(10-01-2021 04:41 PM)Alanda Wrote: (10-01-2021 10:58 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote: (09-30-2021 07:18 PM)Alanda Wrote: (09-30-2021 04:18 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote: (09-29-2021 09:49 PM)Alanda Wrote: When they start generating millions in revenue, I'll gladly push for them to have the same things as I have with athletes.
I see no reason why the existence of money creates the entitlement. The arguments laid out for why an athlete is an employee cover a number of volunteer and extracurricular groups.
Why does the money generated matter, when the labor performed is the same and is being performed under relatively the same conditions expressed for athletes?
How many volunteers and extracurricular groups are a primary contributor to generating annual nine-figure revenues like some conferences receive or eight-figures for their group like some teams get? This while others involved get paid millions. Any that do deserve to be paid something as well. The money definitely matters and attempting to ignore it creates a different situation to what's being discussed. It also matters when in this case revenue growth outpaced tuition growth. And as someone that played football and was in band I would say the labor is not the same. The processes maybe similar, but the labor isn't the same. I understand where you were going with that, but IMO I don't think the comparison works to an equal level.
Why does the money generated create entitlement to employee status? Why does it not work both ways? For example, if you and your employer have agreed contract and wage for your labor. You perform that labor, then you get paid. If your employer is short a quarter, you are still entitled to getting paid for your labor. If your employer has a windfall a quarter, you are not suddenly entitled to more. Why do athletes deserve more than others performing the same labors and under the same or very similar restrictions?
Well when trying to make comparisons as close to possible when they aren't to justify the point doesn't work for me. As I've already pointed out they are not performing the same labors. No matter how many times that gets repeated it's not true. With the previous comparison given, you're not seeing band students die at the same rate college football players do from heat-related deaths. They aren't expected to collide into other bands, sometimes at full speed (though that might be fun to watch) or each other during practice. Again similar processes does not mean same labor. Very different. Also I can't see why restrictions matter in this case.
In this current example you gave why would the person in question be entitled to a contract for employment? That needs to be answered first before talking about getting paid the same regardless of what happens to the employer's business.
Again, the risk each group is exposed to has nothing to do with whether or not they are employees. As I said before, oil rig workers are every bit as much employees as the land men and pencil pushers in Houston. You don’t get to include or exclude someone categorically from being an employee merely because one makes more than another or one has higher risks than another.
As to your second paragraph, that is the point of the entire discussion. Why should athletes be entitled to become university employees? Most of the explanations provided so far have been “they bring in a lot of money” and “here is a list of things they do that should qualify them as employees”.
The “they bring in a lot of money” argument is hardly compelling because it is a tail-wagging-the-dog response to the inequities of college athletics. It doesn’t provide any form or semblance of why the entitlement to employment should exist solely because people make money off their labor. That is incredibly normal in every other area of life and in a good, mutually beneficial arrangement everybody benefits from the values and merits and labors of the other party. That is how a basic agreement and bargain are struck. For example, you come play football for the university, and the university will give you a scholarship, room, and board. No one is forced to take this deal (albeit with a caveat I’ll discuss in a moment).
The second argument of “here is a list of things they do that should qualify them as employees” is a better argument for why athletes should be employees, but it fails to be useful in application because al other arguments it uses can easily be applied to any number of volunteer or extracurricular activity performed at a university (for example marching band, mock trial, club teams, etc.) It makes people uncomfortable to admit that if we accept college athletes as “employees” with this arguments then the rest of college extracurricular must also follow if they meet the criteria, which they assuredly to do. But to say they don’t count, means that we are back to excluding athletes as employees at universities. But we don’t want that because it feels inequitable for them to bring as much money as they do and not see a cut of it. So what do we do?
We need to acknowledge, legally via an exception to antitrust laws, that college athletics is singular and unique and, especially college football, should be treated separately from other athletic endeavors. Why? College football’s current structure is inequitable to the athletes because (1) it does draw in as much money as it does and the value of their labor is not always fully reflected by the value of educational assistance received, and (2) college athletics functions defacto as the semipro level of football between the NFL age mandates and lack of a secondary entity to the BVAA structure (this is the caveat to player not being forced to play or accept collegiate offers.) College football current status as the de facto minor league is not the fault of the NCAA. The NCAA only ever intended to continue operating under the model it has always operated under, but with the growth and promotion of college athletics the NCAA unintentionally found itself in this role. I think there is value in the NCAA model, I think it should remain unchanged for most part with a few key exceptions, and I think removing the model will result in thousands of student athletes losing the opportunity to receive an education via an athletic scholarship. The only solution is to get Congress involved so you can start treating the sport as it is, a singular exception to the rest of college athletics.
I would like to see rules that set up the NCAA as the chief organizer of the sport with clear control over the postseason format and clear rules for entry to compete in the postseason. I would like to see the collective media rights of schools bargained to the networks and a portion of that set aside in trust for the athletes. That won’t happen without congressional approval as you would need legislation to undo NCAA vs. Board of Regents of Oklahoma.
/
NRLB: Student Athletes are Employees
