In a monumental victory for the student-athletes of Northwestern, a judge ruled in favor of their status as employees of the university, giving them the right to unionize if they so choose.
While the players' intentions are admirable, this would be an unequivocal mistake on their part. In doing what they believe is furthering their cause, they are opening Pandora's Box of issues.
First and foremost, the difference between "student-athlete" and "employee" may seem small, but it has far-reaching implications. Hypothetically, let's say student-athletes are considered employees. Well, employees get fired for poor performance. Will these players be able to be let go from the university after a bad season?
Next, universities are considered non-profit organizations and, therefore, are not subject to tax laws like the general population. As such, scholarships are considered grants and are not a taxable income. If they are employees, these $60,000 scholarships will become taxable incomes for these students. How will students, who sometimes would not be able to attend these universities if not for the grants, be able to pay thousands of dollars in taxes?
Speaking of money, unions don't come cheap. Lawyers and other negotiators need to be paid for. Where will these union dues be coming from? Who's going to be paying for the services?
Unpaid doesn't mean that there are no benefits. Unpaid internships hopefully contribute to future success for students by exposing them to companies and industries, just as college sports act as a platform for players to showcase their talents and advertise their names for future employment.
The students who initially petitioned the courts were football players, but what's to stop baseball, basketball or other teams from wanting to unionize? They put in just as many hours, and likely are traveling even more than the football team is. What about student-athletes in Div. II and Div. III programs? They are dedicating themselves to their craft as well and deserve rights.
Of the many demands from the players, two were better medical insurance after they leave the universities and the ability to transfer at any time. The better medical insurance is reasonable to request, but the ultimate effect will be higher prices for tickets, concessions and sources of revenue from us, the fans. Contrary to popular belief, many athletic departments struggle to turn a profit, and others aren't even able to break even without subsidies from the state. These higher costs to run the program will be passed on directly the consumer.
For their second demand, employees are not free to switch companies whenever they please, so why should athletes be? In many businesses, there are non-compete clauses. For instance, employees of Nike may not be able to work at a competitor like Adidas for a year or more after leaving the company. Players can't just pick up and leave a school arbitrarily - that's not how a business works.
Being treated as an employee is more than just getting paid by the university. The athletes can't just pick and choose which rules they want to apply to them and which they don't. While I don't doubt that the players have done their homework to assess all the risks of unionizing, I don't agree that it's the right course of action.
The college athletics landscape is changing, but these aren't the changes that need to be made. Scholarship athletes already receive tuition to schools they are sometimes unqualified to attend academically or pay for at full price. In return for their talents, they receive world-class training, gear, access to some of the best facilities in the country, and more. Unionizing is wrong, and until the players realize this - you're sacked!
Jordan Bean is a sophomore majoring in economics. He can be reached at Jordan.Bean@tufts.edu.
