In Reply to: Sehorn, this is what I was talking about re NLRB/SC posted by TAMPATIDE on February 07, 2024 at 08:29:22
From a macro perspective, this case, based on the Dartmouth case, is a fait accomplait. The difference is they sued the PAC (which is defunct) and the NCAA. I think this is important, because they will sue for damages (or at least lay the work for a class action suit). If, and that’s a big if that I don’t know thr answer to, they can sue for players who were refused NIL and employee rights in the past, it’s gonna be a massive financial loss for Defendants. Maybe the NCAA has insurance that would cover this outcome. I don’t know.
Thr other issues is public/private schools. All these actions are filed against private schools, but there is no real distinction in the analysis for the public/private status on the athletes. Obviously, if privates are mandated to unionize it’s a huge benefit to the athletes of the private institutions. Thr public’s will have to follow.
Then the issue becomes is it economically feasible. Pretty hard to pay athletes in non-revenue sports (who have little to no interest to 95%+ of alums and general sports fans) anything more than a nominal amount plus all the normal benefits one has as an employee at a university. Even that may not be feasible. There is no way the Bowling Green’s, Ball States and Nevada’s will be able to survive.