.

I am with efg72 re further discussions on this topic. I do welcome stating that I am a donor to and support my friends leading 1843.

Big picture, given these market developments in the world of what I guess we still call college athletics, I am HUGELY bullish on the future of HCFB under HCDC and HC MBB under HCDP and the leadership of ADKH. 

If these programs were publicly traded so to speak, I’d have a max long position.

LET’S WIN !!
✝️🏈💜🏀✝️



 

Might be a case for watching what you wish for! 

The French Club at Whatsamatta U. just went on strike.🙂 If it is decided that only student athletes playing on teams that charge admission are employees, it might make sense for HC level schools to stop charging admission. If a team has to be profitable to make student athletes employees, HC is protected.

Eliminate the sport from varsity level offerings