College sports ‘ employing schools will have three options as they move closer to becoming recognized as unionized people: embrace, resist, or cut.
Emrace refers to the school’s acceptance of the new reality and the negotiation of job terms with its students. Although this is not already the world in which those schools are located, it might do so in a few years.
Dartmouth men’s basketball players are considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act, according to a new directive from Board local director Laura Sacks. Mar. The people may decide whether Service Employees International Union Local 560 represents them as a union at the age of five. Dartmouth will probably file a petition to impound or table the vote taking effect until the school’s predicted board appeal is decided, according to Sportico. The U.S. Supreme Court, successive appeals to the court, and the appeal process could all be postponed until 2025, 2026, or 2027, respectively. Similar to this, it may take many years for the NLRB to continue evaluating whether USC football players, as well as men and women, are considered people.

Since the hiring of players at public universities is governed by state legislation, including laws that forbid or restrict opportunities for people workers to organize, there is an additional layer of complexity. It’s possible that those events for community school athletes and the NCAA could be considered the athletes ‘ joint employers under the NLRA, allowing them to deal and organise with their event and NCAA.
Under a distinct federal statute, the Fair Labor Standards Act, college athletes could also be considered people. The participants in Johnson v. NCAA, which is already before the Third Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, want that result. If the people win, they will be required to pay at least the minimum wage and overtime pay in accordance with how individuals are employed by their institutions through work-study. Additionally, universities would deserve backpay to both current and former athletes.
Before the Supreme Court sharply rebuked long-standing NCAA arguments on behalf of amateurism in NCAA v. Alston ( 2021 ) and before NIL, two other federal appeals courts—the Seventh and Ninth Circuits—rejected college athlete FLSA cases.
There is still a lot to figure out in this complex condition. However, it’s likely that some college athletes will organise and finally be accepted as employees of their institutions.
Schools will be concerned about the possibility of paying undergraduate athletes. They’ll assert that they ca n’t afford to hire hundreds of new employees and are already losing money on athletics. Colleges may be required to pay wages, health care, retirement contributions, workers ‘ compensation insurance, and various employer taxes depending on the type of athletes ‘ employment.

For institutions, the timing is perfect. Due to declining baby prices, the number of college athletes in the United States is expected to” reduce drastically starting in 2025 and lasting until 2037.” Colleges will receive less money from tuition ( as well as from meal plans, housing, and student taxes, etc. ) as a result of lower overall admissions. Unless they charge students and their parents more. As colleges prepare for fewer students, faculty and staff selecting is anticipated to significantly slow at some universities.
Higher education is not a good time right now, particularly given the possibility of rising labor charges.
Some colleges may be better able to manage paying workers who are collegiate athletes. Even though those schools assert that they are losing money on athletics, they would personally acknowledge that shield profit/loss calculations do not fully account for the revolutionary effect that sports can have on enrollment and fundraising. Some grads donate to their class out of loyalty to and team support. Some high school students choose their school in part based on how well-known its athletic program is and how much of a sense of community it fosters.
Additionally, it’s important to think about why schools “lose” cash on sports. Some employers pay mentors and athletic managers well. People spend money modernizing athletic services. Less money would likely be available if coaches were paid less and features were maintained.
Even though college athletes becoming employees is occasionally portrayed as a scary or exotic idea, colleges are also used to hiring students through work-study ( some of whom are on scholarships ) and even collective bargaining with them. Comprehensive plans on student work have been adopted by many colleges, covering issues like tax ramifications and international students ‘ employment eligibility. Some universities are also familiar with student work agreements; Dartmouth, for instance, negotiates with a federation for dining service students.
As a result, some schools may use athletes and acknowledge reality. It’s also feasible, as I suggested in my sports law column final week, for a forward-thinking college president to recognize their athletes as employees before the NLRB and court procedures are complete and properly challenge the NCAA and their school to court for contract violations.
Other colleges, however, will object.
Following labor, an company is required to meet with an owner’s negotiations agent under labor law. The two sides are expected to have open discussions about all aspects of jobs, including pay, vacation time, drug testing, and office security.
A school is aware that if it openly refuses to negotiate, it runs the risk of incurring cruel labor practice fees. However, alternative options include slow-moving negotiations with the athletes ‘ union or providing unfavorable terms. The union had then accuse the academy of refusing to negotiate in good faith, which would start a legal procedure that could last months or longer and potentially result in an impasse ( when both parties consider more agreements to be waste of time and energy ). The players could also go on strike, but those who received sport scholarships might lose them in that scenario.
Some schools may also eliminate or completely discontinue their athletics program, turning collegiate teams into team teams that receive little to no funding from the school. Any actions in that direction was have a wide range of legal repercussions, but by eliminating all plans rather than just some, the institution would be on stronger labor law grounds. While labor law shields employees from limited shutdown ( such as closing one shop in a chain ), it cannot compel companies to keep operating when they are pursuing evictions.
However, a university would need to be able to distinguish between the league team and its varsity ancestor if it switched from collegiate teams to club teams. Simply referring to a team as” club” but treating the people as if they were varsity, especially in terms of managing their time and schedule and encouraging them to prioritize activities over scientists, could lead club people to claim that they are also people.
Title IX, a federal law ensuring that male and female institution individuals are treated equally and pretty, requires schools that eliminate team to do so. Although there are various ways to abide by Title IX, a school that dismisses teams in ways that result in disparities in team money or cooperation by intercourse may violate the law.
Key implications for labor laws are even. Some claim that the Dartmouth men’s basketball team will be eliminated if the people are successful in unionizing. The legislation may advise against doing so quickly. The group’s closing, according to the players, was illegal retaliation for unionization. The school may receive a complaint from the NLRB and be required to maintain the team’s composition. Similar to this, Starbucks was just criticized by the NLRB for closing its locations supposedly due to employee unionization.
Other types of legal consequences are also possible. With educators and the athletic director, a school may have entered into profitable employment agreements. The affected people may file a lawsuit for breach of contract and other reasons if the school tries to terminate those deals. The same issues could arise with school registration, building permits, and contracts that depend on the existence of varsity sports.
A college would need to carefully consider how terminating a team or an overall program would damage its reputation, including that of alumni, donors, and both existing and potential students, in addition to legal considerations. College sports are growing economically because schools think they get a return on their investment in terms of marketing, funding, and membership. Do a school want to stop participating in varsity sports and run the risk of coming off as less impressive—especially now that there will be fewer applicants, as was already mentioned?
These are difficult times for college presidents, and those difficulties will only get worse in the upcoming years due to performer employment and declining enrollment. The quality of management may set the winners apart from the losers, just like in sports.