So it wasn’t terribly surprising Monday when the National Labor Relations Board punted on the idea of union representation for Northwestern’s players, saying it would disrupt the competitive balance in college football.
Advertisement
LeRoy says the National Labor Relations Act only applies to private entities, which he says only accounts for about ten percent of division one football schools.
“This puts the nail in the coffin of organizing college players”, said Ronald Meisburg, a former attorney for the NLRB and onetime board member.
It remains unclear whether the athletes will challenge the labor board’s ruling in court.
The issue here isn’t a matter of whether a players union and collective bargaining would be a good or bad thing for college sports.
Former UCLA football player Ramogi Huma, founder of College Athletes Players Association, which was trying to organize the Northwestern players, declined to comment before reading the ruling.
The question of whether scholarship athletes are employees is the central theme to the debate – there are 85 scholarship athletes on Northwestern’s football team, each of whom receive aid worth about $61,000 per year.
The players announced the effort to unionize in January, 2014.
“It seems to me they took the road that was easiest rather than what was right”, Zola said.
Feinstein also noted that they could bargain collectively outside the framework of labor law to have their grievances addressed, much like fast food workers have been doing.
“Our young men chose to attend Northwestern to compete on the field at the highest level, earn a world-class education and prepare for the rest of their lives”, Fitzgerald said.
After the board’s March 2014 determination, Northwestern University vice president for university relations Alan K. Cubbage released a statement in April 2014 that outlined the reasons for the university’s appeal. Those ballots were sealed during the appeal and will now be destroyed.
The College Athletes Players Association, which backed the union drive, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“In its ruling, the NLRB recognized [that] the NCAA continually evolves to better support college athletes”, said Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer.
The complicated status of “student-athletes” within the context of both the academic and athletic worlds created a situation that allowed the NLRB to easily dismiss a ruling because “the scholarship players do not fit into any analytical framework that the Board has used in cases involving other types of students or athletes”.
Northwestern said it was pleased with the decision.
Advertisement
“These athletes dedicate 40-plus hours a week to their sport, helping to raise millions of dollars for the University each year”, Schakowsky said in an email statement. Considering the vast sums of money in collegiate athletics, particularly football, the players argued that they should be afforded better protections – specifically in the form of long-term health care, increased scholarships, and a trust fund players could access to finish their degrees once their eligibility had expired. This decision denies them that opportunity.
