What will change?
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article initially appeared in the Sports Business Journal. Constangy represents the National Collegiate Athletic Association in Johnson v. NCAA, a case in which student-athletes allege that they should be considered “employees” for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state analogs. The opinions expressed in this article are those of Chris, not of his firm or the NCAA.
Many believe that college athletics is in the process of transitioning to a structure in which at least some student-athletes are considered “employees.” The NCAA and its member institutions are facing a variety of antitrust, labor, and employment actions concerning their restrictions on student-athlete compensation. As of late, those cases are going against the NCAA and the schools. Should that trend continue, and legal and policy changes crystalize, it is important to consider the possible effects on student-athletes.
The following is a list of practical considerations for student-athletes should they become employees of their institutions:
Compensation. The most obvious and significant change for student-athletes is that they would receive compensation. The nature of that compensation is uncertain but would have to comply with federal and state minimum wage and overtime laws. Questions exist whether a scholarship would be considered compensation as well as housing, equipment, clothing, food, nutrition, and other academic and athletic support services typically provided to student-athletes. In the case concerning the men’s basketball players at Dartmouth College, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board considered these items to be compensation. Some elite student-athletes are likely to be able to demand salaries in the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars, but the vast majority would be in line for the minimum wage or something just above it, amounts that might easily be satisfied by a scholarship and the benefits already provided.
Taxes. If we’re talking compensation, we also need to talk taxes. The IRS definition of taxable income is notoriously broad. Should student-athletes be considered employees, a student-athlete’s scholarship and the various other in-kind benefits referenced above might be considered taxable income. Student-athletes would thus be in the position of owing a considerable amount in taxes, even though they did not actually receive any cash income.
Collective bargaining. Student-athletes at private institutions will have the opportunity to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act and bargain collectively with their school-employers. Student-athletes at public institutions will generally have similar rights under state laws. If they do, they will have the opportunity to negotiate the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of their employment. More specifically, they could seek to negotiate the various forms of compensation discussed above. From a practical perspective, they would also need to find or form union staff and counsel to assist them, for a fee of course. Moreover, collective bargaining also brings the possibility of work stoppages, which would be particularly detrimental to student-athletes given their limited time at a school.
NIL Rights. The right of student-athletes to earn money from third parties for the use of their name, image, and likeness (known as “NIL”) has certainly been one of the contributing factors in this potential professionalization process. In response to that change, colleges enacted rules around student-athlete NIL usage, including prohibiting partnerships with certain product categories, such as alcohol or cannabis, or with certain brands that conflict with college sponsors. These restrictions are similar to the restrictions that professional sports leagues and teams impose on their players. This state of affairs is likely to remain. However, there is the possibility that colleges, as a condition of employment or as part of collective bargaining negotiations, would seek to obtain greater control over student-athlete NIL.
Health insurance. The Affordable Care Act requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance to employees who work an average of at least 30 hours per week or 130 hours per month. At least some student-athletes are likely to meet these minimums. Student-athletes, like most employees, would probably be responsible for some portion of the insurance premiums, a subject of potential negotiation. But nevertheless, for at least some population of student-athletes, they could now be sure to have health insurance coverage, whereas they might not have previously.
Workers’ compensation. Adjacent to health insurance benefits are workers’ compensation benefits. Student-athletes injured while practicing or playing would file for workers’ compensation benefits through their appropriate state agencies. Those benefits would cover any lost pay and obligate the school to cover treatment for any health care costs associated with the injury moving forward.
Employer rights. Most of what has been described above is good for student-athletes. But with employment status comes rights for employers. Most significantly, employers have the right to terminate employees so long as doing so doesn’t violate law, contract, or public policy. Student-athletes could theoretically be terminated from the team – and perhaps even the school – for poor athletic performance. Schools could also exert even greater control over student-athletes, including practice schedules and related obligations, further straining the students’ academic pursuits.
The employee-employment relationship is governed by extensive and generally well-established legal rights and obligations. The relationship between student-athletes and their institutions is also deep-rooted and highly regulated. The way in which those relationships interact is at the core of much of the ongoing litigation. The litigants, and the courts adjudicating these cases, should nevertheless be mindful of the potential practical implications of merging these two paradigms.
- 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
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- 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