Researchers have determined that there’s a relationship between college football games and incidences of reported rape. The study was released by the National Bureau of Economic Research late last year, but has broken into the news recently, as the conversations around college sexual assault and the violence of football have continued into the new year.

The researchers, led by Professor Jason Lindo at Texas A&M University, discovered that:

Home football games increase reports of rape by 41 percent on the day of the game while away games increase reports by 15 percent. They estimate that Division 1A football games cause between 253 and 770 additional rapes of college-aged victims per year across 128 universities.

The researchers don’t claim this is a direct link–rather they were attempting to look at the connection between events that sparked heavy drinking and partying, and reports of sexual assault. Understandably, then, they found higher reports of rape when something worth “celebrating” happened during a football game–for example, underdog teams upsetting better-ranked rivals. Additionally, game days saw a spike in other crimes–such as disorderly conduct, DUIs, and public intoxication. Given that big college football games usually happen on Saturdays and Sundays–busy party days for college students–the researchers attempted to control for that. According to NPR’s Social Science Correspondent Shankar Vedantam:

Lindo and his colleagues actually tried a control for this by comparing reports of rape on a days the college team was playing to reports of rape on other Saturdays of the year when the team was not playing. So this analysis is focused on the additional rapes being reported to college police and local law enforcement on days the college team is playing compared to what’s reported on a typical Saturday.

In order to conduct the study, the researchers looked at 22 years of FBI data on rape. Given that those statistics have received criticism for being undercounts of sexual assaults, the numbers could be even higher. Additionally, the statistics can’t provide a full picture of all big college football schools, as only 96 of the 128 schools with Division I teams voluntarily reported enough data to be included in the study. However, as they stand, the statistics are certainly worrisome, and worth a look as the fight to prevent sexual assault on college campuses continues.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is There a Connection Between College Football and Rape? appeared first on Law Street.

The relationship between student athletes and the schools for which they play has operated increasingly in a gray area in recent years. Student athletes are technically students, but in many ways–particularly when it comes to the money they generate for their schools–their relationships to the colleges and universities are significantly different from non-student athletes. In recognition of the ambiguity of this gray area, and the desire to contribute to discussions about their program, football players at Northwestern University recently tried to unionize. After a long back-and-forth, their application was effectively turned down by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), meaning the players cannot unionize.

The argument made by the students looking to unionize was based on something that is pretty well known for permeating college sports–money. Universities can make a hefty chunk of change from having strong college sports teams, particularly football. According to the Department of Education, college football revenue generated by Division 1 teams topped $3.4 billion in 2013. For comparison, that number wasn’t too far from the $3.6 billion in revenue generated by the National Hockey League (NHL) in 2013.

But a team is only as good as its players, and while players do receive plenty from the arrangement in the form of publicity, experience, and sometimes a straight shot to the big leagues, the Northwestern football players were arguing that they deserve a more prominent seat at the table. Kain Colter, a former co-captain of Northwestern’s team, explained that being a football player at the school was essentially a job. CNN summed his testimony at the NLRB hearing to that effect:

He said football was dominating his college experience, consuming up to 60 hours a week during the season and up to 20 hours the rest of the year, he said. He and his teammates never got summer and winter breaks, couldn’t schedule certain classes and were required to adhere to dozens of rules or risk losing their scholarships.

As a result of that environment, Colter and the other Northwestern players who voted to unionize, as well as players from other schools involved in the movement, argued that they would like to receive benefits like free tuition or more extensive medical coverage.

However, that particular argument wasn’t convincing for the NLRB board, which denied to take jurisdiction over the application to unionize. By doing so, the board essentially stopped the students’ ability to join or create a union. Northwestern University brought up that its student-athletes are students first, not employees, an important distinction if the players were to unionize. Additionally, officials from the school expressed confusion as to why Northwestern was the focus of this push, given that Northwestern isn’t generally regarded as a football powerhouse. Additionally, a big concern for the board appeared to be that it would create an unfair advantage for students who attend private universities, because the ruling wouldn’t apply to students at public universities.

The Northwestern players’ attempts to form a union have been pretty much quashed, but that doesn’t mean the conversation is over. Players at public universities could try their luck with various state institutions. Additionally some of the things that the players are fighting for, like improved medical care, are consistent with broader discussions in the football community and the NFL about player safety. As the line between student-athlete and athlete continue to blur, and college football promises to continuing growing, these are essential issues that schools will have to contend with.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Northwestern Football Players Lose Fight to Unionize appeared first on Law Street.

Within the past few years there have been multiple cases of athletes putting their hands on women and suffering the consequences. Baltimore Raven’s running back Ray Rice and Texas Tech football player Nigel Bethel II both recently assaulted women and were dismissed from their teams. But most recently, Florida State University’s Quarterback De’Andre Johnson has made the news after an altercation with a young woman at a bar.

On June 24th at a night club called “Yiannis,” 19-year-old Johnson was caught on video shoving past a woman–a 21-year-old FSU student–waiting in line for her drink as he made his way to the front of the bar. The two then began to argue and the woman proceeded to hit him in the face. Johnson grabbed her arm and punched her across the left side of her face.

According to the Tallahassee Police Department incident report, the woman had bruises near her left eye, swelling of the left cheek and upper lip, and a small cut near the bridge of her nose. Jose Baez, Johnson’s well-known criminal defense and trial attorney stated on Monday:

While it is clear from the video that De’Andre Johnson was not the initial aggressor, his family wants to take the lead in helping him learn and grow from this experience. He is currently participating in community service and faith-based programs focused on battered women, substance abuse and the empowerment of children…De’Andre is extremely embarrassed by this situation and would like to express his heartfelt apologies to everyone, including those who were directly affected, Coach Fisher and his teammates, the entire Florida State University community, as well as his family and friends.

The Florida State Seminoles head coach Jimbo Fisher announced that Johnson had been suspended indefinitely from the FSU football program on June 25th. This week, just hours after the state’s attorney’s office released the video, Coach Fisher dismissed the freshman quarterback from the team. Johnson, who was named Florida’s “Mr. Football” as a senior at First Coast High School in Jacksonville was charged with misdemeanor battery. He turned himself in to Tallahassee police on June 30th and was released on a $500 bond. According to FSU’s athletics policy, if a student-athlete is charged with a misdemeanor or felony, or convicted of a misdemeanor offense, the department makes a decision on discipline on a case-by-case basis.

This is not the first time an FSU football player has been in the headlines due to trouble off the field. Jameis Winston, the former Florida State University quarterback-turned-top NFL draft pick, was accused of rape in 2012. Winston claimed the charges were false and they were eventually dropped. It does not seem that Johnson will be as lucky as Winston was.

While this might seem like a straightforward case of yet another instance of violence from a promising young football player, there is another thing worth noting–a double standard. Although Johnson was obviously very much in the wrong, the woman who hit him has not yet been charged. I have always been a firm believer that no man should ever put his hands on a woman, but I am also a believer that no woman should put her hands on a man, and I’m not alone.

I think De’andre Johnson should be kicked out of FSU and charged with battery, but the woman (clearly the aggressor) should be charged too..

— Marcus Aurelius (@marcusjordandoe) July 7, 2015

Everyone deserves to be punished if they behave inappropriately and violently. The student who was hit should be charged for hitting him as well–regardless of the high profile nature of this case, respect should still be key. Obviously, Johnson’s behavior was completely over the line here; by putting his hands on the woman he lost the respect of many and a promising future. Violence is never the answer–that’s a lesson worth repeating again and again.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FSU Quarterback Pays the Price for Bar Brawl with Young Woman appeared first on Law Street.

On March 26, 2014, Peter Sung Ohr, a regional director for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), issued a landmark ruling that football players at Northwestern University are allowed to form a union. The college sports world erupted. Naturally, Northwestern immediately challenged the ruling. In the meantime, the case leaves players and universities with more questions than answers. Some athletes want unions, universities and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) are fighting back, and fans are wondering if this will impact their BCS Bowl viewing parties. What exactly does this all mean, and are we slowly inching toward paying college athletes?

What is the case for unions?

Ohr’s ruling cites several important factors as reasons football players at Northwestern should be treated as university employees and therefore, allowed to unionize:

1. The football players are not primarily students. Players typically spend 40 to 50 hours per week playing football, which is more time than most people spend at a full-time job. This is also more time than the players spend on academics. Some players make the argument that the intense football schedule means practices interfere with schoolwork and limits their ability to take certain courses.
2. Northwestern has significant control over its players similar to the control employers exert over their workers. Scholarship recipients sign a tender which outlines the conditions of their scholarship. The agreement stipulates players’ behavior, requires housing leases be approved by a coach, and even states a player must accept a coach’s friend request on social media. Additionally, players must sign away rights to their image and likeness.
3. The University recruits players chiefly on the basis of football ability. When scouting a player, academic skills are secondary to football, showing that the primary duty of a scholarship recipient is not to study, but to play football.

Listen to a more in-depth explanation of the ruling below:

What do the players actually want?

The College Athletes Players Union (CAPA) is the formal entity created to represent Northwestern’s players in a union. CAPA was formed by former college athletes, including former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter, as an offshoot of the National College Players Association (NCPA), an advocacy group. Rather than fighting for pay, the union is about giving college athletes a seat at the negotiating table. The NCPA outlines 11 goals which are shared by CAPA and Northwestern’s players in their “Blueprint for Change”:

1. Minimize athletes’ risk to brain trauma by reducing contact practices, providing concussion experts, and funding research.
2. Raise the scholarship amount so a “full scholarship” will cover the actual cost of attendance, including incidentals and travel home.
3. Ensure players do not pay sports-related medical expenses out of pocket.
4. Increase graduation rates by reducing games that take place during the week and investing more in education.
5. Give students a non-athletic scholarship to continue their education if their athletic scholarship is eliminated.
6. Prevent universities from eliminating the scholarship of an athlete who suffered a permanent injury from the sport.
7. Enforce uniform safety guidelines to prevent injuries.
8. Eliminate restrictions on legitimate employment for student-athletes. Right now, athletes are not allowed to make any money for any reason.
9. Prohibit punishment of athletes who have not committed a violation. Currently, NCAA sanctions can punish entire programs for years.
10. Guarantee an athletic release from universities if athletes want to transfer schools.
11. Allow all college athletes to transfer schools once without punishment.

What is not included (yet) — any desire for a pay-for-play program.

 What would a union look like for players?

On April 25, 2014, football players at Northwestern made history by becoming the first collegiate athletes to vote on forming a union. However, the votes are impounded until Northwestern’s appeal to the NLRB is decided, which could take months or even years. The votes cast by Northwestern’s players will only be opened if the board sides with the players. Smart money says the 5-member, labor-friendly board will uphold Ohr’s decision that football players are employees. If the board upholds the decision, the mere right to vote on a union is a victory for Northwestern’s football players. It is likely by the time the case is ultimately decided, the players who voted will no longer be at Northwestern. But if the players voted against forming a union, they would still be considered employees even if the union movement at Northwestern would temporarily end. If the players voted for a union, the University would be forced to bargain with CAPA or force further appeals.

More importantly are the implications for the University at the NCAA. At this point, the union is not asking for a pay-for-play, but unions could be the first step down that road. Furthermore, if football players are treated as employees, they could be subject to tax on their scholarships.

What would a union mean for universities?

Most importantly, a union would mean Northwestern would have to negotiate with players and meet more of their demands. Northwestern strongly urged its students to vote against forming a union. Northwestern’s Vice President for University Relations Alan Cubbage issued a statement saying, “Northwestern believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students. Unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes.” Team officials see a union as transferring the players’ trust to a third party which may not have the players’ best interests in mind. They argue a union would create an “us versus them” mentality and create unnecessary tension for the team.

The NLRB ruling applies solely to private schools, only a handful of which (Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Duke, Miami) have big-name athletic programs. The law currently exempts public schools from NLRB jurisdiction, but public universities should be concerned if state labor boards decide to follow the lead of NLRB. The push from Northwestern’s players alone may make colleges consider greater dialogue with players in regard to health, safety, and full-cost scholarships. Simply by filing, the players have made athletic departments across the country more concerned that their players be treated fairly.

If upheld, the ruling will pose interesting questions to universities. If scholarship football players are considered employees, are other university athletes also considered employees? Would students on a musical or academic scholarship be considered employees? Would this have any Title IX implications for gender equality? Will the presence of athletic unions at private schools make their programs more desirable and destroy the NCAA’s competitive balance?

Why is the NCAA opposed?

The NCAA has long insisted that players are “student-athletes” who are foremost students, which is strongly at odds with the notion that student-athletes are employees. NCAA officials are quick to point out that 99 percent of college athletes will never play professional sports.The NCAA has created a system which has helped millions go to college, and they do not want to see this system thrown away. A primary concern is that allowing unions is a first step toward greater benefits for athletes, including pay. In 2012, the NCAA reported $872 million in revenue. Many players see their lack of receiving any of this compensation as exploitation. Below is a clip from NCAA’s President Mark Emmert discussing the impact of unionization:

Would unions change college sports?

Unions may be a big first step toward long-term change, but allowing unions themselves will not revolutionize the college sports’ world. Athletes will still take the field every Saturday and the NCAA will still make billions. A union will allow players to negotiate benefits on their own behalf. The ruling would make football players employees of the university, not of the NCAA, so there would not be any direct impact on any NCAA rules.

Currently, the NCAA is fighting a slew of lawsuits which pose greater threats to its future. Jeffrey Kessler and Ed O’Bannon have each brought a significant lawsuit:

• Kessler alleges the NCAA and 5 conferences are engaged in price-fixing for capping the compensation of athletes at the value of a scholarship and thus, violating antitrust laws. The intent is to strike-down rules that prevent college athletes from receiving a share of NCAA revenue and greater compensation.
• The O’Bannon case seeks licensing revenue from the NCAA for football and basketball players’ names, image, and likeness. The case could mean paying players for their jersey sales and for their use in video games.
  

  ---

Conclusion

Treating college athletes as employees means a fundamental shift in the negotiation rights provided to athletes. Whether or not the original NLRB ruling is upheld, universities and the NCAA will be forced to alter their own stance to ensure athletes do not feel that they are being exploited. Problems with college athletics will not disappear anytime soon, and major change is coming to the economic model of college sports.

Resources

Primary

College Athletes Players Association: Official website

Washington Law Review Association: The Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete as Employee

National Labor Relations Board: Decision in Northwestern University Athletes Case

Additional

SB Nation: Northwestern Players’ Union Votes are in: Now What?

CBS: Northwestern Players Start Union Movement in College Athletics

Washington Post: College Athletics Have Many Problems, But a Union is the Wrong Way to Try to Fix Them

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: College Athletes Union Raises Tax, Discrimination Questions

ESPN: NU Players Cast Historic Vote

NU Game Changers: 10 Point Blueprint for Change

Slate: Northwestern Football Players Just Voted on a Union

NPR: Northwestern Players Cast Union Vote–But Results Will Have to Wait

USA Today: A Simple Guide to the Biggest Thing Happening in College Sports: Northwestern Football Union’s Fight

National College Players’ Assciation: Mission & Goals

Post Game: Deeper Look at Northwestern Football, NCAA Union Issue

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Battle in College Sports: Northwestern Football and Unions appeared first on Law Street.

It was difficult to discern reality from fantasy in Tallahassee last winter. Jameis Winston, the college football phenom who was leading Florida State to an undefeated season, was dealt a hard dose of real word problems when he was investigated for sexual assault in November.  If charged, he would likely face suspension, and FSU’s dream of becoming national champions would remain fantasy. In December however, Winston was cleared and no charges transpired. The following week, Winston won the Heisman Trophy, and a few weeks later he led his team to a dramatic victory to claim the national championship. It appeared that reality was indeed sweet, and the rape investigation was simply a bad dream. Or was it?

On April 3, the Federal Department of Education (DOE) announced that they would be investigating FSU for whether they improperly handled the Jameis Winston sexual assault case. Under the landmark legislation known as Title IX, universities are required to “promptly investigate” reports of sexual assault. FSU may not have investigated quickly enough, according to the DOE.

FSU’s alleged failings were highlighted on April 16, when the New York Times published an article detailing the missteps of both the University and the Tallahassee Police Department, and charging that the University didn’t investigate when they initially found out about the alleged incident in January 2013.

FSU fired back at the New York Times, claiming in part that “no university official outside the Victim Advocate Program received a report from any complainant naming Winston prior to when the allegations were made public in November 2013.” At first glance, the statement would seem to exonerate the University. On closer inspection, a rather high burden is placed on the victim in order for FSU to comply with Title IX. Must a university official receive a report from the complainant in order to investigate? Must an accuser be named in order to investigate?

A cursory look at the DOE’s guidelines on sexual assault suggest no. In fact, the following line seems to suggest that schools err on the side of caution:

“…if a school knows or reasonably should know about possible sexual harassment or sexual violence, it must promptly investigate to determine what occurred…”

It is possible that Winston’s accuser failed to tell anyone employed by the University about her assault. After all,Tallahassee police primarily handled the report because the incident happened off campus. I called both the Tallahassee Police Department and the Florida State University Police Department (FSUPD)  to follow up on this matter. I asked if there is a policy requiring that arresting officers, whether employed by the school or by the city of Tallahassee, notify the University upon arresting an enrolled student. FSUPD responded that it is practice for all officers to report student-arrests to the University, at which point the University handles any academic penalties according to the student conduct code.

Is it possible that Tallahassee Police report to the University only student-arrests and not allegations of sexual assault on students? The logic behind such a policy may be difficult for DOE investigators to understand, as would the general excuse that although the Tallahassee Police Department knew of a fairly detailed sexual assault accusation on an FSU student since December 2012, the University did not know until the following November.

In the ensuing months, one if not both institutions will be to blame. Either the Tallahassee Police failed to tell FSU, or FSU failed to investigate when they were told by police. If it’s the latter, expect harsh penalties from both the Department of Education and the NCAA. If FSU football thinks they’ll avoid that reality, they better wake up.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Zennie Abraham via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Did FSU Drop the Ball on Jameis Winston Rape Case? DOE Investigates appeared first on Law Street.

For those of us who follow labor law, sports law, or both, March 26, 2014 was a pretty exciting day. Peter Ohr, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Chicago, held that Northwestern football players are employees under federal law and would be permitted to hold an election in a bid for union representation. Ohr’s 24-page decision has evoked mixed feelings from labor experts, but most consider the decision to be damaging to opponents of unions in college sports.

While the players might have won the first battle, the war for unions in college football has only just begun. As I mentioned in my original post on this controversial topic, the football team is unlikely to actually have a collective bargaining agreement in place for a couple years. And well before that happens, Northwestern University and some other characters will try to ensure a union delegation never steps foot on Ryan Field in Evanston, Illinois. Here are three tactics that they may use to block unionization:

1. The NLRB Appeal Process: Shortly after Ohr released his decision, Northwestern indicated that they would file an appeal. Appealing a regional NLRB ruling first requires filing a request to review with the National Office of the NLRB in Washington. A request to review is essentially an appellate brief requesting the NLRB to revise the decision of the regional office, usually via remand or reversal (an example can be found here). In Northwestern’s case, the request to review must be filed with the NLRB by April 9, 2014. If the request is granted, the NLRB’s judiciary panel (Board) will conduct a hearing to decide whether Ohr’s ruling was made in error, or whether it will be upheld.

2. Contesting the Election Process: Even if the Board affirms Ohr’s decision, the football team isn’t completely in the clear. The team is to vote on union representation on April 25, 2014, at which point all scholarship athletes participating in team activities will be permitted to vote. If a majority is not reached, the players have to wait one year to be eligible to cast ballots again. If a majority is reached but the team has not formed a collective bargaining unit by the time their eldest voters graduate, Northwestern may file an objection to the election in the form of an unfair labor practice (ULP). The ULP would allege that the deciding votes in the election aren’t eligible for union representation, and therefore a new vote would be required.

3. Congressional Action: Last Wednesday, former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter and company met with Congressional leaders to discuss their campaign to unionize. Many believe the Wildcats’ trip was intended to drum up support in case Congress votes to enact federal law blocking University students from forming unions. That type of Congressional action is just hypothetical at this point, but also quite plausible. Some politicians have already expressed their displeasure with Ohr’s decision, and most forecasters believe the number of union opponents in Washington will only grow after the midterm elections. Considering the stakes and opponents involved, I’m sure Kain Colter would like as many teammates as possible for the upcoming fight.

Andrew Blancato

The post How Will Northwestern Stop its Football Team From Unionizing Now? appeared first on Law Street.

NFL prospect Michael Sam revealed to the public this week that he is gay. Sam’s decision is undoubtedly brave; if drafted (and he probably will be), he will be the first openly gay male professional athlete in a sport that manufactures traditional male stereotypes. But Sam is no stranger to bravery or to breaking stereotypes. Michael Sam was the first member of his family to attend college, and one of the few children of JoAnn Sam not to clash with law enforcement. Since Sam is used to breaking molds, he may not have needed legal protections to come out. But if we want to enable his choice in more workplaces, two laws could prompt similar behavior.

1. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): ENDA is a federal bill that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with at least 15 employees. If enacted, ENDA would prohibit employers, employment agencies, and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity for decisions such as hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation (read the Human Rights Campaign’s breakdown of the law here). Despite the growing support for ENDA, Govtrack.us gives the bill only a 14 percent chance of becoming law.  Without it, many LGBT employees could face the painful dilemma of lying to co-workers about their identities or risk losing their employment (although it’s worth noting that 21 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted similar laws). ENDA does have friends in Washington however, and is rumored to become law for federal contractors through executive order.

2. Workplace Bullying Legislation: This type of legislation is another means to combat discrimination at work and thus possibly encourage LGBT employees to be comfortable at their own jobs. Unlike ENDA, workplace bullying laws may provide private claims for employees against other employees who bully or create toxic working environments through bullying. Some state legislatures have proposed insulating employers who act responsibly to thwart workplace bullying. Despite the growing trend of anti-bullying laws being passed on behalf of public schools, workplace bullying legislation has not been enacted in any U.S. State or at the Federal level. The lack of seriousness regarding workplace bullying laws may soon be a thing of the past, however. Sixteen states have proposed workplace bullying laws since 2009, and the high profile case involving the alleged harassment in the Miami Dolphins locker room may push this issue to the forefront.

Michael Sam’s revelation fortunately lacked the backlash that many expected. Sam’s former teammates on the Missouri Tigers supported him when he privately came out, and several prominent athletes showed support for Sam when he  revealed the news publicly. But tolerance can be fleeting, and Sam’s journey is just beginning.  With laws in place to protect LGBT individuals from workplace discrimination or harassment, his journey is more likely to have a happy ending, and more likely to prompt others to follow in his cleat prints.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia/Marcus Qwertyus]

Andrew Blancato

The post 2 Laws That Could Encourage More Michael Sams to Come Out appeared first on Law Street.

“School’s done for me — I’m here to concentrate on football.”

Matt Leinart declared these words in August 2005 on the eve of his final season as quarterback for the University of Southern California’s football team.  The quote was part of an Associated Press article on Matt Leinart’s class schedule for the upcoming fall — a schedule which consisted solely of ballroom dancing. The one-page piece, picked up by ESPN, might have unfairly portrayed student-athletes as having cupcake course loads. But it also confirmed what everyone outside of the NCAA front office already knew: NCAA football players are treated as football players first, and students second.

More than two thousand miles away in Chicago, Ill., Northwestern University football players have taken formal steps to recognize this fact by having a petition filled on their behalf with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In other words, college football players are trying to unionize.  If successful, the first ever college players union would be called the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA), and would focus on scholarships, transfer rules, and increasing player safety rather than require that players receive specific compensation (find out more here).

Before CAPA becomes an official union of college athletes, NCAA athletes may have to convince the NLRB they qualify as “employees” under Federal law.  At first glance, precedent would appear to favor the NCAA on this issue.  In 2004, the NLRB’s judiciary panel (Board) found that Brown University graduate teaching assistants were not employees, and therefore not capable of forming a protected union.  Important to the Board’s decision however were the findings that:

1. The role of the graduate assistant was integral to the education of the graduate student; and,
2. The relationship between the graduate assistant and Brown was primarily educational.

The NCAA is likely to recycle the same argument against college athletes, but it’s not likely to go as well. Is the role of the football player integral to the education of the football player? Doubtful. When the NLRB decided this issue in the Brown case they relied largely on the fact that graduate assistants “must first be enrolled at Brown to receive a TA, RA, or proctorship.” Meanwhile, most college football players are recruited as minors and offered athletic scholarships prior to high school graduation. Those athletes most similar to the example of an RA or TA in the case of college football would be walk-ons, and well, not all athletes are Rudy Ruettigers.

Is the relationship between the football player and their college primarily educational? Please.  A 2008 NCAA survey among college football players indicated they spent an average of 45 hours per week on their sport. Doesn’t seem to leave a ton of room for studying, does it?  Oh and let us not forget about the bags of money that are thrown around. Although maybe colleges make hundreds of millions from Gabriel the economics TA? Who knows!

Whatever the outcome may be regarding college football players’ right to unionize and their status as employees, we may not know the answer for years.  But clearly, the NCAA is going to have difficulty dancing around the issue.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [David X. O’Neil via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Football Local 60208? Why College Athletes May Win Their Fight to Unionize appeared first on Law Street.