PL Commissioner Jenn Heppel /House Subcommittee on NIL

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Any insight/thoughts on today's proceedings? The NIL, pay-for-play, student vs employee "situation" is rapidly approaching the defining moment. This will likely extend well beyond athletics by testing the entire concept of non-profit education when it's all said and done. School work is just that, work, it requires quantifiable labor hours....

[Professor Chaos]

Over/under on responses to this thread after this one before somebody doesn't realize this is on the FCS Discussion board not the Political Board???

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Over/under on responses to this thread after this one before somebody doesn't realize this is on the FCS Discussion board not the Political Board???

It needs to be noted that the thread was started by a longtime non-registered voter....lol.

I am specifically looking at it from a PL institutional mission/ideology standpoint as well as the overall merit of these proceedings from a college athletic standpoint in terms of the student-athlete vs employee concept legally. Not here for the political banter that can obviously fester when the word "House" is interjected into the conversation.

[FUBeAR]

A couple of relevant Tweets, 1 with video & info showing that the Student Athlete vs. Student Employee is already ‘settled science’ under the current administration’s Department of Labor (FUBeAR is aware in which forum this thread resides).
https://twitter.com/sidelines_sn/status/1641123847565983757
https://twitter.com/dansteenkamer/status/1641141407090868225
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/student-athletes-employees-ncaa.aspx
NLRB Pushes for Student-Athletes to Become Employees
In December 2022, the NLRB filed charges against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the Pac-12 Conference and the University of Southern California, alleging they are joint employers that interfered with employees' rights by misclassifying them as student-athletes and by maintaining unlawful rules and policies in their handbooks.

The NCAA's bylaws prohibit schools from offering wages to student-athletes and prohibit student-athletes from accepting wages.

NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo in 2021, stating that student-athletes should be classified as employees and gain the statutory rights of employees, including the right to unionize and receive workers' compensation for work-related injuries.

(https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-general-counsel-jennifer-abruzzo-issues-memo-on-employee-status-of)https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-general-counsel-jennifer-abruzzo-issues-memo-on-employee-status-of

The memo argued that colleges control players' terms and conditions of employment, such as the number of practice and competition hours, scholarship eligibility, limits on compensation, minimum GPA, and restrictions on gifts and benefits athletes may accept. Colleges also control the "manner and means of the players' work on the field and various facets of the players' daily lives to ensure compliance with NCAA rules," the memo stated. Student-athletes' time commitments include team practices, conditioning, strategy discussions, review of game film and meetings with coaches.

[caribbeanhen]

What do the majority of the student athletes say about it? I would think the overwhelming majority just want to play ball like always

[Professor Chaos]

I think if you decided to classify student-athletes as employees you can just take the student part out of it. They're purely athletes at that point. No reason for them to go to classes if they're paid employees of the school they play for.

I'd assume most smaller schools (FCS level and below) would probably come up with some type of contract for their "employee athletes" that involves tuition assistance but no or very little actual cash (so the same as scholarships) but this will truly make the big college athletics the semi-pro (or fully pro) sponsored sports that the cynics have said they've been for years.

[ElCid]

Didn't we already have a thread on this? I've stated this before, but if the current powers that be push this, college athletics as we knew it are over. I could have predicted the PL response. Many colleges that are barely hanging on financially will simply cut organized sports and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of STUDENT athletes will ultimately be harmed as a result. The uninformed do not realize the monetary cost tail that an employee has. Insurance, mandatory training (unrelated to sports), social security, workman's comp, etc. But the real impact will come when the giving by alumni dries up. Who wants to give money to their school so some professional can get paid? Maybe a few, but not the legions currently. Do people give money now so the janitors, as school employees can perform their job or have nice janitorial facilities.

People give because they have school spirit, they have pride, they want to help student athletes. In other words, the reasons are the intangibles of the traditional, current situation. Make the student athletes employees and all those reasons go away.

And here is a point to ponder, if a student athlete must be labeled an employee, why not a member of the band? School bands perform at various events like parades, concerts, special events, etc. While they might not bring in as much money, if they bring in any, or have the potential to, why wouldn't they also have to be considered employees. Are we to quibble over the degree or is the concept somehow different because of the amounts involved? What about research done by students? There are probably lots of examples where any number of activities done by students should be just as deserving, using this new employee push. Or are they simply ALL part of the student experience, and not an employee experience.

We all know why this is happening. But since nobody is saying it, I will. There is money to be made. Big schools, where athletics makes big money via TV contracts, etc, are the target. Whether it is frustrated former or current athletes who feel they are owed something and want to cash in, or most likely either opportunistic sports managers who want to manage college athletes, for a cut, or ultimately those wanting to create a union for college athletes, ... they are all after the money involved. Like for the pros, they want to be able to negotiate high dollar contracts and suck as much money as they can from colleges. Nothing wrong with that, but they will ultimately destroy their source. I wouldn't even put it past the powers that be at the big colleges, currently making big bucks, to somehow support this to get rid of some competition in the weeds. They will survive and thrive. What do they care about athletics at Podunk U? They will simply gather up the crumbs left over (athletes, fans, etc) from Podunk U terminating it's sports programs.

How have we gotten ourselves in this situation? Not legally, since you can come up with an legal interpretation you desire, or that you can buy. But how as a society have we discounted the educational aspect for the extracurricular just because of the money involved. Very few schools actually make money from athletics. These new concepts, solely designed to go after the gold mine of the very few schools who have major league bucks coming in, will destroy student athletes at the smaller and poorer schools who outnumber them 10 to 1, or more. Because if it applies to Clemson, Michigan, or Alabama, it applies to every single college no matter how small. And if it somehow doesn't apply across the board, just because of the amount of money involved, as a legal principle, it's a farce.

It's a sad day.

[Professor Chaos]

Didn't we already have a thread on this? I've stated this before, but if the current powers that be push this, college athletics as we knew it are over. I could have predicted the PL response. Many colleges that are barely hanging on financially will simply cut organized sports and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of STUDENT athletes will ultimately be harmed as a result. The uninformed do not realize the monetary cost tail that an employee has. Insurance, mandatory training (unrelated to sports), social security, workman's comp, etc. But the real impact will come when the giving by alumni dries up. Who wants to give money to their school so some professional can get paid? Maybe a few, but not the legions currently. Do people give money now so the janitors, as school employees can perform their job or have nice janitorial facilities.

People give because they have school spirit, they have pride, they want to help student athletes. In other words, the reasons are the intangibles of the traditional, current situation. Make the student athletes employees and all those reasons go away.

And here is a point to ponder, if a student athlete must be labeled an employee, why not a member of the band? School bands perform at various events like parades, concerts, special events, etc. While they might not bring in as much money, if they bring in any, or have the potential to, why wouldn't they also have to be considered employees. Are we to quibble over the degree or is the concept somehow different because of the amounts involved? What about research done by students? There are probably lots of examples where any number of activities done by students should be just as deserving, using this new employee push. Or are they simply ALL part of the student experience, and not an employee experience.

We all know why this is happening. But since nobody is saying it, I will. There is money to be made. Big schools, where athletics makes big money via TV contracts, etc, are the target. Whether it is frustrated former or current athletes who feel they are owed something and want to cash in, or most likely either opportunistic sports managers who want to manage college athletes, for a cut, or ultimately those wanting to create a union for college athletes, ... they are all after the money involved. Like for the pros, they want to be able to negotiate high dollar contracts and suck as much money as they can from colleges. Nothing wrong with that, but they will ultimately destroy their source. I wouldn't even put it past the powers that be at the big colleges, currently making big bucks, to somehow support this to get rid of some competition in the weeds. They will survive and thrive. What do they care about athletics at Podunk U? They will simply gather up the crumbs left over (athletes, fans, etc) from Podunk U terminating it's sports programs.

How have we gotten ourselves in this situation? Not legally, since you can come up with an legal interpretation you desire, or that you can buy. But how as a society have we discounted the educational aspect for the extracurricular just because of the money involved. Very few schools actually make money from athletics. These new concepts, solely designed to go after the gold mine of the very few schools who have major league bucks coming in, will destroy student athletes at the smaller and poorer schools who outnumber them 10 to 1, or more. Because if it applies to Clemson, Michigan, or Alabama, it applies to every single college no matter how small. And if it somehow doesn't apply across the board, just because of the amount of money involved, as a legal principle, it's a farce.

It's a sad day.
Great post! There's so many unintended consequences that would result from this. I'd also add that how many thousands (maybe even millions) student-athletes got a college education who otherwise never would have without athletic scholarships? How many US Olympic champions never would've progressed as far in their non-revenue sport without college athletics?

[Professor Chaos]

What do the majority of the student athletes say about it? I would think the overwhelming majority just want to play ball like always
Agree but the majority of college athletes don't participate in revenue sports at the big schools and that's who would be the main benefactors here. Like ElCid said just follow the money to figure out why these changes are being proposed.

[Go...gate]

Holy Cripes.....

[ngineer]

Yep. The overwhelming percentage of athletes at PL schools are not there looking to be "playing on Sundays" as their reason for attending their schools. Athletics is viewed as part of the curriculum. The entire PL model was to underscore the student part of "student-athlete". I am sure there will be no "employee" recognition.

[bonarae]

Wow. IFF (if and only if) the PL and other similar schools/leagues dissolve their athletic programs, will the Ivy League be left with no choice but to adapt? xdontknowx

[DFW HOYA]

"Adapt" might as well be a four letter word inside the Ivy Group.

[JacksFan40]

The vast majority of college athletes are there for the education while still being able to continue play the sport they love and get to represent their school. Only a select few are there because they have a genuine shot at playing on Sundays or play in the NBA, and they don't value the education they're receiving. I would prefer if we had a developmental league for football players who only care about making the NFL, and allow them to get paid. Problem is that unless the NFL does this it'll never happen because it won't be profitable. College football is popular because of the brand, not because of the players. Nobody watches Alabama to see Bryce Young, USC to see Caleb Williams, Ohio State to see Marvin Harrison Jr etc. they watch because they want to watch brand names like Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma etc. or because they want to cheer on their alma mater/childhood team.

[ElCid]

The vast majority of college athletes are there for the education while still being able to continue play the sport they love and get to represent their school. Only a select few are there because they have a genuine shot at playing on Sundays or play in the NBA, and they don't value the education they're receiving. I would prefer if we had a developmental league for football players who only care about making the NFL, and allow them to get paid. Problem is that unless the NFL does this it'll never happen because it won't be profitable. College football is popular because of the brand, not because of the players. Nobody watches Alabama to see Bryce Young, USC to see Caleb Williams, Ohio State to see Marvin Harrison Jr etc. they watch because they want to watch brand names like Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma etc. or because they want to cheer on their alma mater/childhood team.

Nailed it.

[kdinva]

The vast majority of college athletes are there for the education while still being able to continue play the sport they love and get to represent their school. Only a select few are there because they have a genuine shot at playing on Sundays or play in the NBA, and they don't value the education they're receiving. I would prefer if we had a developmental league for football players who only care about making the NFL, and allow them to get paid. Problem is that unless the NFL does this it'll never happen because it won't be profitable. College football is popular because of the brand, not because of the players. Nobody watches Alabama to see Bryce Young, USC to see Caleb Williams, Ohio State to see Marvin Harrison Jr etc. they watch because they want to watch brand names like Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma etc. or because they want to cheer on their alma mater/childhood team.

This....

[Go...gate]

The vast majority of college athletes are there for the education while still being able to continue play the sport they love and get to represent their school. Only a select few are there because they have a genuine shot at playing on Sundays or play in the NBA, and they don't value the education they're receiving. I would prefer if we had a developmental league for football players who only care about making the NFL, and allow them to get paid. Problem is that unless the NFL does this it'll never happen because it won't be profitable. College football is popular because of the brand, not because of the players. Nobody watches Alabama to see Bryce Young, USC to see Caleb Williams, Ohio State to see Marvin Harrison Jr etc. they watch because they want to watch brand names like Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma etc. or because they want to cheer on their alma mater/childhood team.

Right on.

[ngineer]

The vast majority of college athletes are there for the education while still being able to continue play the sport they love and get to represent their school. Only a select few are there because they have a genuine shot at playing on Sundays or play in the NBA, and they don't value the education they're receiving. I would prefer if we had a developmental league for football players who only care about making the NFL, and allow them to get paid. Problem is that unless the NFL does this it'll never happen because it won't be profitable. College football is popular because of the brand, not because of the players. Nobody watches Alabama to see Bryce Young, USC to see Caleb Williams, Ohio State to see Marvin Harrison Jr etc. they watch because they want to watch brand names like Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma etc. or because they want to cheer on their alma mater/childhood team.

Fully agree. NFL should be required to create 'minor league' just like MLB has. Currently no option for high school football players who want to focus on getting to the NFL. They have to go to college even though there is little interest in the education.

[ElCid]

Fully agree. NFL should be required to create 'minor league' just like MLB has. Currently no option for high school football players who want to focus on getting to the NFL. They have to go to college even though there is little interest in the education.

Interest point, but have you considered that the college football industry has no interest in such a set up? They would be on the short end of the stick. Like baseball, where colleges lose a bunch of undergrads to the minors, football would also suffer.

It might solve some issues, but I fear it would create others, like colleges having multiple holes to fill every year created from those undergrad players wanting to get started as early as possible, with more pay than NIL in 'most" cases. We've seen occasional flashes of this already without having a minor league. It "may" simply turn college football into a JV endeavor. Time would tell.

[ngineer]

Interest point, but have you considered that the college football industry has no interest in such a set up? They would be on the short end of the stick. Like baseball, where colleges lose a bunch of undergrads to the minors, football would also suffer.

It might solve some issues, but I fear it would create others, like colleges having multiple holes to fill every year created from those undergrad players wanting to get started as early as possible, with more pay than NIL in 'most" cases. We've seen occasional flashes of this already without having a minor league. It "may" simply turn college football into a JV endeavor. Time would tell.

Yes, I am sure to 'industrial part of college football" has no interest. They are making too much money. 'Losing a bunch of undergrads to the minors' is what should happen. Then college football...becomes college football.

[DFW HOYA]

Yes, I am sure to 'industrial part of college football" has no interest. They are making too much money. 'Losing a bunch of undergrads to the minors' is what should happen. Then college football...becomes college football.

But that won't happen. The power of playing for Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, etc. is much more impactful than playing in the de facto minor leagues of the XFL and USFL.