EDITOR’S NOTE: This article initially appeared in Sports Business Journal. Constangy represents the National Collegiate Athletic Association in Johnson v. NCAA, where student athletes allege they should be considered employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state analogs.
In a February 2024 decision, a National Labor Relations Board Regional Director held that Dartmouth College men’s basketball players were “employees” for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act and entitled to unionize. In March 2024, the team voted 13-2 to form a union, the same day that Dartmouth appealed the decision. There has been much commentary on what this means for college sports. A more level-headed approach is needed.
Case status
A final determination on this case is likely to be years away. With the team’s season over, the issue is slightly less pressing. The ball is in the court of the players’ designated representative, the Service Employees International Union, Local 560, which has no history of sports-related negotiations. It must demand that Dartmouth negotiate the terms and conditions of the players’ “employment,” as required by the NLRA. Dartmouth has announced that it will not recognize or negotiate with the union, which will force the union to file unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB.
An administrative law judge would adjudicate the unfair labor practice charges, the decision would then be appealed to the NLRB, and the unsuccessful party could seek review by a U.S. Court of Appeal.
The NLRB’s current review of the Regional Director decision saying that the players are “employees” may take some time. Its decision in Northwestern, where it declined to exercise jurisdiction over the school’s football student athletes, took 16 months. If the NLRB affirms the Dartmouth Regional Director decision, it would compel Dartmouth to bargain or face an unfair labor practice charge, a process that may already be under way by then.
Scope of the decision
Although the NCAA has 1,101 member institutions across three Divisions, this decision is likely to affect only a few of them. The focus is on the 352 Division I members, but a significant majority of them are either public institutions or private schools with religious affiliations. The public schools are outside the scope of the NLRA, and the NLRB held in a 2020 case that it had no jurisdiction over faculty at religious institutions. If that decision is extended to student athletes, it would leave only a few dozen private non-sectarian colleges over which the NLRB has jurisdiction – and only a handful of those have big-time college football and basketball programs.
Possible ramifications
Despite the uncertainty, let’s assume that the Dartmouth decision, combined with the various other litigation pending against the NCAA and its members, helps usher in a structure whereby Division I student-athletes are considered employees under federal and state laws. What then?
- Wages and taxes. Based on the value of some deals for using student-athlete name, image and likeness, or “NIL,” a few elite student-athletes could possibly demand salaries of several hundred thousand to more than a million dollars. However, the majority would be likely to receive the minimum wage or just above, like other student workers on college campuses. Further, the decision was based partly on the finding that Dartmouth’s men’s basketball players received compensation in the form of gear and equipment, apparel, tickets, travel, lodging, meals, academic support, counseling, facilities, medical treatment and coaching. Based on this reasoning, Division I student athletes may already be receiving more than $100,000 in in-kind, taxable “compensation,” placing them in the 22 percent tax bracket – meaning they would pay approximately $22,000 a year to play college sports.
- Soul searching. Colleges are evaluating the role of athletics within their academic mission and where they want to be when the dust settles. The largest would be expected to bid competitively for student athletes’ services. Other Division I tiers may reduce their involvement in athletics, including by cutting some sports, reducing them to club status and loosening their control over student athletes, which might relieve them of an employer-employee designation.
- Division division. The president of the NCAA has already proposed a new Division I tier where schools could compensate student athletes for using their NIL. Classifying student athletes as employees would accelerate this bifurcation between the haves and have-nots, or the “want to” and “don’t want to.”
- Non-statutory labor exemption. Decades of litigation between professional sports leagues and players helped establish that restraints agreed upon by competitors in a labor market (in other words, teams) are exempt from antitrust scrutiny so long as they are negotiated with a union. This tension is the underpinning of American professional sports operations and the use of salary caps, drafts, and free agency restrictions, among other rules. The NCAA and its members are facing numerous antitrust challenges concerning their collective rules restricting compensation for student athletes. Although the exemption cannot resolve past issues, it can immunize any restrictions moving forward if negotiated with the student athletes.
- Reduced expenditures. Although competition for elite head coaches may be too fierce to result in decreased compensation, colleges would be likely to spend less on assistant coaches, administrators, and facilities to offset compensation to student athletes.
- Title IX. Title IX requires that female and male student athletes receive athletic scholarship dollars proportional to their participation, and equal treatment regarding facilities, equipment and other administrative services. Schools must continue to comply with Title IX, even if student athletes are designated as employees. But with employee status, the analysis would shift to the anti-discrimination laws that apply in the employment context, such as Title VII. Additionally, Title IX requires schools to provide “equal athletic opportunity” to both sexes, sometimes requiring that they be treated unequally to expand athletic opportunities for women and correct past disparities. But it is not clear that this can easily be reconciled with Title VII. If not, schools could be placed in an impossible bind that may be avoided only by eliminating some sports.
The Dartmouth decision is undoubtedly an important one. But it is just one piece in a larger puzzle concerning the direction of college athletics. It is important to fully and fairly understand the possible implications of any future changes.
- Senior Counsel
Chris is an attorney with more than thirteen years of experience at law firms, in-house, and in academia, with extensive expertise in sports, litigation, and labor and employment. He represents and advises employers with respect to ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010