This tale appeared in Sportico’s Morning Lead magazine. Click this link to register and receive it delivered directly to your queue.
The 15 men’s baseball players from Dartmouth College have already made history as the first union college athlete to ever compete in a game.
Now they’re trying to make sure their employer does n’t rewrite the history books.
Next Thursday, the Service Employees International Union, Local 560—the work firm that represents the players—filed a 54- site reaction to Dartmouth College’s demand for review of NLRB Regional Director Laura Sacks ‘ Feb. 5 decision. Baskets set up a coalition election and ordered the players to be recognized as people under the National Labor Relations Act.

The coalition presses the NLRB to reject the plea through a group of lawyers including Susan Davis and Jake Krupski.
Since Dartmouth claims the players are amateur student athletes, not employees, it should n’t surprise them to request a review, which amounts to an appeal. Sacks determined that Dartmouth has the authority to oversee the athletes ‘ job and that they are compensated for it.
Although Dartmouth and another Ivy League players do not get athletic scholarships, the Big Green people online other types of payment. Baskets reasoned that per diem obligations, foods, room and board, expensive shoes and priority admittance to the one of the world’s most selective schools ( which also fully pays an admitted person’s need for financial aid ) count as payment.
In its short, the coalition emphasizes the NLRB granting Dartmouth’s demand, let alone reversing Baskets, is no dunk.
Under labour laws, the standard of evaluation is high: The table should only give a ask when there” compelling reasons” and either the regional chairman decided a substantial factual problem that is” clearly erroneous” and such a mistake “prejudicially affects” Dartmouth’s rights or a” substantial question of law or policy is raised” because the regional director’s decision departs from NLRB precedent.
Dartmouth, in other words, has to clear two bars to win at the NLRB. The school must persuade the board to accept the request before supporting it.
The five- member board currently has one vacancy. Three of the four were appointed by Democratic presidents, including former MLBPA chair Lauren McFerran and former MLBPA general counsel David Prouty, while President Donald Trump appointed Marvin Kaplan. Dartmouth needs an affirmative vote ( 4- 0 or 3- 1 ) for the request to move forward. Last month, the board ruled against Dartmouth, 3- 1, on whether to stay the union election. Kaplan dissented and described Sacks ‘ decision as “unprecedented”. Additionally, he questioned implicitly whether college athletes who did not receive athletic scholarships qualify. The other three likely did n’t join Kaplan, which suggests that their positions are more in line with the union.

The board’s decision regarding Dartmouth’s request may have a significant impact on how quickly the legal dispute develops. Many months will likely pass before the board decides whether the players are employees if the board accepts the request. In 2014- 15, the board took 16 months to decide whether Northwestern University football players were employees. A similar schedule here would indicate that the board wo n’t make a decision until the summer of 2025.
Of course, a presidential election will be held between now and next summer. If President Joe Biden is re- elected, NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo—a strong advocate for college athletes as employees—would have a good chance of being retained. Alternatively, if Trump wins, he will likely replace Abruzzo, a Democrat, with someone whose views on college athletes might differ. The general counsel’s role in board advice is crucial.
The school would likely immediately begin federal court review if Dartmouth’s request is denied, beginning a legal process that might lead to the U.S. Supreme Court. A denial would shorten the timeline because it would remove the board’s review by perhaps a year or more. Alternatively, if the board grants the review, many months will likely pass before a decision, which could then be challenged in federal court.
Much like Dartmouth’s arguments in its brief to the board, the union’s arguments in its brief cover familiar terrain. The recognition of basketball players as employees, which is the union’s main argument, is an obvious outcome in the U.S. labor market and reflects a correct application of labor law, even though it is historical in a college sports sense.
The union emphasizes that the overarching goal of the NLRA is to promote collective bargaining and that the definition of an employee should be broadly understood, including when university students work. The union acknowledges that the board has n’t “decided the precise question of the employee status of college athletes,” but it insists there is “ample” precedent regarding who qualifies as an employee. The union also repeatedly refers to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in NCAA v. Alston, where Kavanaugh critiqued the lack of “meaningful ability’ for college athletes to negotiate” compensation rules.”
Title IX, according to Dartmouth, is one of the union’s new areas that could serve as a justification for rejecting player classification as employees. The school allegedly refused to address Title IX concerns before Sacks made her ruling, according to the union. Even if the board does consider them, the union asserts, Title IX neither requires” equivalence of funding between men’s and women’s sports “nor” identical benefits, opportunities or treatments. The union contends that” the men’s players ‘ rights to be paid under labor law would not be extinguished” if Title IX mandated that Dartmouth pay players on both the men’s and women’s basketball teams.