The NCAA’s amateur business model will be on trial Monday in Los Angeles labor court.
The local office of the National Labor Relations Board will begin hearing a case that could ultimately reclassify Division I football and basketball players as university employees under federal labor law. The NCAA’s entire business model would then be deemed illegal, as athletes would be eligible to receive wages, apply for an official union, and access all employee benefits under US labor law, such as workers’ compensation.
The lawsuit was filed in February 2022 by the National College Players Association against USC, UCLA, the Pac-12 and the NCAA. However, UCLA has since withdrawn due to a jurisdictional issue.
Here’s everything you need to know:
Northwestern tried and failed to unionize through the NLRB in 2014. How is this case different?
This case is different from the failed 2014-15 Northwest Region football unionization effort. Rather than a petition to unionize, this is an “unfair labor practice” (ULP) charge, which states that the employers—the NCAA , Pac-12 and USC – illegally classify athletes as amateurs when they should be considered officials.
Important distinction: While unionization petitions are filed by the employees themselves, anyone can file a ULP. The NCPA, which brought this charge, is run by athlete advocate and former UCLA football player Ramogi Huma, who was part of the push for the NIL and numerous federal antitrust cases against the NCAA. (Huma was involved in the effort to organize Northwestern football players, although the petition was submitted by players.)
“Coaches, athletic directors and conference commissioners earn millions of dollars while NCAA sports deny athletes fair pay, violate minimum wage and overtime laws, and avoid workers’ compensation while unsafe workplace conditions go unchecked,” Huma previously said this in a statement. “We work to ensure that college athletes are treated fairly in both the educational and business aspects of college sports.”
Although slightly different things are required in these cases (right to unionize vs. employee classification), the results are basically the same.
Has the NLRB taken a public position on the issue of employment of college athletes?
yes In 2014, the Northwestern case failed on a technicality, not because the NLRB ruled against the employment statute. In fact, the local office rules that athletes are employees.
Since then, however, the NLRB’s general counsel has changed. Jennifer Abruzzo, an appointee of President Joe Biden, issued a memo in September 2021 stating that she believes many college athletes are employees. She added that she will litigate cases that come to her as such, which is an invitation to such a case.
“The District’s decision that the unfair labor practices have merit is based on the determination that USC, the Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA, as joint employers, maintained illegal rules and illegally misclassified scholarship basketball and football players as mere “students.” athletes and not officials who are entitled to protection under our law,” Abruzzo previously said in a statement to the FOS.
“This kind of misclassification deprives these players of their legal right to organize and unionize to improve their working/playing conditions if they wish to do so. Our goal is to ensure that these players can fully and freely exercise their rights.”
If the athlete’s side wins, what will college sports look like?
If Huma’s team wins, the DI football and men’s and women’s basketball players will be reclassified as officials.
The lawsuit is against USC, the Pac-12 and the NCAA for two reasons.
First, hearing a case against a private school is easier for the NLRB because it falls squarely within its jurisdiction over the private sector. Second, Huma wants athletes to be managed employees in public and private schools. To do so, the lawsuit must establish that these athletes are “jointly employed” not only by USC, but also by the Pac-12 and the NCAA.
What is the deadline for a final decision?
The year-and-a-half-long case likely won’t see a final decision for months.
The start of the case will run from Monday, December 18 to Wednesday, December 20. The case will continue in January and February, if necessary, depending on the length of testimony. Both sides will have the opportunity to appeal to the federal NLRB board, then to a federal appeals court and eventually to the Supreme Court.
How could this case affect other federal cases regarding college athlete recruitment?
Several other cases may result in college students being classified as employees under US labor law, including Johnson v. NCAA and a new case called Carter v. NCAA. If the athletes win, the ruling is likely to influence federal judges to take over the leadership of the NLRB. But there is no guarantee; it wouldn’t be the first time federal judges have disagreed on NCAA athlete compensation issues.
