Questions about the college players' union

A recent article pointed out that the impetus behind the new college players' union is coming from the United Steelworkers Union, which funded the case. And the NLRB -- the same organization which tried to prevent Boeing from opening up a new plant in South Carolina -- passed judgment. Evidently the unions see a chance to collect more dues.

The rationale is that colleges make millions off their football programs, both in TV revenue and alumni donations, but the athletes themselves get no compensation beyond their scholarships.

One wonders exactly how this will work. Let's say these student/athletes end up being paid a couple hundred thousand a year: how much resentment would this engender among the other students? Would they still root for their college team?

Unionization certainly puts into clear relief that certain "students" are attending college mostly to play ball. That big time college football and basketball players are not serious students is hardly a secret, but how much more scrutiny will their farcical academic credentials withstand before serious questions start being asked about whether this situation should be allowed to continue?

The vast majority of colleges will doubtless harrumph and insist they are serious educational institutions, not factories for future pro athletes. (Does any academic ever pass up a chance to sniff at a lesser college?)

The essential power of a union lies in its ability to call a strike. How exactly would that work for a college football team? They would seem to lack leverage, since their only alternative is the pros, which most of them aren't good enough for. What kind of bargaining position does that give these unions?

There are plenty of students who played high school ball but weren't good enough to make their college teams who'd jump at the chance to take the place of the striking players. Would these "scabs" be ostracized by the first string players? Would they have to cross picket lines to attend practice?

What if one of these second string teams ended up playing in a big game? It would probably end up getting more publicity -- and possibly even paying fans -- than a normal game. It's not hard to figure out whom the average American fan would be rooting for in that situation. That fan might be disappointed in the lack of a Hollywood ending to the game; nonetheless, he would still be interested enough to watch.

So will we ever see a situation in which the Chicago Bears and University of Oklahoma get into a bidding war for the services of a star running back? Doubtful.

Part of the rationale behind the NLRB's decision was that the football players devote a lot of time to their sport as well as having to take courses. But if having to take courses as well as train for a sport is a "job," then why don't the rest of the student/athletes unionize? Because the less publicized sports don't make money for their colleges.

But that still begs the question of why their campus existence is any less of a job. Don't swimmers, rowers, and cross country runners work even harder at their "jobs" than do football players? Especially when you take into account the GPA's and graduation rates of those teams vs. the football and basketball teams?

Here's another way to look at it. Maybe the colleges where the athletes have honed their skills and gotten national exposure should demand a cut, say 15%, of the athletes' future earnings from their sport. After all, they've helped the players develop as athletes, all while giving them a free education and room ad board to boot. 

These colleges are effectively coach, agent, and benefactor all at once. 

So, how about it? Shouldn't they get a cut of those fat NFL salaries?

Sounds like a case the NLRB might be sympathetic towards. As long as the colleges are willing to pay union dues.