This is going to be one huge problem.
First, the obvious issues with Title IX. What this does is essentially eliminate football from the calculation of title IX, since they are no longer scholar athletes, but entertainers provided for the fans by the university. The University is therefore not required to "balance" the system by providing equal access to females - equal access only applies to scholarships.
Second, how will the NCAA allow this to move forward - what are the rules? If they have a salary cap, then a school like Cal could go ahead an pay it's players $60,000 per year, same as USC. The difference is, at Cal, you can actually make 25 grand a year after expenses with that kind of salary. So the lower cost, public schools would have an advantage. If they only allow a scholarship in the amount of the actual tuition, then the benefit would also be to the State schools, since the student athlete would not have to pay the income tax on the much higher amount of benefit.
Since they are employees, they now would have to be subject to overtime rules, travel restrictions, workers comp, employer liability, etc. Huge costs issues for the employer, now borne by the University.
Since the NLRB says that football athletes who requested this review are employees, the logical conclusion is that all athletes are employees. The University would be required to offer Workers comp, pay payroll taxes, etc for all employees, and the employees would have to pay income tax on that revenue. The value of the scholarships for all athletes are now taxable income to them, and need to be taxed. Since most of these folks would have no ability to actually pay the tax unless the total cash given is much more than the actual value of the scholarship, then there would be a huge problem.
Also, since these are now employees, and the athletic department is clearly a entertainment enterprise, and not part of an educational system, it seems likely that the non-profit status of the enterprise is the next thing to fall. Any donations would likely be not deductible as this would not be a non-profit under the law.
In short, they are saying that student athletes are employees.
So for any student athlete who does not get full scholarships, but is working 30 to 40 hours per week on their craft, and is not getting paid minimum wage (and, now also required to be covered under the university health policy, thanks to Obamacare which defines full time as 30 hours) then they should be agitating for minimum wage benefits. That would be for all athletes, under the idea that they are working for the University as athletes. Football is not the only place where you find athletes.
This is essentially the end of college athletics as we know it.
But here is the fun part. My son who plays High school football, and works about 15 hours per week on the craft year round - why does he not qualify for minimum wage and workers compensation? The coach is not a teacher at the school - it is a private institution - just like at Northwestern. There is little in the way of academic tutoring, etc related to the football program. Does this extend to high school kids as well - meaning that they are employees also? I think it does. If the NLRB says that college football players are employees then any football player is an employee. If they say that football players are employees then any athlete is an employee. I think he should demand a minimum wage.
I can hardly wait for all of the law suit requesting back pay, time off for breaks, etc.
This will kill athletics.
