The NCAA asked the NLRB for permission to record an amicus brief in support of Dartmouth College on Thursday, arguing that the NLRB’s regional director Laura Sacks ‘ decision to allow Dartmouth College men’s baseball players to play as people under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act will have an “outsized effect” on all” current and future” college sports and” the NCAA account as a whole.
The NLRB is already deciding whether to speak Dartmouth’s elegance, which is technically known as a request for review. As Sportico detailed, the NLRB receiving an appeal—let only siding with Dartmouth—is anything but automated. The board, which currently consists of four members ( three of whom were nominated by Democratic presidents ), only hears an appeal when there are” compelling reasons” and when either the regional director made a decision that is” clearly erroneous” and “prejudiciously affects” rights or” substantial questions of law or policy because the regional director’s decision deviates from NLRB precedent.

The SEIU Local 560 represents the Dartmouth people who have been Dartmouth people since February and have unionized since March. Dartmouth has refused to deal with the coalition, which has a right to discuss players ‘ wages, hours, coverage, health care, disciplinary procedures, assistance services and other necessary subjects of jobs.
If the NLRB accepts the NCAA’s 32- site roman short, the company’s panel will see that, like Dartmouth, the NCAA portrays the “unprecedented” nature of college athletes as employees in a dangerous light.
The NCAA stresses that the NLRB, federal judges, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Congress “have not declared student-athletes to become employees” under the NLRA despite the fact that some U.S. colleges have a lengthy history of employing students ( some of whom form organisations with their institutions ).
The NCAA further asserts that labour relations may be stifled by the reputation of a single group as a bargaining device. The organization points out that in NLRB cases involving professional sports, there were “league-wide negotiations units” rather than just one team.
In the past, the NLRB has found support for this kind of explanation. The NLRB argued a decade ago that because Northwestern University is the only private school in the Big Ten and because the NLRA simply regulates athlete work at public colleges, it would destroy labor relations because Michigan, Ohio, and another Big Ten players are non-employees and would be outside the NLRB’s control.
The NCAA acknowledges that because the Ivy League consists of eight private schools, Dartmouth’s situation is structurally distinct from that of Northwestern. However, the NCAA contends that Dartmouth should be viewed in the context of Division I sports, which include numerous public universities. The NCAA records that Dartmouth basketball played five public universities last season, and that 48 of the 68 schools that participated in the men’s March Madness competition were public.

Should Dartmouth basketball players continue to work, the NCAA also lists what might be a “parade of horribles.” That status, the NCAA contends, would “marginalize the importance of educational programs” and “isolate, rather than integrate student- athletes as fundamental parts of the whole—the student body”.
Expect pushback from the SEIU on these types of assertions.
As noted above, Dartmouth employs and bargains with unionized student workers, and there is no evidence that this arrangement has impeded their progress or alienated them from their classmates. In fact, one dining services employee, Cade Haskins, has been able to juggle his dining services employment, studies and role as a forward on the basketball team. Also, in concluding the players are employees, Sacks notably stressed that Dartmouth ( like other D- I programs ) substantially controls players and places them in a position where athletics are prioritized.
Given that the NCAA hopes to settle three antitrust cases ( House v. NCAA, Carter v. NCAA, and Hubbard v. NCAA ), in part by adopting a pay-for-play model, it finds itself in a difficult position. The settlement, which is not yet finalized and requires approval by U. S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, contemplates colleges, like teams in a pro league, being able to pay athletes in a salary cap and revenue- sharing framework.
The NCAA insists that “has no bearing on this matter, even if Dartmouth men’s basketball players receive NIL pay directly from Dartmouth at some point in the future,” by insisting that entering college athletes into NIL agreements with schools. A school that labels direct pay as “NIL” as opposed to labor compensation might make a strong counterargument, which would likely support this. NIL should be used to prevent college athletes from using their publicity to sway deals and negotiate endorsements. However, NIL has evolved ( or devolved ) into a pay structure to recruit and retain athletes at school, particularly given that many NIL collectives are closely related to schools. As if NIL was meant to be an offer of a signing or retention bonus, it would be.
The NCAA also suggests that the NLRB will have acted in its absence if it discovers college athletes are employees. The NCAA contends that major policy decisions, such as whether college athletes are employees, should be decided by Congress rather than by the agencies unless the agencies can identify clear congressional authority, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2022 ), in which case the Court limited the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. A rebuttal is that the NLRB has long determined whether workers count as employees and, in fact, the agency’s clear expertise, as authorized by federal law, is on that issue.
Should courts eventually decide whether college athletes are employees, the reference to West Virginia v. EPA could prefigure a potential legal debate. Does the NLRB have the authority to determine this?
In the upcoming months, expect many more developments on this subject.
In the interim, the Congress will consider proposed legislation that would exempt college athletes from employee recognition, and the parties involved will file their own lawsuits.
In response to the NCAA’s filing, Local 560 president Chris Peck told Sportico,” The NCAA’s arguments are deeply flawed”. He contends that” this is a straightforward instance of fabricated employment where the Regional Director followed established precedent and used the law as intended.” In response to Beck’s request for review, the NLRB should reject Dartmouth’s appeal for review, while reiterating that collective bargaining provides stability and a tried-and-true solution without the need for additional laws or special legislative exceptions. He hopes Dartmouth will “follow the law” and change course by “accept]ing ] our offer to bargain in good faith”.
( This story has been updated to include Peck’s statement. )