Northwestern players get union vote

[wayneflorida 0]

Make the players pay taxes on their scholarships.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize

[lawrocket 3]

wayneflorida

Make the players pay taxes on their scholarships.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize

"I'd like to start you, kid. You'd be a starter. But seniority rules, and so you'll be in the press box today."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

lawrocket

***
Make the players pay taxes on their scholarships.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize

"I'd like to start you, kid. You'd be a starter. But seniority rules, and so you'll be in the press box today."

I think the anti-trust suit against the NCAA will be very interesting to follow. This is just the start.

And the players wouldn't mind paying taxes on their scholarships, but they aren't allowed to earn more than $2,000 a year. That would be against NCAA regulations.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

And the players wouldn't mind paying taxes on their scholarships, but they aren't allowed to earn more than $2,000 a year. That would be against NCAA regulations.

I'm quite sure that most players would not want to pay taxes, and may not be able to afford to pay those taxes - particularly all of the ones at private schools. I'm guessing you're presuming that the salary would be higher than the cost of school, but it's unlikely that it would play out that way. A small portion of the Div I schools could do so, and even then, figure the QB gets a lot more than the place kicker.

It would only serve to increase the wealth divide between the haves and haves nots in the football world, hurting the sport and ultimately lowering the number of young men that get to go to college.

The NCAA could solve this problem with a very minor easing of the limits on stipends for expenses or work options during the off season.

[quade 3]

wayneflorida

Make the players pay taxes on their scholarships.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize

DAMNED UNIONS!

Well congratulations on having your jobs outsourced to some 3rd world country.

Idiots!


(do I really need to use the sarcastifont?)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

I'm quite sure that most players would not want to pay taxes, and may not be able to afford to pay those taxes

If there wasn't a limit on how much they could earn, they would provided a salary by the university, which would cover their tuition as well as taxes paid (and then some for the best players)

College Footbal is big business, yet the majority of those employed do not get paid. As a matter of fact, they are prohibited from earning a wage. This is almost textbook reasoning as to why anti-trust laws are in existence.

I am surprised it has taken this long for an anti-trust suit to come forward.

Quote

The NCAA could solve this problem with a very minor easing of the limits on stipends for expenses or work options during the off season.

No it wouldn't.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

I'm quite sure that most players would not want to pay taxes, and may not be able to afford to pay those taxes

If there wasn't a limit on how much they could earn, they would provided a salary by the university, which would cover their tuition as well as taxes paid (and then some for the best players)

Again, you're badly mistaken on how many would be paid that extra. Few athletic departments maintain an balanced budget, and not all football programs generate profits for the other non revenue sports. And you're completely ignoring the Title IX implications that would come from this.

[lawrocket 3]

I agree that the NCAA is little more than an anti-competitive cartel. And I actually don't think it has anti-trust exemption. I also think that anything that smacks down the NCAA will be good for college sports and either put the "student" back in "student athlete" or simply force the admission of the de facto status as professional athlete.

And good for everyone except the NCAA.

I DO, however, think that unionization will cause some pretty significant problems. And those will result from the infighting among unions.

What about the true student athletes? The ones like my brother who walked on and played without a scholarship? They are, by the apparent nature of this ruling, not eligible for union protection. This will create a stratification in the locker room - a true example of the "haves" and "have nots." Think about it - the unions can't make money off of non-scholarship players. They can only get a cut of the compensation given to the scholarship players.

Meaning that the ones who took out loans to pay for school now will be the lowest in power. Attempts will be made for them to get representation, and the unions will fight with each other.

The unions, no doubt, see the amount of money the NCAA is making. And they want a piece of it. I can't see a long-term win for anybody with union involvement.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Again, you're badly mistaken on how many would be paid that extra. Few athletic departments maintain an balanced budget, and not all football programs generate profits for the other non revenue sports.

Yup, the wrestlers and volleyball players will suffer.

But many college players in "popular" sports are de-facto professional players.

Whether or not you think I am badly mistaken, you are going to see massive changes in College Sports and NCAA in the next couple of years.

And Jerry, I agree that unionization is not the right answer. It is just a sign that the "volunteers" want a slice of the pie.

[kelpdiver 2]

lawrocket

What about the true student athletes? The ones like my brother who walked on and played without a scholarship? They are, by the apparent nature of this ruling, not eligible for union protection. This will create a stratification in the locker room - a true example of the "haves" and "have nots."

Isn't that already the case, though?

Quote

The unions, no doubt, see the amount of money the NCAA is making. And they want a piece of it. I can't see a long-term win for anybody with union involvement.

I think the players would also be motivated by issues with transfer rules, with NFL draft restrictions, and around appeals process for suspensions.