Notre Dame's next move?

[Ara64]

Father Jenkin's and Jack Swarbrick have repeatedly stated that ND would not accept the paid athlete model at ND. The NLR ruled that private FBS universities must pay their football players and give them broader rights. Read it for yourself and share your thoughts.

"The top lawyer at the National Labor Relations Board issued an official opinion this week that players at all 17 private colleges in the FBS are employees of their schools. It is a significant expansion of a 2014 ruling by NLRB regional director Peter S. Ohr that Northwestern football players are employees. Delivered in a memorandum to the NLRB's regional directors, the new ruling's specific provisions, its language and its possible ramifications raise questions and issues for players, coaches and administrators:....."

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/...ootball-players-private-fbs-schools-employees

 

[tkirish]

The ruling is very simple yet it could have enormous ramifications. Stating that players are "employees" is like opening pandor's box. There is so many things it could mean down the road. I don't like it. For one , schools like ND place education above winning in sports. They believe in the " student athlete" concept. And it is no coincidence that the word " student " comes first. Many other schools recruit "athlete only" players. I'm not going to go on a rant. We all know college sports, football in particular, have become a big business. So I guess the players want their piece of the pie. I can't say I blame them. But as a lifelong college football fan, i believe it will ruin the sport if players are paid like employees. Just think of all the issues that could arise. It would no longer be Dean and student, rather employer and employee. Just ponder that and think of everything that comes with that. Again, I don't like the decision.

 

[Toby Smart]

Does this apply to schollie athletes only? Walk- ons? Student managers? Will elite basketball and football players earn the same as a Fencing star? Will they now have to deduct Social Security, Federal, state, and county taxes from their potential paychecks? How can Fresno State afford to pay what Alabama will pay their athletes? That can bring on a bidding war between schools come recruiting time. And then we are talking unions. SEIU type union. Hardcore. Unions aren't free. Whoever decides this is good hopefully thought it out.

 

[Howard Hall 74]

How's the IRS going to tax a tangible financial benefit? For everyone, including every athlete on scholarship, regardless of sex, or a sport, or more importantly even if for just academic scholarship. All are now given financial benefits. Tangible, trade-able benefits. Up to 50-60+K per year. So what will there tax bracket be? This is going to be fun to watch. So Alabama and/or an a Ohio State really has an advantage. How does ESPN report this? Will the parents of the students be responsible to pay their kids taxes too? Ouy...

 

[Walruzz]

This opinion today just levels the playing field. Other schools have been paying their athletes for years....

 

[bizzybecknd]

This opinion today just levels the playing field. Other schools have been paying their athletes for years....

I disagree.. As mentioned above, not all schools financial means are the same and the priorities of each are also different. This will only widen the gap and would have a massive negative effect on ND's football program.

 

[beachcardinal]

Father Jenkin's and Jack Swarbrick have repeatedly stated that ND would not accept the paid athlete model at ND. The NLR ruled that private FBS universities must pay their football players and give them broader rights. Read it for yourself and share your thoughts.

"The top lawyer at the National Labor Relations Board issued an official opinion this week that players at all 17 private colleges in the FBS are employees of their schools. It is a significant expansion of a 2014 ruling by NLRB regional director Peter S. Ohr that Northwestern football players are employees. Delivered in a memorandum to the NLRB's regional directors, the new ruling's specific provisions, its language and its possible ramifications raise questions and issues for players, coaches and administrators:....."

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/...ootball-players-private-fbs-schools-employees

It doesn't say they must be paid. They are already compensated by there rides. It says they can collectively bargain for payments.

 

[Nocalirish]

It doesnt say how much they have to be paid. Scholarships, room & board, books and equipment all have value. The decision just means the players may negotiate as a group. The school can set the wages paid to the above values. The NCAA still limits what compensation can be paid over and above the value of a scholarship and room & board etc. Now however work comp laws would apply to players.

 

[beachcardinal]

It doesnt say how much they have to be paid. Scholarships, room & board, books and equipment all have value. The decision just means the players may negotiate as a group. The school can set the wages paid to the above values. The NCAA still limits what compensation can be paid over and above the value of a scholarship and room & board etc. Now however work comp laws would apply to players.

This is true and better said than my post.

 

[TheDecker]

It doesnt say how much they have to be paid. Scholarships, room & board, books and equipment all have value. The decision just means the players may negotiate as a group. The school can set the wages paid to the above values. The NCAA still limits what compensation can be paid over and above the value of a scholarship and room & board etc. Now however work comp laws would apply to players.

I agree with whoever expressed "income tax" concerns stemming out of the employment relationship.

It will be interesting to see how much of employment law actually gets applied to student athlets and how quickly it does.

There are some parts they would love (collective bargaining) but some parts they may live to regret (taxes, "At Will" employment, etc.)

 

[NDskins]

Aren't they paid a stipend already on top of the free education, room and board?

 

[Walruzz]

I disagree.. As mentioned above, not all schools financial means are the same and the priorities of each are also different. This will only widen the gap and would have a massive negative effect on ND's football program.

Definition of sarcasm

1. 1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
   
   
2. 2a : a mode of satirical witdepending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individualb : the use or language of sarcasm
   

 

[tkirish]

heres a thought. If the players are to be paid as employees, do boosters and other donors still buy those same players gifts and give them money? Oh that's right, that stuff doesn't happen. All these schhols are honest as the day is long.

 

[chaseball]

ND does close to $100M/year from the football program alone -- and it has played a large part in making the institution one of the most popular in the country. I don't care how tough the talk is from the univ. president or athletic director -- ND football is never going to cease to exist so long as college football exists.

I really hope things continue to go in this route for 2 reasons:

1. Football players have such a short window of opportunity to earn on their very lucrative talents and they've been exploited for too long.

and

2. ND would be able to level the playing field in a hurry due to their prodigious wealth (both endowment and football generated revenue).

Next time a 5 star athlete is considering some poor competitor or a public college, ND can pull out their theoretical checkbook and make them an offer they can't refuse.

In most pro sports, the best prospects get some kind of signing bonus. I can see the scholarship model staying virtually the same but with an additional signing bonus based on the desirability of the athlete out of HS.

Why this would work:

1. It would wipe out most of the corruption in college football brought on from not being able to openly compensate young stars for their contributions.

2. It would eliminate all of the time waste, and silly sales tactics coaches are forced to engage in: sending out endless mail, blowing up recruits phones all day, spamming them on social media, superfluous travel, etc. etc. etc.

3. It would keep star players in college longer: "Why leave a year early for the NFL? I'm already a millionaire, and only a couple semesters away from graduation."

 

[chaseball]

Does this apply to schollie athletes only? Walk- ons? Student managers? Will elite basketball and football players earn the same as a Fencing star? Will they now have to deduct Social Security, Federal, state, and county taxes from their potential paychecks? How can Fresno State afford to pay what Alabama will pay their athletes? That can bring on a bidding war between schools come recruiting time. And then we are talking unions. SEIU type union. Hardcore. Unions aren't free. Whoever decides this is good hopefully thought it out.

"hey don't pay me for my labor -- the idea of paying taxes is too burdening" says nobody, ever.

 

[MTIrish98]

I'm not a lawyer, but a legal opinion is different than a ruling. I believe this will ultimately be tested in court -- probably the supreme court -- and will be done in such a manner that it impacts all NCAA institutions, not just private ones.

If this held up, could you imagine if ND and USC could pay their players like $100,000 per year, but no one else could? Crazy to think of the possibilities... And YES, I know ND would never do that.

 

[DillonDomer]

Would students sign a four year contract or could schools cut players every year? As a paid athlete could schools trade players? How about cutting players, and then they lose the extra tutoring and probably won't be able to make the grades?

 

[Howard Hall 74]

I agree with whoever expressed "income tax" concerns stemming out of the employment relationship.

It will be interesting to see how much of employment law actually gets applied to student athlets and how quickly it does.

There are some parts they would love (collective bargaining) but some parts they may live to regret (taxes, "At Will" employment, etc.)

Everyone who receives a "scholarship" now is given a tangible financial asset (similar to receiving a gift of money, Lottery, or winning a boat on a game show). If it's 60K per year in value, they could/will be taxed as a financial benefit of 60K and they then would be compelled to pay tax on the 60K. Are the State schools scholarship's classified differently? That's the implication (so you can go to a State school and not be taxed while being forced to pay a tax at a private school). How about that scholarship someone receives for the band? That too? Why not, it's a financial benefit. How about someone who lacks the financial capability of coming here, are they not taxed for the benefit? In other words, you will have to pay the government to receive a scholarship that currently we do not have to pay. To those who say, the government would never do that? Really? Someday in the future...? When the government debt is $30,000,000,000,000.00?

 

[MTIrish98]

This article explains the lawyer's intent a little better IMO. It would be Pandora's box if one of the 17 schools decided to follow the opinion.

http://www.onefootdown.com/2017/2/4...fbs-players-at-private-colleges-are-employees

 

[TheDecker]

"hey don't pay me for my labor -- the idea of paying taxes is too burdening" says nobody, ever.

Actually, it's a lot more common than you think.

The issue tends to come up often when "payment" isn't a cash influx that the government is taking a cut of, but rather a "lump sum" good that would require the earner to pay a percentage of its value "out of pocket"

Think of real estate inheritance issues, windfall taxes, etc.

 

[Toby Smart]

"hey don't pay me for my labor -- the idea of paying taxes is too burdening" says nobody, ever.

I'm not convinced that many of these athletes know the difference between Gross and Net income, so yes, the tax deductions just might be a shock. No, it won't stop them from signing with the highest bidder (FSU, Bama, OSU, Michigan, USC) but they will get an immediate teaching moment on income and taxes. Add in the forth coming union dues, and bing bam boom. Welcome to the real world. Of course, this is all conjecture of coming events.

 

[47WimanND]

Football in general is in trouble for a variety of reasons.

Primary among these is the concussion issue. Just too many very big very fast athletes flying around to really mitigate these. All the helmets in the world are not going to stop the brain from slamming into the inside of the skull.

Assuming football can survive without becoming flag football, the money in the game is going to destroy college football. There are only a relatively small number of schools that would be able to "pay" their players and in order to keep the number of programs we have now, the NFL would have to step in to subsidize the schools. Then I think you are going to see a divide between schools that will accept being NFL minor league programs and schools that effectively want to become Ivy League club programs. As Cyndi Lauper so eloquently put it "money changes everything".

 

[Bodizephax]

Can we now offer huge salarys to 5 star recruits ? That would be Great !! Roll Irish !!

 

[IRISHJD98]

The student-athlete principle and the amateurism principle are not the same thing.When the NCAA first started allowing scholarships to be granted on the basis of athletic ability back in the very olden days, scholarships had to be guaranteed for four years and could not be contingent on participating in athletics - so even if players quit playing football or violated team rules, their scholarship remained in tact. That prevented schools from treating scholarships as compensation for participating in athletics and meaningful attempt to preserve the principle of "amateurism" in college sports.

If the NCAA and its members really wanted to, they could do some restructuring that prevented schools from treating scholarships as compensation and restore the principle of amateurism. But schools want scholarships to come with lots of athletically related conditions. And the NCAA really doesn't give student-athletes an effective way of having concerns met. Instead, athletes rely on the whim and benevolence of the school. As schools exercise more and more control, that's a problem.

I'm just not sure collective bargaining is the solution. For the most part, I see a lot of practical problems that players would have in trying to negotiate better deals. Players will be in an out of eligibility every 4-5 years, so teams are regularly replacing 20-25% of their players every year. What's the average lifespan of any coaching staff? I think most players - who have a lot of their plate - will want to use their free time to drink and chase girls and do other stupid crap instead of trying to hold together a collective bargaining unit for a bunch of guys that might be pretty satisfied with the deal they have. Plus, the remedies for unfair labor practices really aren't designed to be effective in this sort of scenario..

But if the players form a recognized bargaining unit, Notre Dame will collectively bargain with players. The $400 Million crossroads project is centered around the football stadium. The administration cares about and has an interest in continuing the football program. IMO, the potential for collective bargaining doesn't necessarily mean any major changes are on the horizon.

 

[Toby Smart]

"Money Changes Everything" by The Brains (`1978). Cyndi Lauper 1984. I'm sure it was said over the course of human history hundreds of times before Ms Lauper mentioned it. I like The Brains version much better.

 

[chaseball]

...they will get an immediate teaching moment on income and taxes. Add in the forth coming union dues, and bing bam boom. Welcome to the real world. Of course, this is all conjecture of coming events.

Pretty much any football program associated with a P5 conference is extremely wealthy right now. They are making $50-$100+ M / year with nearly free labor, and have been doing so since the ESPN/BCS modern era (early 2000s).

The athletes with rare enough talent to get recruited by teams in the P5 are going to have no problem paying union dues and taxes while finally being able to get wealthy as well.

 

[47WimanND]

Pretty much any football program associated with a P5 conference is extremely wealthy right now. They are making $50-$100+ M / year with nearly free labor, and have been doing so since the ESPN/BCS modern era (early 2000s).

The athletes with rare enough talent to get recruited by teams in the P5 are going to have no problem paying union dues and taxes while finally being able to get wealthy as well.

But don't you think that this is only going to separate football from the academics. A school like ND is never going to just accept athletes that want to get paid for playing football. If we think ND recruiting is hard now, it will become impossible if this is the future.

 

[chaseball]

But don't you think that this is only going to separate football from the academics. A school like ND is never going to just accept athletes that want to get paid for playing football. If we think ND recruiting is hard now, it will become impossible if this is the future.

NDs football program is a business worth over a billion dollars at this point. Do you really think they are going to let it wither away simply because they have to share some of the extreme amount of wealth they make with their athletes?

 

[TheDecker]

Pretty much any football program associated with a P5 conference is extremely wealthy right now. They are making $50-$100+ M / year with nearly free labor, and have been doing so since the ESPN/BCS modern era (early 2000s).

The athletes with rare enough talent to get recruited by teams in the P5 are going to have no problem paying union dues and taxes while finally being able to get wealthy as well.

In fact, it could work just the opposite way.

The NCAA still bars student-athletes from being paid, beyond a "full cost of attendance" scholarship.
This is regardless of whether a student is an employee or just an athlete.

What this could ultimately change is removing the "tax exempt: education benefit" status from that the athletes are receiving into a very, very taxable $70K/year salary.

I could absolutely see this rule actually taking money away from athletes that are "employees" of private schools, in that the athletes will now have to pay a 30% tax on the benefit they're receiving in compensation for their employment services.....but the athletes will still be barred by the NCAA from actually receiving any additional income to offset the 30% lost.

As long as the NCAA is around, college athlete won't be using their "skills" to get rich, and this ruling could actually start taking what little they already have away from them

 

[TheDecker]

NDs football program is a business worth over a billion dollars at this point. Do you really think they are going to let it wither away simply because they have to share some of the extreme amount of wealth they make with their athletes?

ND's AD has made it clear that they're not going to have student-athletes as "employees" instead of students. He has specifically stated that if the NCAA moves in this direction then ND will move in the direction of the Ivy League.

Given the leanings of the AD, BOT, and tenured professors at ND.....I actually believe that a pretty substantial force ND would try that if a "pay for play" scheme open up fully

But this ruling won't "share the wealth" with the athletes. Just the opposite. The "student athlete employees" are still bound by the rules of the NCAA and thus cannot receive any benefits beyond a "full cost of attendance" scholarship.

This ruling is perfectly poised to simply take $$$ away from private school athletes.

 

[Irish 54]

Aren't they paid a stipend already on top of the free education, room and board?

Yes

 

[Granite45]

Pretty much any football program associated with a P5 conference is extremely wealthy right now. They are making $50-$100+ M / year with nearly free labor, and have been doing so since the ESPN/BCS modern era (early 2000s).
l.

Many reports state that 80% of P5 programs lose money even with the high revenues; no profit for most schools.

 

[chaseball]

Many reports state that 80% of P5 programs lose money even with the high revenues; no profit for most schools.

Football is EXTREMELY profitable ... it's the schools' athletic departments as a whole that are not profitable because football money is being used to fund every other sport on campus.

 

[chaseball]

ND's AD has made it clear that they're not going to have student-athletes as "employees" instead of students. He has specifically stated that if the NCAA moves in this direction then ND will move in the direction of the Ivy League.

As long as the NCAA is around, college athlete won't be using their "skills" to get rich, and this ruling could actually start taking what little they already have away from them

It's naive to think that ND football would cease to exist or go the way of ivy if they have to start sharing a larger piece of the pie with their athletes. There's simply way too much money to be made, and way too much money on the line. And the NCAA will be forced to amend their rules for the schools affected by any new labor laws or risk losing their governance over college athletics.

 

[TheDecker]

It's naive to think that ND football would cease to exist or go the way of ivy if they have to start sharing a larger piece of the pie with their athletes. There's simply way too much money to be made, and way too much money on the line. And the NCAA will be forced to amend their rules for the schools affected by any new labor laws or risk losing their governance over college athletics.

Right now there is no "sharing a larger piece of the pie" with athletes, its very clearly barred by NCAA, no matter whether or not the athletes (or schools) consider the themselves empoyees.

The only thing being an employee really changes for these athletes is how much of their scholarship they get to pay to the federal, state, and local governments
(all told, it could easily be near 40%)

And no, the NCAA has absolutely no incentive to switch to a "semi-free-market" system for compensating players, ala the NFL.

For that to happen a league completely unrelated to schools would need to grow and out compete the NCAA, so that the organization would not have to compete with both the NFL and it's own member schools, local and federal governments (who fund and regulate all public school financial activities), plus the NFL itself.

The NCAA will literally never change that rule. It may eventually die because of that...but it's not changing.

All this would do is make private school kids pay a very, very sizeable portion of the value of their scholarship to varying government agencies.

Do you think that possibility will get the kids excited???

 

[MTIrish98]

It's naive to think that ND football would cease to exist or go the way of ivy if they have to start sharing a larger piece of the pie with their athletes. There's simply way too much money to be made, and way too much money on the line. And the NCAA will be forced to amend their rules for the schools affected by any new labor laws or risk losing their governance over college athletics.

It is not that they can't, it is that they won't. ND wants their athletes to experience what all ND students experience.

As an alumnus, I don't want them to start paying athletes just so I can brag at the water cooler on Monday morning. Their endowment and profits can go to much better purposes than the Saturday afternoon entertainment package. I don't even want them to behave how the 'Bama and OSU programs do now (grey shirting, etc.).

 

[Granite45]

Football is EXTREMELY profitable ... it's the schools' athletic departments as a whole that are not profitable because football money is being used to fund every other sport on campus.

You may be correct; not interested in chasing down the various reports for details. Still, not sure you can consider football in a vacuum. Schools, and certainly ND, are not going to disband all other teams to keep football alone so the profitability of the entire athletic department becomes important when it comes to issues like paying players. Doubtful schools will pay only football players and refuse the players on other teams.

 

[TheDecker]

You may be correct; not interested in chasing down the various reports for details. Still, not sure you can consider football in a vacuum. Schools, and certainly ND, are not going to disband all other teams to keep football alone so the profitability of the entire athletic department becomes important when it comes to issues like paying players. Doubtful schools will pay only football players and refuse the players on other teams.

They're legally barred from doing that right now.

They would need the US Congress to change the equal-treatment laws that apply to student-athletes in order for them to pay some and not others
(or even offer differing amount to different athletes)

Being an employee doesn't help you at all, when the NCAA and US Congress have your "industry" so tied in regulation that there is no opportunity for you to increase your "salary"

 

[chaseball]

What about keeping the scholarship + full campus cost model in tact and offering a signing bonus to the most in demand recruits out of HS? (no conventional salary)

 

[TheDecker]

What about keeping the scholarship + full campus cost model in tact and offering a signing bonus to the most in demand recruits out of HS? (no conventional salary)

Wouldn't matter for the issue of tax at all.
(and in fact could actually make it worse)

Income tax isn't based on whether you call something a "salary" or not, for the most part. On a really simple level it's based on benefits provided in return for employment services.
(there are tons and tons of "carve-outs" and other eccentricities though, like pre-tax deductions, etc.)

Where a "signing bonus" could actually end up burning recruits worse than a salary would is that "bonus income" is automatically taxed at the highest tax bracket rate (at least that's the short version)

EX:
If the total cost of attendance scholarship came to $70k, that benefit would be taxed at the same benefit at a $70k salary would. Let's just call 30%.
But if the players received some kind of signing bonus, $30k, that bonus would be taxed at the highest bracket rate. Let's just call that 45%.
So if the player had just received the whole amount as a salary (still clearly in violation of NCAA rules, whether or not the athlete is considered an employee) they would "only" pay $30k in taxes. But with the signing bonus model, they would pay almost $35k in taxes

So basically, making it a signing bonus would just cost the athlete about $5k more in taxes
(with the imagine/estimated numbers)




But the real issue would still remain....any athlete (employee or not) that recieves any compensation (salary, signing bonus, or other wise) for their sports performance, or related activities....is in direct violation of the core NCAA rule and is ineligible

The "private school athletes could be employees" ruling doesn't do anything to alter this core rule of the NCAA, so it doesn't do anything to alter the earning potential of athletes while their in college

It just opens them up to a world of employment law, which does include collective bargaining (where this all started) but it also includes taxes




What you want changed is the core montra of the NCAA (and multiple US Federal laws) allowing football players to share more directly in the revenues they help athletic departments to generate
(being an employee doesn't really do anything to forward that goal....at least as far as I can see)