According to an amicus brief filed with the National Labor Relations Board on Friday, the biggest professional sports organizations in the United States are supporting a move to define school athletes as workers. The AFL-CIO sports government claims that the NCAA “gives up the spirit” of sportsmanship by offering a money settlement, and that unions should guide college athletes.
The government represents the NFLPA, MLBPA, WNBA, NWSLPA, MLSPA and additional associations who are throwing their mass behind the 15 Major Green people. According to Employer regional director Laura Sacks, those people were employees under the terms of the NLA Act in February. They voted to unionize with SEIU Local 560 a fortnight later, with a margin of 13 votes.
The 30-page small makes a number of claims in support of the Dartmouth College sports union force, claiming that union picture should be standard as money is poured into university sports, this time toward the athletes.

The NLRB is weighing whether to give Dartmouth College’s ask to review Baskets ‘ purchase. According to Sacks, the Big Green players provided a service of value in exchange for thought, which was in accordance with the relevant legal standard of work. The NCAA filed an amicus brief on Thursday, claiming that Dartmouth participants ‘ unionization and jobs would “destabilize school sports, undermine knowledge, and threaten the very life” of some sports programs.
The pro-players ‘ unions vehemently disagree and present three compelling arguments.
Second, they stress that the work is not the only factor in the success of college sports because it has grown into a sizable business. The organizations claim that school sports would be the second-largest professional league in the world after the NFL, citing a number of data points, including multibillion dollar Screen offers and revenues that have increased by hundreds of percent over the past few years.
The unions point out that conferences no longer seemed to care about strained relationships or the detrimental effects of long travel on students ‘ scientific progress. Otherwise, the driving power is maximizing “ever growing internet arrangements”.
The Big Ten, which was once made up of Upper Midwest institutions, is now a part of the organizations, which travels from Seattle to New Jersey while the” also quaintly named Atlantic Coast Conference” extends from the Bay Area to Miami, according to the unions. Conferences and member schools, the brief asserts, are simply engaged in a “naked cash grab” that does n’t care about higher education goals or students ‘ learning. It’s all about business and money.
The unions also contend that romanticized depictions of school sports have been made less offensive by the NCAA. The NCAA intends to live three competitive cases ( House v. NCAA, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA ) by adopting a give- for- play model with salary caps, revenue- sharing and other professional league characteristics. Schools would receive up to 22 % of sports income from advertising rights, ticket sales, and sponsoring, and participating schools would be required to pay the participants a salary cap of$ 21.75 million. ” Sportsmen like the Dartmouth basketball players”, the small claims, “are not gamers” when they, like other D1 sports, could be paid to play sports.
In the brief, the proposed settlement receives a lot of attention. The unions contend it corroborates U. S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in NCAA v. Alston ( 2021 ). On the premise that their product is defined by refusing to pay their employees a fair market rate, Kavanaugh famously argued that college athletes generate “billions of dollars in revenue for colleges for every year.”

The unions claim that when they agreed to direct pay, the NCAA and power conferences” saw” the writing on the wall.
The NCAA and its member schools have for a long time agreed that college athletes must be compensated for their hard work in order for colleges to continue earning billions from college sports, even though the House settlement still calls for court approval, according to the unions. ” Mentioning that unions represent food service workers, janitors, broadcast crews, hotel workers and other occupations connected to sports, the unions that college players must” have a say “in” who gets paid and how much.”
Second, the unions assert that because their college counterparts perform the same basic “work,” “it should n’t come as a surprise” that Dartmouth players want to bargain over employment issues.
The unions argue a bargaining relationship makes sense since, with colleges directly paying athletes going forward, questions regarding” what form of compensation, how much, and for whom “have become paramount. They add that college sports do n’t typically pay well for compensation. College athletes already receive game tickets, equipment, apparel and other items of value. They’ll soon be paid money, too.
Health and safety, the unions write, should also be bargained since” sport is a one hundred percent injury occupation. They emphasize the agreement between professional athletes to be members of joint committees to study player health and safety.
Scheduling is also highlighted as a value of bargaining. The pro players ‘ unions contend that the NCAA’s claims that employment negotiations would undermine academic achievement are false.
” Personal scheduling issues are particularly important to college basketball players,” the brief contends”, given the demanding time pressures of Division I basketball, which players must balance with academic responsibilities. A union for college players could bargain for language that forbids coaches from putting on indirect pressure on the athletes while they are supposed to be their own during times that are n’t their own. ” Athletes, in other words, could use collective bargaining to protect their studies from their coaches.
Third, the unions contend that the role that unions play in professional sports is undermined by fears that employment and unions will decimate college sports. Pro leagues and owners benefit from union-negotiated employment agreements, which have significantly reduced legal controversies in leagues and promoted the value of labor stability cherished by fans and business partners.
The unions claim that owners and players have bargained terms of employment, leading to that point. The NFL, MLB, and NBA are the three most valuable sports leagues in the world,” the unions note, while adding” From 2009- 2023, the North American sports market—comprised of gate receipts, sponsorship, media rights, and merchandising—grew from$ 48.7 billion to$ 83.1 billion.”
Some industry insiders predicted doom and gloom when Curt Flood and other influential members of the sports labor movement pushed for free agency and athletes ‘ rights. According to Walter Alston, a former Los Angeles Dodgers manager, baseball is dead if a player is declared a free agent. Bowie Kuhn, a former MLB commissioner, is also mentioned as incorrectly predicting that some teams might fold as a result of free agency. The unions note that fandom increased, not decreased, and owners became even richer as franchise values soared.
What many consider to be a chaotic and unregulated landscape is being treated to by the unions as a cure for college sports.
The unions note that” collaborative bargaining in the unionized sports has managed to give players freedom of movement and access to a competitive marketplace for their services, but only after the end of a specifically negotiated “reserve period,” during which teams hold the exclusive right to a player’s services,” the unions observe.”
While Dartmouth basketball might not be a favorite of pros, players from NBA and other leagues have teamed up with the Big Green. On Capitol Hill, they also have a shot across the bow in their brief. It’s obvious that organized labor and powerful sports unions will warn them of this before they cast their ballots as Congress considers a bill to outlaw college athletes ‘ employment.