Today the national labor review board determined that college athletes at private D1 schools under scholarship are simply that. Athletes.

They determined that it is a farce by the NCAA to say that they are student-athletes. What, perhaps, most of us have long known the NCAA has kept them as student athletes to strip their rights and take every morsel they can for themselves.

Be mindful that this will not happen overnight, it has already been appealed to the NLRB in its entirety in DC. This will undoubtedly change the landscape of college athletics forever.

Personally, I expect this to be a billion dollar legal case. I see the NCAA throwin everything they can possibly throw to keep things status quo. I do not see the Illinois NLRB ruling being overturned. Legally speaking this is difficult to do.

Things that will undoubtedly change in ten years, in my opinion.

College athletes will get paid in some form and they will receive benefits unseen before.

Title IX will be dead. Football and basketball cover a schools athletic budget. Swimming and soccer do not. Women's sports do worse than their male counterparts. Scholarships are no longer equal as idividual sports will argue their respective worth.

The face of college will change. I would not be surprised to see a massive scaling down of college sports unless professional leagues decide to make an incredible investment.

Major public universities will remain unaffected by this until top athletes go to private schools and they decide we have to remain athletically competitive. To understand why, one needs to understand the difference between private and public institutions and this fancy term call right to work states. Some government term, in my understanding, says public workers can't unionise.
A
I am curious to hear if anyone has thoughts on this.

I think this is a powerful first step and think this is a step that football and basketball athletes should make but will leave most in the cold.

Well, I'd have to look at the details a bit more, but they are asking to unionize... not become salaried employees.

I think this will take a long time to play out.

I could see athletes being paid in ten years, could you not?

Scholarships and insurance aren't forms of payment?

Also, aren't they student-athletes regardless, since they're athletes who study at a college/university? Is this like congress saying Pizza is a vegetable because there's tomato sauce on it?

Why does everything have to be so black and white in the US, I've always struggled with that...

I mean, I get it. If the NCAA makes billions of US dollars a year on this gig, then they should be giving more back to the people bringing in the profits, but it's not just the athletes here. It's the people maintaining the fields, training the athletes, the referees, etc. Most of those workers aren't getting their college paid for, though.

What if an entire team goes on strike? That could have big ramifications there too.

Well Taisho,

I'm glad you brought up American's favorite past-time... The Friday morning when everyone gets up, turns on their TV's and watches the ground crew cut the grass on the football field. Oddly enough, painting lines is the second favorite pastime.

But seriously (the above wasn't serious) without the players there would be no groundskeepers, referees, coaches, etc. All of the above are free to enter into employment contracts of their own free will.

On the other hand, the players are at a distinct disadvantage in bargaining position. If you'd believe the NW QB, he wasn't able to study to become a doctor because of the terms and conditions imposed on him to receive the scholarship and be part of the football team.

And here, there was a distinct black and white issue for the court to decide. Were the players "employees" of the university and thus able to unionize. The black and white answer was yes.

What Boston brought out was a doomsday scenario and opened up discussions. I don't see anyone here being focused on black and white but you.

Finally, I'm sure your leaving out a significant piece to the money pie... depending on the school, I'm sure the only two sports that turn a profit are football and basketball. However, schools likely host a dozen other sports that are money losers, because they are paying for the equipment, other coaches, other student scholarships, etc. I'm sure there is a big balancing act in school's budgets that faces drastic changes in light of the other constraints placed on the schools.

Title IX is here to stay, ensuring equal education opportunities for students of both sexes. Now, schools will have to balance the union demands when balancing their budgets. Too soon to tell how its all going to play out in all of its 50 shades of grey.

I'm glad you brought up American's favorite past-time...

Yes, yes, humor me, but you got my point, right? These workers are just as important as the players, as without the workers the game wouldn't be functional. It's that annoying little thing called socialism. We like to think some piece are more important than others, but all the pieces are needed to make the system work. Some are just easier to replace than others, but like you implied, that isn't the point...

All of the above are free to enter into employment contracts of their own free will.

You make it sound like the student athletes are not? There may be constraints put on them when it comes to sport scholarships, but honestly scholarships are given in exchange for a talent you have that the university wants, not because they have to accept you. I've said it before and I'll repeat it many more times in my life, no doubt, but nothing comes free.

If that student really wants to be a doctor, he'll have to go the hard way. Demanding the right to unionize will just give athletes privilege status over other students (arts and science majors).

So what do I think will happen?

I don't think students who participate in sports can look forward to cash payment anytime soon, but most likely an increase in rights and if they can form unions, no doubt they will. This will create a division though, between athletes and non-athletes, if not now then eventually. This will boil over into new conflicts, like a poorly used delay-card to drag out an inevitable defeat, perhaps?

Edit: Black and white was the decision to make student athletes of D1 colleges simply athletes. They are both or neither, not one or the other. You can't say a coin is only one side and not the other and when someone does you should always be weary of the agenda they're pushing. Stripping them of their student status and calling them athletes will result in other repercussions I imagine.

Edited 3/27/2014 16:12:23