Labor unions and NCAA athlete compensation

Unions

There are a few different benefits that college players might receive from joining the union. The first is that they would see increased bargaining power with the universities. This means that they might have improved access to the revenue that is generated by college football -- with bargaining power they can use that revenue as leverage for better wages. At present, these football players really do not have any meaningful bargaining power. The second benefit that they players might well receive is worker protections. The key shift in this ruling is not the ability to organize but the recognition that the players are employees. As an organized union, these football players will have the ability to influence their conditions of employment, in particular with respect to safety. Football is a dangerous game, and joining a union might give the players better ability to bargain their working conditions to improve safety, something in which they have essentially no voice right now.

There are definitely drawbacks as well to unionization. The first is that the ruling only applies to one single school, so players joining a union at Northwestern might find that this affects their ability to play -- the school could drop its football program as not financially viable, or it could get kicked out of the NCAA. In either case, the union is a threat to the existence of the program. The second drawback at this point is that the students might see their pay or benefits cut. If they join the union, the school might be forced to cut all scholarships, since those are the "pay." That would mean they could still play football, but without the benefit of a scholarship.

2.

If the NLRB ruling stands, it might not have much implication because it is limited to one school, but if the ruling not only stands but is extended to all private schools, it could certainly put the entire college sports system at risk. There is a tremendous amount of money to be made on college football, but that is only the case to the extent that costs are lower than revenues. If costs are going to rise substantially, then the programs might be at risk. College athletics usually has scholarships for a lot of athletes in sports that are not profitable, so those programs are more likely than football to be cut entirely. College athletics could be gutted as the result of this ruling. This is mostly a negative outcome, though for a handful of football and basketball players improved collective bargaining is likely to give them a better deal.

3.

If I was a member of the football team, I probably would not join the union. I feel that this would change the dynamic with management. I understand that I have the right to join a union and certainly to bargain for better compensation and working conditions. However, I also realize that by dramatically altering the dynamics of college athletics, I might not only see my own career end abruptly but I would also be ending the opportunities for other student-athletes whose programs are not profitable. I also realize that backing the university into a corner on this one could mean that all scholarships are eliminated, thereby making me not an employee, but also putting me on the hook for my tuition costs -- maybe I can't afford those.