There's never been a better time for US college athletes to unionize

[WhiskeyGrinder]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/may/27/college-sports-union-right-to-organize-act

At times it can feel like it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of exploitation, abuse and harm in the world of US college sport. This is after all an athletic system that produces billions of dollars of revenue for universities and the NCAA and yet denies the workers who generate it a basic wage, the ability to engage in compensatory promotional work and the equivalent educational experience enjoyed by their non-sporting peers, even as it tolerates physical, sexual and emotional abuse and the subjection of its participants to extreme physical harm. And we haven’t even mentioned the plantation dynamics.

“We are at the mercy of our respective schools, they get to set the rules and treat us however they want and the worst consequence is some bad press, but the machine keeps on going,” a Pac-12 football player told the Guardian. “The power dynamics between player and coaches/schools is so off balance, guys were scared to speak up and advocate for themselves in the middle of a pandemic. The NCAA has shown they don’t give a fuck about us, it’s all about protecting the bottom line and making money.”

And yet, there is a solution to these power dynamics and the attendant forms of exploitation and harm that result: unionization. If college athletes have the right to organize and wield their solidarity against the hegemonic power of universities, they can systematically address what sociologist Erin Hatton calls their status coercion: the fundamental precarity and systematic subordination that they experience as campus athletic workers. As former Northwestern University quarterback Kain Colter has put it: “It’s like a paternalistic relationship. It’s a lot of ‘yes sirs’ and listening to their orders. [Coaches] have all the control.”

As Rutgers University associate professor Rebecca Givan further explains: “Unionizing would mean that athletes could bargain collectively and regain some control over their working conditions. These contracts may or may not cover salaries, but they could also govern numerous other aspects of these athletes’ work. College players could negotiate for the right to choose their majors and course schedules, the right to opt out of so-called voluntary workouts that are essentially mandatory, and the right to physical and mental healthcare that extends beyond their time as a college athlete.”

[Deminpenn]

1. Might be a double-edged sword

because it could close the door on transfers. I doubt any university at the D1 of 1AA level would agree that athletes can transfer any time. Colleges might insist that any athlete transferring must repay tuition, books, etc or impose strict conditions for when an athlete could transfer or that once on scholarship the term of employment is a minimum of 4 years and maximum of 5 years.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

2. That's something that can be bargained collectively.

[Deminpenn]

7. Agree, just pointing out that collective bargaining

is a give and take process. College athletes shouldn't think they'll get everything and have to give up nothing. I'm not sure they understand that right now.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

9. Why wouldn't they understand it? Besides, with the recent vote on allowing one transfer without

penalty, combined with the suddenly urgent NIL discussion the NCAA wants to have, it's clear the body is trying to defuse the momentum as quickly as possible. They know who has the power -- the people who are the product.

[Deminpenn]

10. Because they're kids, that's why

nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

12. This is actually a pretty sophisticated effort, with a lot of support. Writing them off as

kids who don’t know what they’re doing diminishes their effort.

[Deminpenn]

15. Plenty of 18-23 yr olds think they know everything they

need to know. Maybe they've had summer or part-time jobs, but they haven't really experienced being employed yet. They haven't discovered that when it's union vs management, management holds nearly all the cards under current labor laws. They don't know how management will exploit those athletes who don't want to join a union to torpedo organizing.

These athletes are definately going to learn some lessons that don't know now.

FTR, I don't care if the college athletes organize or not.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

13. They're old enough to be longshoremen, teamsters, auto workers, electricians.

If they want to organize, great.

Solidarity forever.

[Zeitghost]

3. College Athletics

College Athletics doesn't make billions. College football and to a lesser extent men's college basketball make billions. That revenue is then used to fund dozens of programs that lose large amounts of money. Outside a few top schools, the athletic departments don't even cover their own operating costs. There are over 1000 member institutions in the NCAA, only about two dozen make a profit off of athletics. If you drive up operating costs at those schools, they will simply cut programs as they have in the past. And that will cost thousands of kids who used sports to break out of tough circumstances an opportunity to get a world class education.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. Bosses say that all the time.

"If you guys organize, we'll have to cut some positions to afford it!" If the issues athletes are organizing around -- improved health and safety; a process for reporting and accountability for abuse, bullying and other grievances; NIL rights; improved working conditions, etc. -- raise operating costs, then colleges need to review their models.

College football and to a lesser extent men's college basketball make billions. That revenue is then used to fund dozens of programs that lose large amounts of money.

This has set up what's been called a "plantation dynamic" in college sports, wherein the football and basketball programs at Power 5 conference schools are majority black, and the institutions themselves -- and the money-losing sports football and basketball help support -- are overwhelmingly white, as are the sports the football and basketball teams subsidize. Black students wreck their bodies for programs that serve as entertainment for overwhelmingly white crowds and as a money machine for sports that are much safer -- golf, swimming, tennis, volleyball -- and much more white. There's a lot of room to improve the conditions for everybody.

[Zeitghost]

5. If you cut programs

The people affected will be overwhelmingly women, minorities and the poor.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. How would unionization lead to cutting programs?

[Deminpenn]

8. This just happened at Robert Morris with their D1 hockey

programs, which were highly successful. The university decided playing D1 hockey simply did not fit into its vision for its overall future.

[pinkstarburst]

11. This is what I worry is going to happen

Some of the stuff--better medical care, mental health care, those things are all good. But when we start talking about paying college students salaries like they are professional players, what I picture is the richest handful of universities in a bidding war to get a handful of athletes. And other universities not having the resources.

Resources are finite and as has been pointed out, football and basketball are the only two sports that are profitable, and only at a handful of universities. So is it really equitable to have the dozen richest universities able to buy all the best players? Is it really equitable when other less profitable sports like hockey, fencing, track and field, crew, tennis, soccer, and others start getting cut?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. Where is the "equity" in college sports now?