Which, of course, we all know that nothing could be further from the truth.

See, they are "student athletes" not hired gladiators. Anyway that's what we keep hearing.

That petition had to be thrown out, it would have meant the end of the NCAA and that would be a tragedy, wouldn't it?

How would those poor schools continue to build huge buildings and pay exorbitant administrator (president) salaries?

It only took 100-150 years for greed to take over some pretty good ideas about education. Can't wait for a new Gibbons "Rise and Fall" documenting the raping of society and learning.

when most of them already have a full ride, and when the majority of their peers are assuming crushing debt burdens to finance their educations. Not that I am entirely unsympathetic to the student athletes' grievance, but I would definitely subordinate their demands to the greater problem here; spiraling costs of education thanks to harsh budget cuts and predatory lending practices.

When we have a higher educational system resembling that of Germany or the Nordic countries, then we can talk about unionizing football.

Let's keep our eyes on the ball here.

a pay check currently?

They receive tangible benefits from the school (tuition, room and board) in exchange for playing football. If they get injured, they're fucked. The things the school "gives" them is predicated on their performing work on behalf of the school -- as specified by the school, including which hours they have to work.

Pretty much sounds like the exact definition of employee.

You asked how they could be considered employees without a paycheck. I answered your question.

Eom.

They did have jurisdiction with Northwestern and said those players could not organize. Those don't have jurisdiction with public schools.

"The Board did not determine if the players were statutory employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Instead, the Board exercised its discretion not to assert jurisdiction and dismissed the representation petition filed by the union."

https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-unanimously-decides-decline-jurisdiction-northwestern-case

And yeah they did say since they didn't have jurisdiction over all Big 10 schools, they wouldn't use any at all. But that wasn't what I was responding to. It was the idea that NLRB ruled players were not employees.

Many schools (not sure if all or even most of them) honor the scholarship if you get injured. There was a case this year where a high school senior was signed on, and afterward it was found he had an injury in his senior year and would not be cleared to play at all in college. His four year scholarship was honored even then. Of course he didn't take the offer -- he went and found a college whose doctors would let him play.

Full tuition? Full room and board? A $3,000 per semester meal allowance? A book and supply stipend?

They already get those things. The biggest argument that I have heard for unionizing the athletes is that they would be able to collectively bargain for the right to market themselves, and/or convert their personal affects into income. To generate personal gain off of their athlete status. Now, I actually think they ought to be able to do that, to a reasonable extent (ie, pay taxes, nothing illegal, etc.). However, the key thing is that it's not *just* the University that is prohibiting athletes from these activities. It's the NCAA, the regulatory body ultimately responsible for setting the rules.

So, it's not simply an issue between the athletes and their "employer" (per their argument), which is the University. That is between the athletes and the ultimate regulatory body, the NCAA. The problem is that CBAs are not between labor and regulatory bodies (governmental or quasi-governmental). It's between labor and management ONLY.

Even if the athletes had won their case to unionize, I fail to see how they would succeed in getting the NCAA to change anything. It would be like United Steel Workers trying to bargain with the State Department to permit Keystone XL. Good luck with that.

And I do agree that the issue is with the NCAA, but it is also with the schools. It is the school that "pays" them -- tuition, room and board, etc.

But there is a lot more going on. If they get injured, they lose everything -- everything they get towards an education is gone. If they get seriously injured, they're fucked in terms of healthcare. So, no, it's not just about money.

Basically, they are slaves to the terms the school and the NCAA set. Collective bargaining addresses this inequity. Given the absurd amount of money they generate for the school and the NCAA, it isn't unreasonable to want a union to act on their behalf.

either playing or practicing that they can get to keep most if not all of the education benefits, its only fair after all.

And if the NCAA and the schools weren't being such assholes about it, they wouldn't need one. Clearly they do, regardless of the NLRB ruling.

Without collective bargaining, players have ZERO leverage to get ANY reforms enacted. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

and unless there is a process to appeal this ruling they are just going to have to make do without one.