College Athletes’ Union?

The National Labor Relations Board has given the go-ahead to college football players at Northwestern University in Chicago, a private school, to form a union.  The athletes are scheduled to vote today, April 25.  I find this fascinating in oh so many ways.  The basis of the ruling was that college athletes are not students at the university as much as they are employees of the university.  The NLRB said there was enough evidence that athletes are employees based on scholarships received, hours of practice, and money generated for the university.  The logic loop of this ruling is both scary and enlightening.

The first inkling I had that this might be coming was a Time Magazine cover in September and the title article, “It’s Time to Pay College Athletes,” by Sean Gregory.  At the time I thought it was simply an off the wall suggestion, but it clearly is gaining momentum.  Now that at least the athletes at one university have been granted the right to form a union, it will not be long I suspect before all college athletes do the same. 

Those athletes have what appears on the surface to be a reasonable list of topics they wish to bargain.  If approved, the next step, of course, will be to collectively bargain for pay.  Are you ready for Saturday football games to be canceled because the players are on strike?  What variables might end up on the negotiating table?  Can union players be fired?  How about working conditions?  How about hours?  How about locker rooms?  How about the length of half-time?  How about who calls the offense and defense?  How about the uniforms?  How about dress code?  How about mandatory study halls?  How about curfews?  How about the cheerleaders?  (Interesting that professional football team cheerleaders are engaged in a suit against the NFL for paying them less than minimum wage.  NFL Commissioner earns $44 million per year.  Why would the cheerleaders complain?)  If a college athletic union is formed, will college athletes get agents to negotiate their best deal across an array of universities?  Which set of rules will carry the day, the NCAA or the collective bargaining agreement?  Is “show me the money” a future phrase in collegiate sports?

As an aside, how about other sports that drain rather than contribute funds to the university, i.e., can the bicycle team members join at the 15 universities that have such a varsity team?  Women’s volleyball, basketball, swimming, etc.?  The issues available for possible bargaining topics are almost limitless.

(I find it sad that the name “Teamsters Union” already exists as this would be a great name for such an athletic players’ organization.  They appear to have adopted the moniker College Athletic Players Association, or CAPA.  Perhaps they could call themselves Huddle, or Jocks Strapped, or CPU (college players union), or Spikes and Strikes, etc., etc.  Whatever such a union will be called it will have very little to do with the love of the game or the fact that it is a game.)

What is really going on here?  My theory goes like this:  Professional football has become such a money maker that players receive millions of dollars and multi-year contracts to play, not to mention the coaches, the front offices, etc.  The main revenue source for professional teams is not ticket sales.  It is television rights followed by the sale of memorabilia.  Television networks pay big bucks to broadcast sports because they can charge vendors a lot of money for advertising.  Vendors are willing to pay because the audience is large.  All that money has changed professional sports from players who love the game and have a feeling of loyalty for the hometown team, to a roster of “professionals” who move based on their marketability.  Whether pro sports remain a sport or have become a private sector competition such as Ford vs. Chevy would be a topic worth thinking about, but not here and not now.  The bottom line is that professional sports is an incredibly big business thanks mostly to television.

Universities that feed the pros have experienced the trickle-down effect.  Major universities are generating tons of money via television contracts as well.  This has led to college coaches earning millions of dollars.  The best a college player can do is to get a scholarship that pays for his education while he plays for a multi-million dollar coach in multi-million dollar facilities on national TV because he is an amateur.  The pros have a players association.  Why not college athletes?  College coaches are true dictators deciding on offense, defense, practice, starting roster, scholarships, etc., etc.  As long as they are winning they are pretty much left alone.  Such a concentration of power and wealth has historically led to the organization of unions to create a more democratic decision making model, to provide a check on management run amuck, and to share in the wealth they help generate.  If history serves to inform us, the players will vote to form a union as they will gain a heady sense of power and decision making in an area where they feel more like indentured servants than college kids.  I am sure the coaches and the NCAA oppose such a formation as their power will become limited and the funds that currently are spent on other things, like coaches’ salaries, will shift to student athletes.  I further suspect university presidents everywhere are secretly grinning as they watch the demise of the coaching dictatorships and a diminishment of the fiefdom of college athletics.  Bottom line:  the problem with pro sports and collegiate sports is, in my opinion, too much revenue which has led to excesses beyond imagination.  This is especially true at the collegiate level where the institution supposedly exists for academic reasons.

If college athletes begin to form unions and begin to receive pay for playing, there will be a huge impact on high school athletics.  Just as colleges experience the trickle down effects from the pros, high schools feel the trickle-down effects from colleges.  If college sports, especially football, become an employment opportunity with pay, high school parents, players, coaches and administrators will change the way they think about high school football.  That is of deep concern to me.

Currently the only revenue source high school sports tend to reap is from ticket sales.  Some may generate money from advertisements on scoreboards and in printed programs and from booster club donations, but for the most part it is ticket sales.  In my district of 1600 kids with 200 student athletes the total athletic revenue hovers around $50,000 per year, all sources combined.  We spend upwards of $500,000 per year on athletics.  High school sports are not the money generator that college and the pros are because no one pays to advertise on a televised high school game so they are not televised.  Rather, the local taxpayers shift resources from other areas to fund athletics.  I know there is a myth out there that says high school sports pays for itself, but it is a myth.  What we generate in revenue does not even cover the salary of the athletic director, much less all the other coaches, equipment, fees, etc.  School districts are not rolling in dough like some colleges and the pros.  So whatever additional impacts of college football player unions are on high school athletics will likely be very expensive and very political.

Expensive because those parents who have always dreamed that their son will merit a football scholarship to a university will now become more rabid in their insistence that high schools do a better job of preparing him.  A better job typically means more coaches, more equipment, better aesthetics in the locker room and on the field, better buses, and even bigger football stadiums.  We see this trend already in wealthier districts.  Will it trickle down to smaller systems?

I fear so.  I fear that it is already here.  The parental and community yearning for victorious football teams is beyond reasoning.  Much as some people doubt evolution when the evidence is overwhelming, or as some people doubt global warming when the evidence is overwhelming, some people believe that a student playing high school football in a 3A or smaller school system has a chance at a football scholarship and the life of a pro athlete.  The odds of having a child identified as gifted are about 3 in 100.  The odds of having a super gifted child, one whose IQ is above 180, is less than 1%.  The odds of a high school senior getting a college scholarship is about 0.5 %.  The odds of playing pro ball are astronomically smaller.  One is much more likely to be struck by lightning than to become a scholarship college player or a professional athlete.  And yet, despite the facts, the dreams and the yearning continue.

If college players unionize what shall we do about high school athletics?  Athletics is currently not a state required program.  No district in Texas is required to compete in athletics, or if they do, compete in every sport.  That is a local decision.  Athletics is an elective, an expensive elective, but an elective.  Further, there is no required training or certification to be a high school coach.  High school coaches are hired to teach a subject for which they are certified, and are paid extra for coaching at the end of the school day.  One cannot become a certified football, volleyball or basketball coach.  There is no prerequisite that any of these paying positions are staffed by people who in fact have ever played the game or manned the position.  The state could move from the gluttonous ranks of coaches currently on the payroll to a real coach shortage if coaches were required to have expertise in the area they coach.

If college athletes earn pay and merit benefits should we shift athletics from a free-standing elective program designed for those kids who are psycho-motor gifted to a vocational program where we are teaching skills to earn a living?    What happens if we begin to think of athletics as a pre-employment program?  We might be tempted because if we do we could begin to funnel state and federal vocational dollars into athletics.  Will we hold coaches accountable for the number of students who are actually placed and retained in this new job market?  High school coaches would fight that tooth and nail as they do not want accountability for the futures of their players.  No one realizes more than coaches that ½ of the teams lose in every game played and the low percentage of athletes that are capable of moving on to perform at college.  No, the high school coach is more of a PR job where he or she seeks to nurture affection, adoration and unquestioning support from each community.  They are more like preachers seeking to increase their congregations and establishing themselves as benevolent dictators who should never be challenged.  Few have ever developed an offense or defense that is new, or a route that will guarantee success, etc.  They all pretty much run the same stuff, though the trends vary.  No, the truly successful coach is charismatic, not inclined to either work for the long term success of the student athletes, but inclined to win this game, this week.  Hold them accountable and they will scream.  And unlike the vocational areas where learning how to weld must be taught by someone who is a competent welder, coaches are never expected to be able to do the skills or drills that they teach the players.  For most, to attempt to do so would be a life-threatening event.

I believe the thinking man’s high school athletic supporter (is that an oxymoron?) will oppose the unionization of college football players.  The real problem, from my point of view, is the vast amount of money television contracts have generated for pro sports and collegiate sports.  There are much better ways to reduce the money in collegiate sports, limit the power of the collegiate football coach, and improve the conditions for college football players than player unionization.  Ways that in fact could benefit not only the players, but the academic program as well.  (I find it really interesting that many of those who strongly advocate the application of private sector strategies to public schools simultaneously oppose a cost/benefit analysis of the athletic program.  I assume they also believe there is no global warming and the sun rotates around the earth.)

If the players unionize, high school football will forever change.  It will no longer just be a game that young men play for fun while learning some life skills along the way.  It will become the free internship program for the big business of sports. 

Or, am I the one who is dreaming?  Are we at that point already?

The real question is not whether to have athletics or not.  In my opinion we should definitely have an athletic program.  The real question may be, “What is the purpose of sports at the high school, collegiate and professional level?”  Is this a game or something else?  Are we fulfilling those purposes?  If so, what are the inherent opportunity costs to other areas in doing so?

Ouch.