NLRB says student-athletes are employees (thus are protected by NLR Act of 1935)

[MplsGopher]

Title IX:
No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.


I don't see anything in there about excluding employees.

 

[noamfromm]

Why would the University (athletic dept) want to do it that way? They seem to have the system perfectly well setup to just transfer the money to the school financial office to cover the student bill of each athlete.

I don't know -- why have more steps than necessary -- pay the employees a salary and leave it be -- I was speculating out me arse

 

[noamfromm]

Title IX:
No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.


I don't see anything in there about excluding employees.

To forever's point -- there probably isn't an oversight group making sure that parking attendants, dining hall workers, etc mimic the gender ratio on campus that is used for athletics -- maybe that is an oversight as you point out

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

Title IX:
No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.


I don't see anything in there about excluding employees.

I think the question is "are individuals considered to be engaged in 'an education program or activity' when playing football (or golf or water polo) for compensation as a university employee?"
I think it could be argued either way.

 

[PMWinSTP]

 

[MplsGopher]

I think the question is "are individuals considered to be engaged in 'an education program or activity' when playing football (or golf or water polo) for compensation as a university employee?"
I think it could be argued either way.

The University of Minnesota is an "Academic Institution", thus meets the NLRB's declaration.

Any kind of program they administer counts an educational program, under Title IX, including (of course, as we all know) varsity athletics.

And they receive federal funding, like almost every college and university, because of FAFSA.

 

[Wally]

I presume that it also means that the compensation that they receive--tuition, room and board, books, tutoring, etc. are all to be considered taxable income. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it is huge can of worms that could be opened.

Why isn't it taxed right now?

 

[MplsGopher]

 

[TABinMO]

Why isn't it taxed right now?

Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code says scholarships are not taxable.

I.R.C. § 117. Qualified scholarships​

(a) General rule​

Gross income does not include any amount received as a qualified scholarship by an individual who is a candidate for a degree at an educational organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii).

(b) Qualified scholarship​

For purposes of this section—

(1) In general​

The term "qualified scholarship" means any amount received by an individual as a scholarship or fellowship grant to the extent the individual establishes that, in accordance with the conditions of the grant, such amount was used for qualified tuition and related expenses.

(2) Qualified tuition and related expenses​

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "qualified tuition and related expenses" means—

(A) tuition and fees required for the enrollment or attendance of a student at an educational organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii), and

(B) fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for courses of instruction at such an educational organization.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

The University of Minnesota is an "Academic Institution", thus meets the NLRB's declaration.

Any kind of program they administer counts an educational program, under Title IX, including (of course, as we all know) varsity athletics.

And they receive federal funding, like almost every college and university, because of FAFSA.

I don't think there is any disagreement on points one and three and nothing that alters the relationship between a school and it's athletes will change that. The open question, at least in my mind, is point two. You are of course correct that varsity athletics has been considered to fall within Title IX. It's part of considering them to be "student-athletes." But not everything that a University does falls within the construct of an "educational program" even though historically the courts have interpreted that quite broadly. For example, the mere fact that a school hires a student to work on the grounds crew, in a print shop, in the kitchen at a residence hall, etc. doesn't convert those workplaces to "educational programs." Will the law view employee-athlete more like the student-athlete of old than the employee-groundskeeper of today? Perhaps, but it isn't a settled question and I doubt that the NLRB fully considered it.

 

[MplsGopher]

I don't think there is any disagreement on points one and three and nothing that alters the relationship between a school and it's athletes will change that. The open question, at least in my mind, is point two. You are of course correct that varsity athletics has been considered to fall within Title IX. It's part of considering them to be "student-athletes." But not everything that a University does falls within the construct of an "educational program" even though historically the courts have interpreted that quite broadly. For example, the mere fact that a school hires a student to work on the grounds crew, in a print shop, in the kitchen at a residence hall, etc. doesn't convert those workplaces to "educational programs." Will the law view employee-athlete more like the student-athlete of old than the employee-groundskeeper of today? Perhaps, but it isn't a settled question and I doubt that the NLRB fully considered it.

Actually, I disagree.

Look at the University's EOAA webpage: https://eoaa.umn.edu/

University of Minnesota employees are required to report possible sexual misconduct that they learn about to their campus Title IX office. To learn more about this obligation or to make a report, please visit our Reporting page.


The EOAA is the Title IX office. It exists, because of Title IX, which says that no discrimination as a result of sex can occur in federally funded educational programs.

The EOAA covers not just students, but all employees. If a janitor sexually discriminates against another janitor, it falls under the EOAA to investigate.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

Why isn't it taxed right now?

Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code says scholarships are not taxable.

I.R.C. § 117. Qualified scholarships​

(a) General rule​

Gross income does not include any amount received as a qualified scholarship by an individual who is a candidate for a degree at an educational organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii).

(b) Qualified scholarship​

For purposes of this section—

(1) In general​

The term "qualified scholarship" means any amount received by an individual as a scholarship or fellowship grant to the extent the individual establishes that, in accordance with the conditions of the grant, such amount was used for qualified tuition and related expenses.

(2) Qualified tuition and related expenses​

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "qualified tuition and related expenses" means—

(A) tuition and fees required for the enrollment or attendance of a student at an educational organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii), and

(B) fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for courses of instruction at such an educational organization.

I'll preface my response by noting that I am not a tax lawyer. This is the general rule for all scholarships, academic, athletic, need-based, etc., but the basis for this viewpoint as I understand it is that the scholarships are not considered to be compensation for services provided. Interesting to see if the IRS continues to treat athletic scholarships in this same way if the athletes are considered to be employees and the scholarships a part of their compensation for their labor.

 

[MplsGopher]

I'll preface my response by noting that I am not a tax lawyer. This is the general rule for all scholarships, academic, athletic, need-based, etc., but the basis for this viewpoint as I understand it is that the scholarships are not considered to be compensation for services provided. Interesting to see if the IRS continues to treat athletic scholarships in this same way if the athletes are considered to be employees and the scholarships a part of their compensation for their labor.

Are students work in the dining hall, on the grounds crew, etc. and simply recieve a tuition benefit under "work-study" still covered? I would think so, so long as they aren't being issued paychecks.

 

[Wally]

I'll preface my response by noting that I am not a tax lawyer. This is the general rule for all scholarships, academic, athletic, need-based, etc., but the basis for this viewpoint as I understand it is that the scholarships are not considered to be compensation for services provided. Interesting to see if the IRS continues to treat athletic scholarships in this same way if the athletes are considered to be employees and the scholarships a part of their compensation for their labor.

If McDonald's pays for an employees college, is it taxable?

Found it.
Nope, doesn't matter if your an employee.

From McDonald's.
In the United States, funds used exclusively for the payment of tuition or textbooks are normally not taxable.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

Are students work in the dining hall, on the grounds crew, etc. and simply recieve a tuition benefit under "work-study" still covered? I would think so, so long as they aren't being issued paychecks.

I don't think that work-study jobs are considered to be scholarships and I believe that income from those jobs is subject to taxation.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

If McDonald's pays for an employees college, is it taxable?

Like I said, I am not a tax lawyer, but I believe that an employer can set up a qualified plan (that meets IRS requirements) to provide tuition assistance and, if it does so, that tuition assistance is not considered to be taxable income to the employee, subject to annual limits of something like $5,000 per year.

 

[Wally]

if the athletes are considered to be employees and the scholarships a part of their compensation for their labor.

I think the scholarship would be a fringe benefit like health insurance.

Seems like the players could argue that they should be paid at least minimum wage for their time. I don't think its legal to work and get paid only fringe benefits.

 

[forever a gopher]

I don't think that work-study jobs are considered to be scholarships and I believe that income from those jobs is subject to taxation.

While in grad school, I had both an assistantship and a job on campus. The assistantship (manager in the library) paid for my tuition, and was not taxed. But effectively, it was a job in every sense of the word. There was no "educational" part of it. I did not receive health benefits from it, didn't have to pay into social security, etc. I also received a small stipend, which was not taxed. The assistantship was given to me by the department. Looking back, I have no idea if I was supposed to claim the stipend on my taxes or not, but I never did.

At the same time I had a job at physical facilities on campus, but this one I applied for outside of my department. This one was a "normal" job where I paid taxes, had SS withholdings, etc.

I would imagine they would set it up like the former- to be more like assistantships than outright "normal" employees and avoid the tax issue. But of course I'm no lawyer. And maybe the assistantship/work study thing is basically a loophole in the whole thing already. I mean you're basically an employee providing a service for compensation. It just so happens that the compensation is tuition reimbursement.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The NCAA and the conferences do not employ the students even under Bernie’s expanded definition of student athletes as employees. This is a load of legal hot air, to be argued in court.

Anyone that has had the misfortune of spending time around attorneys, or serving on a jury, or read Supreme Court decisions understands the law is interpreted through the biased, prejudiced eye of the beholder. The tortured logic, the parsing of wards, punctuation, definition of ”is” is absolutely bonkers, enough to want to throw chairs across the courtroom - for a normal person. The arguing over student athlete carve outs is no different.

Bottom line: the NIL deal has already permanently solidified the haves and have nots, ergo the leap to some programs getting into bidding wars, others folding, legislators holding their finger to the wind and passing shortsighted law is going to be a train wreck that will accelerate the college sports world towards professional league status, or club league models, and other major changes coming down the pike, title IX complications and lawsuits and further turmoil. There will be winners and losers, unintended consequences most can’t even envision right now.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I don't think there is any disagreement on points one and three and nothing that alters the relationship between a school and it's athletes will change that. The open question, at least in my mind, is point two. You are of course correct that varsity athletics has been considered to fall within Title IX. It's part of considering them to be "student-athletes." But not everything that a University does falls within the construct of an "educational program" even though historically the courts have interpreted that quite broadly. For example, the mere fact that a school hires a student to work on the grounds crew, in a print shop, in the kitchen at a residence hall, etc. doesn't convert those workplaces to "educational programs." Will the law view employee-athlete more like the student-athlete of old than the employee-groundskeeper of today? Perhaps, but it isn't a settled question and I doubt that the NLRB fully considered it.

My understanding going back to the Kain Colter NLRA case is the NLRA only applies to private institions, thus Abruzzos’s attempt to rope in NCAA and conferences as co-employers. Certainly that will be contested?

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

My understanding going back to the Kain Colter NLRA case is the NLRA only applies to private institions, thus Abruzzos’s attempt to rope in NCAA and conferences as co-employers. Certainly that will be contested?

I am sure that it will all be contested. On its face, there seems little to distinguish the private schools from the public in this area as the demands on the athletes are substantially similar from school to school. As you say above, whatever changes are made, there will be consequences, both intended and unintended.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I'll preface my response by noting that I am not a tax lawyer. This is the general rule for all scholarships, academic, athletic, need-based, etc., but the basis for this viewpoint as I understand it is that the scholarships are not considered to be compensation for services provided. Interesting to see if the IRS continues to treat athletic scholarships in this same way if the athletes are considered to be employees and the scholarships a part of their compensation for their labor.

Only a bit of legislation away from a carve out.

The more interesting question if this thing sticks is how many schools drop programs and to what extent when they are asked or compelled to fund full ride scholarships plus (at least) minimum wage, medical coverage, FICA, workers comp for, I presume, all student athletes including non-rev sports. I don’t know, but I can envision scenarios.




.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I am sure that it will all be contested. On its face, there seems little to distinguish the private schools from the public in this area as the demands on the athletes are substantially similar from school to school. As you say above, whatever changes are made, there will be consequences, both intended and unintended.

In the Colter case I believe the NLRB board overturned the initial unionization decision because the law only applies to private sector thuswould have created an uneven playing field. Of course, recent events have overturned that apple cart, and different people will hold different opinions.

 

[MplsGopher]

This is a load of legal hot air, to be argued in court.

Says you, libertarian anti-authority to the max.

Let's see what actual, reasonable, legal people say.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Says you, libertarian anti-authority to the max.

Let's see what actual, reasonable, legal people say.

Thanks for the feedback, MplsGopher.

I suspect legislators will have their fifteen minutes, and then, as you suggest, more legal opinions.

You have to remember there is absolutely nothing preventing the startup of minor league football. The market has spoken time and again, however, and has said “no mas”. Furthermore Supreme Court justices, most lawyers have supported the carve outs for amateur student athletics. Why would you and I watch professional college teams (Other than millions not having easy access to Direct Ticket? ) without some mechanism for a more level playing field? You’ll recall that being the libertarian that I am I’ve called for revenue redistribution to general scholarship funds, and athletic department salary caps.

 

[MplsGopher]

Why would you and I watch professional college teams

Because it would exactly the same thing as now.

Someone would have to go out of their way, trying to make a fake distinction and a fake declaration that they'll no longer watch based on that fake distinction.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Because it would exactly the same thing as now.

Someone would have to go out of their way, trying to make a fake distinction and a fake declaration that they'll no longer watch based on that fake distinction.

Glad to see you recognize students are in fact compensated. If only there were other minor league football entities where they could garner higher wages. Minor league football has historically been so profitable investors are chomping at the bit to get in early but the NCAA has clearly been colluding with Big Media to stifle competition to its product.

Scholarship, stipend, and (for the majority) NIL monies for student athletes also enjoy nice tax relief (currently) to boot.

 

[MplsGopher]

Glad to see you recognize students are in fact compensated. If only there were other minor league football entities where they could garner higher wages. Minor league football has historically been so profitable investors are chomping at the bit to get in early but the NCAA has clearly been colluding with Big Media to stifle competition to its product.

There already is minor league football, that far more people actually care about: major college teams.

Same with basketball. And they have the D league. Some of those franchises probably do OK, like the Iowa Wolves. But guaranteed far more people care about Gophers and Hawkeyes basketball teams, even if they would indeed get blown out by the Iowa Wolves.