NLRB rules football players at all private FBS schools are employees

[winnetkat]

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/18612851/nlrb-rules-football-players-private-fbs-schools-employees

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/...ollege-athletes-as-employees-with-rights.html

A variety of sources are reporting that a memorandum from the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board revealed this week seems to expand the 2014 NLRB ruling, and to assert that Northwestern football players are employees, as are football players at Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, Rice, Southern California, Southern Methodist, Stanford, Syracuse, Texas Christian, Tulane, Tulsa, Vanderbilt, and Wake Forest. The New York Times article says that the memo does not carry the force of law like a full board finding, and it does not necessarily give players at private universities the right to collectively bargain. The NLRB does not have jurisdiction over public schools, and has not ruled on sports outside of football.

What do you think?

 

[hdhntr1]

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/...ootball-players-private-fbs-schools-employees

ESPN reporting that an National Labor Relations Board opinion issued this week seems to expand the 2014 NLRB ruling, and to confirm that Northwestern football players are employees, as are football players at Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, Rice, Southern California, Southern Methodist, Stanford, Syracuse, Texas Christian, Tulane, Tulsa, Vanderbilt, and Wake Forest. The NLRB does not have jurisdiction over public schools, and has not ruled on sports outside of football.

What do you think?

Since they cannot rule on state schools, does that mean that private schools now have to work with a different set of rules than other teams?

 

[Alaskawildkat]

Just to keep the record straight, this was not a "ruling" as is referenced in the title, but rather a memo containing one person's opinion. Maybe that just looks like a semantic difference that we lawyers make, but one can't "rule" on something that is not before one to be adjudicated. No ruling, no precedent - though it may be suggestive of how things are currently being interpreted.

One can't help but wonder if this was prompted by the soon to be departure of the lawyer (whose term expires later this year) who wrote it, akin to the Acting Attorney General's acting out, knowing that her days were numbered, before she ended up being fired,

FWIW, here is a reposting of my response to the original thread on this topic before it made it to the mainstream media.

Question what precedent a mere memo holds. Taking a page from the fired Acting U.S. Attorney General, maybe the lawyer author is gunning for some glory in anticipation of the upcoming regime change.

Lots of caveats in the "document" itself:

The new memo partly answers a question left open by the full National Labor Relations Board in 2015, when it declined to assert jurisdiction over whether football players at Northwestern University could form a union. It does not reverse that ruling, however, nor does it carry the force of law
.....

Griffin was appointed the NLRB's general counsel by President Obama in 2013. His term ends in November, and his replacement could issue different guidance. Donald Remy, the NCAA's general counsel, said the new memo does not reflect a binding position of the NLRB and that the document will not affect the association's stance.

 

[willycat]

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/18612851/nlrb-rules-football-players-private-fbs-schools-employees

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/...ollege-athletes-as-employees-with-rights.html

A variety of sources are reporting that a memorandum from the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board revealed this week seems to expand the 2014 NLRB ruling, and to assert that Northwestern football players are employees, as are football players at Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, Rice, Southern California, Southern Methodist, Stanford, Syracuse, Texas Christian, Tulane, Tulsa, Vanderbilt, and Wake Forest. The New York Times article says that the memo does not carry the force of law like a full board finding, and it does not necessarily give players at private universities the right to collectively bargain. The NLRB does not have jurisdiction over public schools, and has not ruled on sports outside of football.

What do you think?

Those schools listed would make up a very strong conference. Also they would have the ability offer additional compensation over room and board.

 

[winnetkat]

Just to keep the record straight, this was not a "ruling" as is referenced in the title, but rather a memo containing one person's opinion. Maybe that just looks like a semantic difference that we lawyers make, but one can't "rule" on something that is not before one to be adjudicated. No ruling, no precedent - though it may be suggestive of how things are currently being interpreted.

Thanks for the clarification, Alaska. The ESPN article which led me to first post the thread erroneously referred to the memo as a ruling. After clicking around to see what others were saying, I noticed that wasn't really accurate, and edited my post somewhat but I couldn't figure out how to update the title.

Interesting times ahead, either way!