YAHOO sports
lots of interesting stuff in this article, but not enough detail, really. Danny White states the obvious - Collective Bargaining is the only real solution to college sports' problems - but his plan is for athletes to be employees of some organization other than the Universities. I want to see his slideshow
Other interesting tidbits from the article:
"During a recent football team meeting, one SEC school illustrated the impending decrease in pay, showing players that their expected allocation this coming year (about $14 million) is roughly half of what the school spent on last year’s team (about $27 million)."
So the schools are expecting - and intending - the players to receive less money, at least in the high profile sports. That's where the real friction is here.
And more on those contracts with the schools for revenue sharing. This may be what kills the House Settlement setup. Sounds like some of the contract clauses may be unenforceable:
"As a mechanism to share revenue with athletes and to avoid the appearance of employment, schools are signing players to what universities are terming “marketing” contracts where the school purchases the player’s name, image and likeness (NIL) rights.
White says this is “disingenuous.”
“They aren’t marketing deals,” he continues. “We have to stop pretending that they are not getting compensated for playing for us.”
Michael Leroy, an Illinois law professor who has published extensive work on labor policy, has obtained, through records requests, several contracts schools are offering to athletes. The contracts “read like employee handbooks,” he says, featuring liquidated damages (buyouts) and clauses that grant schools the right to end the deal or stop compensation for a variety of reasons, including for injuries and academic eligibility — hallmarks of employment deals.
And then there's this regarding Collective bargaining:
It’s not clear at this point in time that college athletes want to be in a union,” said Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane. “They may feel they’re getting the benefits they need through antitrust law.”
lots of interesting stuff in this article, but not enough detail, really. Danny White states the obvious - Collective Bargaining is the only real solution to college sports' problems - but his plan is for athletes to be employees of some organization other than the Universities. I want to see his slideshow
Other interesting tidbits from the article:
"During a recent football team meeting, one SEC school illustrated the impending decrease in pay, showing players that their expected allocation this coming year (about $14 million) is roughly half of what the school spent on last year’s team (about $27 million)."
So the schools are expecting - and intending - the players to receive less money, at least in the high profile sports. That's where the real friction is here.
And more on those contracts with the schools for revenue sharing. This may be what kills the House Settlement setup. Sounds like some of the contract clauses may be unenforceable:
"As a mechanism to share revenue with athletes and to avoid the appearance of employment, schools are signing players to what universities are terming “marketing” contracts where the school purchases the player’s name, image and likeness (NIL) rights.
White says this is “disingenuous.”
“They aren’t marketing deals,” he continues. “We have to stop pretending that they are not getting compensated for playing for us.”
Michael Leroy, an Illinois law professor who has published extensive work on labor policy, has obtained, through records requests, several contracts schools are offering to athletes. The contracts “read like employee handbooks,” he says, featuring liquidated damages (buyouts) and clauses that grant schools the right to end the deal or stop compensation for a variety of reasons, including for injuries and academic eligibility — hallmarks of employment deals.
And then there's this regarding Collective bargaining:
It’s not clear at this point in time that college athletes want to be in a union,” said Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane. “They may feel they’re getting the benefits they need through antitrust law.”
