NLRB reverses decision allowing football players to unionize
- Thread starter longtimecoug
- Start date
Unionizing players would have been an absolute disaster for college sports. Combined with Title IX requirements, the most likely result would have been the elimination of most school sponsored college sports completely and reduced most programs to club teams. The top programs would probably survive but conferences would probably be blown apart as some programs dissolved. Schools like WSU would be in tremendous jeopardy as maximizing revenue to cover expenses would become even more important.
I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that each time a fundamental change has occurred in professional sports that benefitted the players, the public, the fans and the owners cried "this will kill the sport." Each time the sport has prospered.
Would it be different in college?
If there is still a push by some to unionize this will likely be settled in the courts.
Would it be different in college?
If there is still a push by some to unionize this will likely be settled in the courts.
Unions for college sports is a bad idea. I don't know why people think it would be good, but nothing I read about that case indicated to me that there would be anything positive for the consumer. Players already get tremendous benefits for their contributions, including a huge marketing gig designed to get them noticed by the next level and a marketable degree for success if that does not occur. Seems to me that both parties already get something out of the deal, why muddy the waters?
A marketing gig? WTH. Your prospective seems to be the impact on the consumer, ie the fans, not the athletes. Once again that's what was said when; Curt Flood challenged MLB, when Tennis went to opened major events, when Track and Field opened the Olympics and world events to professionals. In every situation those events made their sports better. Not worse as the naysayers and owners claimed.
I make no claim on whether a union for college is good or bad but, in any other industry the financial structure that exists in big time college sports would be challenged and significantly altered. That is why the conferences are now slowly introducing stipends and and various other benefits, it's why you'll see them grow. The last place the NCAA wants to see the existing structure challenged is in the courts because they know the outcome.
I make no claim on whether a union for college is good or bad but, in any other industry the financial structure that exists in big time college sports would be challenged and significantly altered. That is why the conferences are now slowly introducing stipends and and various other benefits, it's why you'll see them grow. The last place the NCAA wants to see the existing structure challenged is in the courts because they know the outcome.
Chris Webber Subtly Compares NCAA Sports To Slavery
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/08/18/chris-webber-ncaa-slavery_n_8005134.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/08/18/chris-webber-ncaa-slavery_n_8005134.html
You are fairly open that you are pro union… Don't try to paint yourself otherwise. I won't either. I'm not pro Union, in any way.
Regarding "marketing"… College football gets some of the highest ratings in TV. That is WTH. When you go to your job, do you have the ability to show off for millions? That's pretty good "marketing".
Virtually half the kids in any program never see the field, never get TV time.....hell of a "marketing program "for them. How about the schools and athletes in conferences with no big TV contracts, millions get to see them too? Are they a part of that "marketing program?"
Let's face it, the entire D-1 athletics system is ridiculous. I watch the games and enjoy it immensely, so I'm part of the problem. I guess this makes me a hypocrite too. Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that the system that exists is totally ridiculous and out of control.
I wonder what it'll look like in 50 years?
Similar threads
