A week after Dartmouth College's men's basketball team voted to form the first student-athlete union in college sports, House Republicans warned Tuesday that forming a union poses an “existential threat” to the future of college sports. . The Democratic Party retorted, saying, “The sky is not falling.''
Congressional committees have held numerous hearings over the past year on the state of college athletics and player compensation, one of the key issues facing college athletics today. This was the first time that the issue of what should happen to student-athletes was tackled head-on. They are considered employees who are entitled to collective bargaining.
Congress is considering legislation that would establish national rules regarding name, image and publicity rights for college athletes, a top priority for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which would require student-athletes to be employees of We also hope to resolve this issue with this bill. I assure you they are not employees. The Dartmouth vote, which Dartmouth College plans to contest, only lends further urgency to the NCAA's demands.
“The increasing costs and administrative headaches of unionization threaten to make low-funded programs, including many girls' sports and small school athletic programs, uneconomic,” Congressman Burgess said. “The result is fewer teams, fewer scholarships, and fewer opportunities for our youth.” Owens, a Utah Republican, attended Tuesday's hearing on “Protecting Student-Athletes.”
Owens and other Republicans on the House Education and Labor Committee said allowing college athletes to unionize would create “pure chaos” and deprive students of their academic experience, especially in non-revenue-producing sports and Olympic competitions. said that it would be forced to cut back on its programs. . Several Republican lawmakers argued that the current system gives athletes “flexibility” and the ability to receive a college education with or without a scholarship.
“Most college athletes don't receive scholarships, but they're willing to participate,” said Rep. Bob Good, R-Virginia. “They are envied by other members of their campus and their high school teammates who didn’t have the ability to go to college.”
Democrats countered that student-athletes should be able to share in the revenue they generate and deserve to negotiate provisions that affect health, safety and compensation. They pointed to survey data showing that some student-athletes experience food insecurity at higher rates than the general student body.
California Democratic Representative Mark Desaulniers said, “The opportunity to unionize and unionize is not over, and the opportunities for unionization and unionization are not ending, and we need a fair system and treatment for those who are often poor, especially in a multibillion industry.'' It's the beginning.”
Desaulniers and others suggested that even the possibility of the group forming a union could put pressure on universities to improve their treatment of student-athletes.
The local office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled last month that members of the basketball team are, in fact, employees, paving the way for Dartmouth's historic vote. NLRB Northeast Regional Director Laura A. Sachs said the university controls players whose work benefits Dartmouth. Dartmouth does not offer athletic scholarships, but players receive other benefits, including equipment, Sachs said.
Dartmouth's decision follows a 2021 memo from the NLRB general counsel saying college athletes are employees and a 2016 decision allowing student teaching assistants at Columbia University to form a union. The Supreme Court also questioned the NCAA's amateur model in 2021, accelerating efforts to allow student-athletes to unionize.
Some panelists and Republican lawmakers argued that the NLRB's Dartmouth decision could have far-reaching implications for higher education, but Democrats sought to downplay the scope of the ruling.
“Now is not the time to scare students with improbable worst-case scenarios or disingenuous exaggerations about how this NLRB decision will impact college sports,” said Georgia Democratic Representative Lucy McBath. said. “You have to remember that this applies only to his one team at just one private university, in very specific circumstances.”
Advantages and disadvantages of athletic clubs
The hearing did not include any student-athletes. Instead, the committee heard from university administrators, two lawyers and a former NLRB chairman.
Jill Bodensteiner, St. Joseph's director of athletics, told the committee that the “limited benefits” unions could provide college athletes do not outweigh the “substantial negative impact” on college athletics overall. He said no.
“I don’t know if one school across the country, or one of the few unions representing one sport in 10 schools, is addressing these issues in an impactful way,” she said. “St. Joe’s doesn’t have any money to donate.”
St. Joseph's has 480 students on 20 teams, but none of the teams are profitable, Bodensteiner said. Potentially he would require significant costs and infrastructure to manage 21 individual bargaining units. She said the university would have to make “difficult decisions” to pay for it.
Tyler Sims, an employment attorney with Littler Mendelson who represents employers, said the potential impact of unionization could be detrimental to the student-athletes themselves. He noted that while his salary as an employee is taxed, his current scholarship is not, and his status as a student may depend on his athletic performance.
“It's not that unions are good or bad,” Sims said. “The problem is the settings here.”
Matthew Mitten, professor and executive director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University School of Law, said classifying college athletes as employees would disrupt the current model of intercollegiate sports.
“Student-athletes are doing a good job,” Mitten said, citing policies that protect students from losing their scholarships due to poor athletic performance and “recent name, image and likeness rights that have led to six- and seven-figure deals.” “increase in transactions.'' For some athletes.
Mark Gaston Pierce, executive director of Georgetown Law's Labor Rights Institute and former NLRB chairman, disagreed with other panelists and said collective bargaining addresses the issues facing college sports. He argued that it could be an effective method and would not spell doom for college sports. college athletics.
“Professional sports teams are able to function and adjust,” he said. “It's not one-size-fits-all at all.”
Under the current system, athletes struggle to make a living, and if they don't reach the professional level, they are “educated” and receive little or no benefit from their playing days. Yes, he said.
“We're talking about sports becoming jobs here,” he said. “This is a job because it benefits these institutions as well as the NCAA. Athletes need to have the ability to enjoy these benefits equally, or at least significantly. Otherwise, we… becomes slavery.”
