When SCOTUS declares college athletes "employees," will that fix the problem with CFB?

Would create more issues. You’d end up with a CBA and it doesn’t keep outside brokers from paying NIL money. It would only make the schools have to pay salaries and benefits. Then you’d have the issue of women’s tennis players not making as much as a heisman winning QB. And what about the one and done MBB players?

It’s a mess. College football players who want to get paid should go play in the XFL/USFL. NBA should be able to draft out of high school. And kids in college should be amateur athletes and if they get paid the penalty should be severe. That’s how you fix it.

quote:

---

The USC case moving through the federal court system and will almost certainly end up at SCOTUS, which could well conclude college athletes are employees.

---

Why would they conclude that? On what basis do they consider themselves employees vs other scholarship students? I don't know the particulars of the case so there may be something there I am not aware of.

quote:

---

If that does happen, you'll likely see a lot of college sports shuttered (because Title IX will now be prohibitively expensive)

---

Would title IX apply to employees?

quote:

---

schools can sign employment contracts with student-athletes such that "commitments" will actually be "commitments."

---

A simple employment contract doesn't prohibit you from changing jobs.

quote:

---

Also, non-competes will almost certainly be in those contracts, which would be conference directed.

---

I doubt that would happen much and not having them will make some schools more attractive. California, Colorado, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Minnesota have fully banned non-compete clauses so if schools start to do that it will be a significant boost to USC and OU in recruiting players who don't want those restrictions.

So if athletes are made employees, they're no longer STUDENT athletes playing sport in exchange for scholarship. Will they even be required to go to classes anymore?


Further if they're now employees playing for compensation rather than in exchange for scholarship, wouldn't covering tuition be a taxable benefit capped at the $5,250 like any other tuition reimbursement? Seems like the greed in football is going to screw other athletes who actually are playing to cover tuition.

That will depend on what Big College Football does with that ruling. If they introduce CBAs with contracts tying athletes to schools, eliminating the transfer portal as well as the need for NIL collectives, I think it will go a long way to fixing some of the chaos that has resulted from recent SCOTUS rulings.

One thing is for sure, however, the NCAA is not going to lead the reform. The conferences are going to have to get together and figure this shite out.

quote:

---

When SCOTUS declares college athletes "employees," will that fix the problem with CFB?

---

Nope.

And frankly, SCOTUS fricked up the first time it made a decision on the matter.

quote:

---

Would this help solve some of the current problems?

---

No. It’ll lead to more fan apathy and less interest and lower attendance.

Those things may be inevitable anyway.

It’s beyond any legislation or law because CFB obsession is so engrave in our culture. When people stop giving too much a shite over it, it will change. But that won’t happen because you’re asking people to stop being people.

quote:

---

Would this help solve some of the current problems?

---

That depends on what side of Title IX you fall on. Because if this happens, most universities will stop subsidizing sports who come in at a loss. Title IX protections would immediately be gone.

No - the big problem is that some players are walk ons and some schools don't do athletic scholarships. That makes it hard to apply the same standard across the board.

If I'm at LSU on a football scholarship, then I have to play football to keep my scholarship. Quit the team and I have to start paying tuition.

But if I'm TOPS and walk on to the team, I can quit the team and still have TOPS. It was purely an extracurricular activity.

You also have Division III where there are no scholarships, so you can leave the team at any point with no financial consequences.

Or you could have a kid from Palo Alto with a low enough family income to qualify for a tuition waiver. Kid got in based on being a good athlete but they classified him as a need based waiver so they wouldn't have to burn a scholly. He quits the team but they have to let him stay.

It'll still be a cluster.

NCAA might have to drop the 6/8 rule because the 12 non revenue sports will become actual money going out the door, as opposed to an opportunity cost (not collecting tuition).

If they are employees do they still have 5 years to play 4 or can they play for as long as they want? If you are an employee I’m not sure how you can say “you can only work here for 5 years”