Should college athletes be allows to unionize?

2014-04-09 23:31:31

#26

Adams_BJ: Russian warship, go fuck yourself; +2,053|6615|Little Bentcock

Shahter wrote:
Adams_BJ wrote:
Shahter wrote:

are you reading the questions, dude? i got this ^, really, i understand perfectly well the way it is organized. the question is, i repeat:
why must it be that way?
BEcause they aren't being employed by the college
why not?
they are 'studying' there, but really its just to give them the best possible chance to be picked up by a pro team.
why are you so sure that does actually give them the "best possible chance"? as far as i can tell, for most of them that's their only chance, and that usually means abuse and exploitation.
It's a privilege to get a free ride and access to those world class coaching staff and facilities.
and if they don't agree? if they want to be compensated for their efforts in other ways?
If they were employed by the university then they probably would be unionised, but they aren't.
again, why not?

1. Because they don't work for the college. They aren't hired there, they are 'studying'.
2. IT gives them the best possible chance because universities spend a lot of money on coaching, training facilities, exposure etc.
3. If they don't agree they can fork out at least 5 figures to 'study' there out of their own pocket, and do away with the scholarships.
4. Because they are students, not staff.

2014-04-10 02:38:04

#27

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6099|eXtreme to the maX

Across most European countries student organisations are called 'unions'.

'Students' on sports 'scholarships' are pretty close to being employees, who gives a shit what they do.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2014-04-10 09:01:08

#28

pirana6: Go Cougs!; +682|6283|Washington St.

How about if you join a union you forfeit any scholarship you may have?

The issue lies with the fact that most students who play sports will have either a full-ride or close to it. This means they not only get an education but someone else is paying for it (i.e. Me, the taxpayer). Why should the money that is made playing a sport (when they're getting paid already in means of a scholarship) go to them and not back to the taxpayer?

You want to be in a union and make money from the sport you play? Forfeit your scholarship and pay for school yourself.

2014-04-10 16:12:20

#29

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5351|London, England

Adams_BJ wrote:
Shahter wrote:
Adams_BJ wrote:
They are the for a shot at playing at the pros.
all of them? how do you know?
and even if they are, why can't they have a say on the matter of compensation for their efforts as athletes?
The college is giving them the opportunity, coaching and the facilities to be picked up by a pro team, and compensating it with a free college spot and accommodation. They aren't being employed by the university. If they make money it's through endorsements or maybe prize money. They aren't getting paid to compete, so there's no need for a union.

Not entirely... In america the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) controls all organized athletics at the college level. They have very strict rules in place that prevent athletes from working at all. They can not hold part or full time jobs, they can not make money from endorsements etc. They are entirely dependent on the school for financial support (I think they receive like $300 in spending money per semester). The NCAA justifies this by saying they are protecting the amateur status of the athletes and preventing cheating.

I think the players are stupid personally. I think their demand to be able to keep their scholarship even if they quit their team is laughable. The problem is really with the NCAA and the rules they have in place to exploit mostly free labor while profiting immensely.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2014-04-10 16:13:45

#30

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6574|SE London

You don't have student unions in the US?

Where do you get cheap booze if not from the student union bar?

2014-04-10 16:14:58

#31

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5351|London, England

Campuses are trending towards being dry these days
.. remember the official drinking age is 21

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2014-04-10 19:04:45

#32

BVC: Member; +325|6688

Bertster7 wrote:
Where do you get cheap booze if not from the student union bar?

This. Cheap pints alone justifies the existence of student unions.

2014-04-10 22:43:44

#33

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,736|6730|Oxferd Ohire

its easy to get cheap beer offcampus

2014-04-11 20:23:41

#34

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6709

Bertster7 wrote:
You don't have student unions in the US?

Where do you get cheap booze if not from the student union bar?

m8 they have frats instead.

in aus now everyone is automatically in the student union because everyone has to pay union fees for uni. wtf.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher- … 6727834311

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2014-04-12 00:23:50

#35

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6674|Disaster Free Zone

Cybargs wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
You don't have student unions in the US?

Where do you get cheap booze if not from the student union bar?
m8 they have frats instead.

in aus now everyone is automatically in the student union because everyone has to pay union fees for uni. wtf.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher- … 6727834311

Pretty sure they removed that when I was at uni, unless they reinstated it after i left.

2014-04-12 00:48:18

#36

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6709

DrunkFace wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
You don't have student unions in the US?

Where do you get cheap booze if not from the student union bar?
m8 they have frats instead.

in aus now everyone is automatically in the student union because everyone has to pay union fees for uni. wtf.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher- … 6727834311
Pretty sure they removed that when I was at uni, unless they reinstated it after i left.

They reinstated it in 2012 and it's built in as part of your fees for uni. they call it "student amenities" now and its 140 a semester for full time students.

2014-04-12 08:38:05

#37

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +635|3712

Cybargs wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
You don't have student unions in the US?

Where do you get cheap booze if not from the student union bar?
m8 they have frats instead.

in aus now everyone is automatically in the student union because everyone has to pay union fees for uni. wtf.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher- … 6727834311

Event university in the U.S. has student unions. Literally every single one. They were a HUGE part of the civil rights and antiwar movements. Don't know where you are getting your info.

2014-04-12 18:54:37

#38

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6709

SuperJail Warden wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
You don't have student unions in the US?

Where do you get cheap booze if not from the student union bar?
m8 they have frats instead.

in aus now everyone is automatically in the student union because everyone has to pay union fees for uni. wtf.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher- … 6727834311
Event university in the U.S. has student unions. Literally every single one. They were a HUGE part of the civil rights and antiwar movements. Don't know where you are getting your info.

The term is used differently here in aus. Student unions range from marketing societies, save the children, red cross, vinnies etc. bit different terminology.

2014-04-12 20:36:53

#39

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +635|3712

Ours do that too.

2014-04-14 01:28:49

#40

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6768|Moscow, Russia

i still don't get it.

a person goes to university. that person is a good athlete, with potential to grow to be a pro. the school offers that person, in exchange for their performance as an athlete, free scholarship, coaching and all that jazz.

now, if that person accepts the terms above, it's all fine and dandy. the problem is that if he/she doesn't the only way for them to become a pro is to forgo the scholarship.

why? why not employ that person as an athlete, negotiating the terms, salary, withholding the cost of services provided by the uni, and all? why not give him/her a say in the matter? why must it be "my way or the highway"? sure looks like exploitation to me.

Last edited by Shahter (2014-04-14 01:31:04)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2014-04-14 01:57:59

#41

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6709

Shahter wrote:
why? why not employ that person as an athlete, negotiating the terms, salary, withholding the cost of services provided by the uni, and all? why not give him/her a say in the matter? why must it be "my way or the highway"? sure looks like exploitation to me.

because its "immoral" to pay student athletes and perverses amateur sports or some BS.

2014-04-14 02:17:52

#42

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6674|Disaster Free Zone

Shahter wrote:
i still don't get it.

a person goes to university. that person is a good athlete, with potential to grow to be a pro. the school offers that person, in exchange for their performance as an athlete, free scholarship, coaching and all that jazz.

now, if that person accepts the terms above, it's all fine and dandy. the problem is that if he/she doesn't the only way for them to become a pro is to forgo the scholarship.

why? why not employ that person as an athlete, negotiating the terms, salary, withholding the cost of services provided by the uni, and all? why not give him/her a say in the matter? why must it be "my way or the highway"? sure looks like exploitation to me.

Because the definition of amateur sport is you don't get paid. Hence my first response, that they shouldn't get scholarships even. And college sport isn't (or at least shouldn't be) the only way to become a pro, there a many other amateur or semi pro sports clubs not associated with a learning institution.

2014-04-14 02:28:11

#43

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6709

DrunkFace wrote:
Because the definition of amateur sport is you don't get paid. Hence my first response, that they shouldn't get scholarships even. And college sport isn't (or at least shouldn't be) the only way to become a pro, there a many other amateur or semi pro sports clubs not associated with a learning institution.

Yeah but most amateur sports clubs don't get a dedicated ESPN channel.

2014-04-14 02:34:25

#44

Adams_BJ: Russian warship, go fuck yourself; +2,053|6615|Little Bentcock

Shahter wrote:
i still don't get it.

a person goes to university. that person is a good athlete, with potential to grow to be a pro. the school offers that person, in exchange for their performance as an athlete, free scholarship, coaching and all that jazz.

now, if that person accepts the terms above, it's all fine and dandy. the problem is that if he/she doesn't the only way for them to become a pro is to forgo the scholarship.

why? why not employ that person as an athlete, negotiating the terms, salary, withholding the cost of services provided by the uni, and all? why not give him/her a say in the matter? why must it be "my way or the highway"? sure looks like exploitation to me.

They can, they can forgo college if they get drafted straight into the pros. Or you can opt to forgo college and try your luck at getting a pro shot.

Lot easier to go the college route though.

2014-04-14 03:21:46

#45

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6709

Adams_BJ wrote:
Shahter wrote:
i still don't get it.

a person goes to university. that person is a good athlete, with potential to grow to be a pro. the school offers that person, in exchange for their performance as an athlete, free scholarship, coaching and all that jazz.

now, if that person accepts the terms above, it's all fine and dandy. the problem is that if he/she doesn't the only way for them to become a pro is to forgo the scholarship.

why? why not employ that person as an athlete, negotiating the terms, salary, withholding the cost of services provided by the uni, and all? why not give him/her a say in the matter? why must it be "my way or the highway"? sure looks like exploitation to me.
They can, they can forgo college if they get drafted straight into the pros. Or you can opt to forgo college and try your luck at getting a pro shot.

Lot easier to go the college route though.

Really tough going straight as a pro only after playing in high school...

2014-04-14 03:23:08

#46

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5351|London, England

Shahter wrote:
i still don't get it.

a person goes to university. that person is a good athlete, with potential to grow to be a pro. the school offers that person, in exchange for their performance as an athlete, free scholarship, coaching and all that jazz.

now, if that person accepts the terms above, it's all fine and dandy. the problem is that if he/she doesn't the only way for them to become a pro is to forgo the scholarship.

why? why not employ that person as an athlete, negotiating the terms, salary, withholding the cost of services provided by the uni, and all? why not give him/her a say in the matter? why must it be "my way or the highway"? sure looks like exploitation to me.

Because 99% of college athletic programs lose money already. The athletes are being subsidized by the rest of the students paying mandatory athletics fees whether or not they participate in any sport. If athletes were treated like employees those fees would go up, further burdening non-athletes. There would be riots.

Last edited by Jay (2014-04-14 03:25:40)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2014-04-14 03:53:49

#47

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6768|Moscow, Russia

Jay wrote:
Because 99% of college athletic programs lose money already. The athletes are being subsidized by the rest of the students paying mandatory athletics fees whether or not they participate in any sport. If athletes were treated like employees those fees would go up, further burdening non-athletes. There would be riots.

so, basically, colleges tend to mismanage their athletic programs and to place the burden on students. okay. what does that have to do with anything i was asking about?

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2014-04-14 05:27:54

#48

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5351|London, England

Shahter wrote:
Jay wrote:
Because 99% of college athletic programs lose money already. The athletes are being subsidized by the rest of the students paying mandatory athletics fees whether or not they participate in any sport. If athletes were treated like employees those fees would go up, further burdening non-athletes. There would be riots.
so, basically, colleges tend to mismanage their athletic programs and to place the burden on students. okay. what does that have to do with anything i was asking about?

Athletics are expensive to support. When you're giving scholarships to athletes, paying for the creation of and maintenance of stadiums and fields, paying for equipment and coaches salaries, it becomes very expensive. When I was a student I was paying about $200 per semester in athletic fees to support all this crap, and I hated it. Almost everyone but the athletes hated it.

College athletics as they are today are an abomination and should be abolished. If students want to play sports, let them organize and pay for the teams themselves, or find sponsors. I don't think the people playing alternative sports like frisbee golf or whatever are having any less fun than the people playing football or soccer. Abolish the NCAA and get rid of this semi-pro college athletics bs.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2014-04-14 05:34:35

#49

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6768|Moscow, Russia

Jay wrote:
Shahter wrote:
Jay wrote:
Because 99% of college athletic programs lose money already. The athletes are being subsidized by the rest of the students paying mandatory athletics fees whether or not they participate in any sport. If athletes were treated like employees those fees would go up, further burdening non-athletes. There would be riots.
so, basically, colleges tend to mismanage their athletic programs and to place the burden on students. okay. what does that have to do with anything i was asking about?
Athletics are expensive to support. When you're giving scholarships to athletes, paying for the creation of and maintenance of stadiums and fields, paying for equipment and coaches salaries, it becomes very expensive. When I was a student I was paying about $200 per semester in athletic fees to support all this crap, and I hated it. Almost everyone but the athletes hated it.

why go to that college then? was there no alternative?

College athletics as they are today are an abomination and should be abolished. If students want to play sports, let them organize and pay for the teams themselves, or find sponsors. I don't think the people playing alternative sports like frisbee golf or whatever are having any less fun than the people playing football or soccer. Abolish the NCAA and get rid of this semi-pro college athletics bs.

okay.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2014-04-14 05:45:51

#50

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6709

Shahter wrote:
why go to that college then? was there no alternative?

College sports is HUGE in America. Ivy league is pretty much just a football league amongst those top unis. People go nuts over college sports.

BF2S Forums Should college athletes be allows to unionize?

Shahter wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Board footer