Students? Athletes? Employees?

I reached out to the University of Pennsylvania's Karen Weaver, author of a book to be published by Johns Hopkins University Press tentatively titled “College Presidents and College Athletics: Money, Power, Politics," to ask some questions that have been puzzling me.

Are athletes students or employees? Will there be a big move toward unionization and what will that mean?

Things have changed. The amount of time commitment we demand of athletes in all divisions today far exceeds what leaders understand it to be. The NCAA’s 20-hour-a-week rule is ignored; instead, 40-50 hours a week is more typical. The competitive practice calendar is no longer a few months—it is nearly year-round.

Coaches are also monitoring their athletes' lives via technology (sleeping, eating) 24 hours most days. If you were recruited for a lucrative position and your boss suddenly doubled your work hours and monitored and recorded your personal habits, would you be okay with that?

So, the problem is coaches?

Not so simple. Coaching organizations advocated for more time and engagement with their athletes, allowing them to justify hiring more coaches. Seasons got longer because the facilities today allow for year-round training. Presidents have encouraged the college football playoff and the NCAA to expand the postseason brackets so more teams will make the playoffs (including theirs) and have access to the revenue that follows. It’s a new era that we have to acknowledge.

What should presidents be doing?

Unless Congress intervenes and explicitly says college athletes are a uniquely protected class of Americans, the time has come for presidents to accept that athletes do more for the institution than they have been given reimbursement for. The days of justifying this longstanding issue with “but they get a great education” are over.

Let’s talk about the Dartmouth situation. Does that have any bearing on other kinds of institutions?

The NLRB Regional Director’s ruling in the Dartmouth men’s basketball unionization case relates to a private institution’s control over the athlete’s time and the fact that coaches are paid professionals. Even at the Division III level, coaches guide (tell) their players when to practice, when to show up for the bus, where and when they can eat, what they should eat, when they can visit with their parents on the road, what to post or not post on their social media, and whether they get rest days in a particular window. 

The argument from coaches and athletics director always is, “that’s what the NCAA rule book says we are allowed to do.” That argument no longer works, because it points the finger at the NCAA, too, for acting like an "employer" dictating control over the athlete.

What’s coming?

We have to accept that the legal system is telling us to change. Whether we want to admit it, athletics plays a role on all of our campuses, whether its Division I, II or III. It’s not just about money (and whether we make it or the athletes make it); it’s about control over the athletes by paid, professional coaches. That’s what the regional director of the NLRB has decided is the defining difference here. And I don’t know of a single college athletics program that doesn’t behave that way.

The next shoe to drop may be the NLRB’s investigation into the University of Southern California. As in the Dartmouth case, this is a private school that orchestrates tremendous power and control over its athletes. The case has an added burden of potentially looping in the decimated Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA, opening the door to public universities to be held accountable.

While Dartmouth is appealing the decision, the job for leaders is to prepare for change rather than simply react.

What about this: should athletes that play Division I FBS football and Division I basketball still be considered students?

I think we need to seriously examine this. Many coaches at this level are given almost unlimited authority, salaries of over $5 million+ per year (making them the highest paid employee in nearly every state), and palatial facilities designed to sequester and control athletes for most hours in a day.

Since the lives of these students don’t resemble the daily life of a typical full time undergraduate on campus, what makes us to cling to that designation? Is it because they are currently required to take a full course load? The Alston Supreme Court ruling allows for institutions to provide “unlimited educational benefits.” One could argue it’s an outdated model, consistent with a time when ticket sales funded the program and pre-game pep rallies were the center of a campus experience. Maybe they could be part-time students until their eligibility is complete.

And what about all the money?

Today, football and basketball played at the highest levels looks every bit like a commercial endeavor, one that pays everyone well except the athletes. With the emergence of NIL, we are getting a glimpse of the market value of some of these performers. And like the Screen Actors Guild strike this summer, when the actors aren’t performing, the show doesn't go on. They are an essential part of the athletics enterprise, and it doesn’t work without them.

Are there good solutions?

NCAA President Charlie Baker has proposed a trust fund be created for at least 50 percent of the athletes in a Division I FBS program (balanced equitably between genders) that would begin at $30,000 per year in this new D I subdivision. They are calling it an “enhanced educational trust fund.” At the same time, these schools could add an unlimited additional number of athletic scholarships and coaches.

This trust fund proposal does not address the issue of athletes sharing in the broadcast media revenues generated by contracts with ABC/ESPN, FOX, NBC, CBS, Conference television networks and streaming platforms. If the legal cases argue that athletes deserve a piece of the media revenue pie, there is not yet clarity around whether that would make them employees.

Any good news?

There have been significant gains for athletes already at this elite level: long-term athlete medical care, post-graduate scholarships, NIL, and the transfer portal are already shifting some power to the athlete. Clearly more is on the horizon. That fact may cause this group of schools to break away completely from the rest of the NCAA membership. And that could be a good thing, adding clarity to the mission for the rest of us.

Any other good news?

12.3 million viewers watched Monday night’s women's basketball game between the University of Iowa and LSU. The NFL is actively growing the sport of flag football for women (and providing financial and promotional support). The future is bright for women’s sports.