EXCLUSIVE: College football players are unionizing, and the first chapter will be at Penn State.

Donate To GopherHole

I get how NIL is a largely a farce that skirts Title IX. But straight-up revenue sharing and "better" medical care for only some athletes? This seems like it's likely to end up in courts by the female and/or non-revenue sports players. Or am I just missing something?
 


www.espn.com

Players talking more benefits with Big Ten leaders

Big Ten players and an independent players' association are talking to conference officials about improved benefits and a bigger voice in college football's future.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

from the article
Penn State quarterback Sean Clifford said the conversations with Warren this week have been a positive, collaborative start to giving players a seat at the table in future decisions with the league. He said he and the other players he has spoken with have no intention of creating a union or entering a contentious negotiation with the league at this point.
 



Trojan horse. Run away, fast.


From the link:
“A spokesperson for the Big Ten confirmed the commissioner spoke with players and separately with Jason Stahl, the founder and executive director of the College Football Players Association (CFBPA). Clifford and Stahl met this summer and formed a plan to organize players in the Big Ten to ask the league for improvements in medical care and a share of future revenue.”

Stahl spoke to Warren earlier this week about a trio of initial topics the CFBPA wants to negotiate with the Big Ten:

• A representative on each campus who can advocate for players during medical situations or other disputes. The representative would be hired by the CFBPA and serve an on-site role similar to the player representatives in professional sports unions.
• Funds from the conference to purchase medical insurance policies for former players that would cover the treatment of injuries from their college football careers.
• A to-be-determined percentage of media rights revenue for players.
 

If the P5 schools had been more far-sighted, they should have done this from the start - a revenue-sharing program where athletes receive a small percentage of the revenue that is generated by the program. If they would have gone down this road a few years ago, NIL might have never existed.

that is what NIL is all about. the notion that schools generate lots of revenue from sports, but the athletes - the people who play the games and generate that money - don't see a dime from their efforts.

and the non-revenue sports would have nothing to complain about, because they don't generate revenue, meaning there is no revenue to share.

doing this sooner might have saved the P5 schools from a lot of headaches.
 


Bayfield Gopher said:
Wouldn’t the players have to be employees of the university in order to have bargaining power? If so are they considered as professionals being that they receive payment and bennies?
Click to expand...
It would only make sense that NIL collectives and whoever is paying the athletes are the parties that would provide the benefits. I can't imagine the institution would be involved in any way.
 



NIL is new and working itself out...but, it seems to be directly opposite the concept of a union. I don't see it.
 

forever a gopher said:
I get how NIL is a largely a farce that skirts Title IX. But straight-up revenue sharing and "better" medical care for only some athletes? This seems like it's likely to end up in courts by the female and/or non-revenue sports players. Or am I just missing something?
Click to expand...
Title IX only covers discrimination within educational programs and activities that receive federal funding.

That last bit includes even when private schools have students who apply for and receive federal grants/loans through FAFSA. That's why private schools can't get away from Title IX (nor should they, anyway, in my opinion).


But I believe the current thinking (Dennis Dodd had an article saying this) is that the players could sign a contract directly with the Big Ten conference, which is the level where the TV deals are signed anyway, and get paid by the conference, totaling some percentage of the TV deal.


The Big Ten isn't an educational program and it isn't receiving federal funding. So, it should be immune from Title IX lawsuits. However, anyone can try to argue anything they want in court.
 

The more interesting question, I guess, would be this type of hypothetical scenario:

a group of women's varsity athletes at the U, each of whom "only" receives a full scholarship (including FCOA stipend) and a (relatively) small NIL deal, files a Title IX lawsuit against the school, because football players are receiving $200k per year each from the Big Ten conference plus (much) larger NIL deals.


Is that discrimination by the U?? Like I said, I guess you can try to argue anything.
 

Gophers_4life said:
The more interesting question, I guess, would be this type of hypothetical scenario:

a group of women's varsity athletes at the U, each of whom "only" receives a full scholarship (including FCOA stipend) and a (relatively) small NIL deal, files a Title IX lawsuit against the school, because football players are receiving $200k per year each from the Big Ten conference plus (much) larger NIL deals.


Is that discrimination by the U?? Like I said, I guess you can try to argue anything.
Click to expand...

my answer to that - the B1G Football players are talking about a percentage of revenue from TV rights. football generates more revenue, so a percentage of that number is going to be larger.

the women's athletes may generate some revenue from volleyball, hoops and softball, and they would certainly be free to seek a percentage of those revenues - but it's going to be a smaller number.

think of it as a sales commission. if Fred and Joe both do sales for the same company, but Fred sells twice as much as Joe, Fred is going to get twice as much on commission. If Joe complains, the boss is going to tell him, "If you want to get paid like Fred, then sell as much as Fred."
 



short ornery norwegian said:
my answer to that - the B1G Football players are talking about a percentage of revenue from TV rights. football generates more revenue, so a percentage of that number is going to be larger.

the women's athletes may generate some revenue from volleyball, hoops and softball, and they would certainly be free to seek a percentage of those revenues - but it's going to be a smaller number.

think of it as a sales commission. if Fred and Joe both do sales for the same company, but Fred sells twice as much as Joe, Fred is going to get twice as much on commission. If Joe complains, the boss is going to tell him, "If you want to get paid like Fred, then sell as much as Fred."
Click to expand...

This seems like common sense and fair ^ but equal pay for equal work is a movement out there that doesn’t care about revenue sources or draw. The new equal split of World Cup prize money is an example. I can’t see today’s college students working equal hours content with a scholarship and attendance costs as sole reimbursement. Of course, those scholarships might go away at some schools. Problem solved.
 

Gophers_4life said:
But I believe the current thinking (Dennis Dodd had an article saying this) is that the players could sign a contract directly with the Big Ten conference, which is the level where the TV deals are signed anyway, and get paid by the conference, totaling some percentage of the TV deal.


The Big Ten isn't an educational program and it isn't receiving federal funding. So, it should be immune from Title IX lawsuits. However, anyone can try to argue anything they want in court.
Click to expand...

Fascinating, but it would take a train car (maybe a train) full of lawyers to sort through all the legal implications. AFAIK the NIL laws on the books prohibit players from putting their hands in the same cookie jar as the school. That’s before employment law, Title IX, anti-trust…oh my


.
 
Last edited:

short ornery norwegian said:
my answer to that - the B1G Football players are talking about a percentage of revenue from TV rights. football generates more revenue, so a percentage of that number is going to be larger.

the women's athletes may generate some revenue from volleyball, hoops and softball, and they would certainly be free to seek a percentage of those revenues - but it's going to be a smaller number.

think of it as a sales commission. if Fred and Joe both do sales for the same company, but Fred sells twice as much as Joe, Fred is going to get twice as much on commission. If Joe complains, the boss is going to tell him, "If you want to get paid like Fred, then sell as much as Fred."
Click to expand...
Could it possibly be Fred has some built in advantages?
 

PMWinSTP said:
Could it possibly be Fred has some built in advantages?
Click to expand...
No one is physically preventing any person from being a fan of any women's team, and showing up to watch or tuning it in on TV.

The women's teams just don't draw the same.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
my answer to that - the B1G Football players are talking about a percentage of revenue from TV rights. football generates more revenue, so a percentage of that number is going to be larger.

the women's athletes may generate some revenue from volleyball, hoops and softball, and they would certainly be free to seek a percentage of those revenues - but it's going to be a smaller number.

think of it as a sales commission. if Fred and Joe both do sales for the same company, but Fred sells twice as much as Joe, Fred is going to get twice as much on commission. If Joe complains, the boss is going to tell him, "If you want to get paid like Fred, then sell as much as Fred."
Click to expand...
Agreed, but that didn’t work with womens soccer.
 


With NIL and unionization I guess I'm left with division II and III.
 


PhiloVance said:
With NIL and unionization I guess I'm left with division II and III.
Click to expand...
I'm giving it a few more years to see how it plays out but I won't be shocked if I give up on college football and just focus on the Vikings eventually.
 

Word said:
Not really.
Click to expand...
Women's college (American) football teams are equivalent to the US Women's National team in terms of attendance, TV viewership, and accomplishments?

Or are you talking about women's college basketball relative to men's college basketball? That one I can much more easily see.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom