By: Talia Black
January 30, 2025
Photo Credit: Getty Images
The long fight for NCAA athletes to gain employment status has once again hit a roadblock. This time, efforts that would have led to University of Southern California athletes unionizing have stalled after the National College Players Association (NCPA) issued a motion to withdraw charges of unfair labor practices against USC, the Pac-12 Conference, and the NCAA.
In February 2022, the NCPA - a nonprofit advocacy association leading the movement for college athletes’ rights - filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against USC, the Pac-12, and the NCAA, alleging that student-athletes should be considered employees. The NLRB’s Los Angeles office later filed an official complaint in May 2023. The complaint specifically alleged that USC’s football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball players should be classified as employees instead of “student-athletes” under the National Labor Relations Act. Their reasoning for this argument was based upon the following: players receive wages in the form of scholarships controlled by the NCAA, Pac-12 and USC; players receive health and injury insurance benefits; players are subject to strict “work” hours based upon the NCAA’s practice, games, and travel rules; players are “hired” onto the team based upon NCAA and Pac-12 eligibility determinations; and players are disciplined and discharged from the team for violations of USC, Pac-12, and or NCAA policies (Venable).
The initial hearing occurred in sessions throughout the end of 2023 and early 2024 during which USC student-athletes provided testimony describing the level of control the school (along with the conference and national governing body) had over their schedules, similar to an employee-employer relationship. Things seemed to be heading in the right direction for the NLRB to win the case. However, on January 10, almost a year after the initial hearing, the NCPA requested to withdraw the charges (USC Daily Bulletin). Though this may have come as a surprise, it seems there are multiple factors involved with this decision to withdraw the case. The NCPA stated that recent developments in the college athletics landscape have brought the goal of compensating players close to fruition. One of these changes is the upcoming revenue-sharing model that would allow schools to pay student-athletes directly, set to take effect this August if the House v. NCAA settlement is approved. Additionally, NIL laws in many states have helped make players getting paid a reality. The timing of this decision may also have to do in part with the recent U.S. presidential administration transition, given the likelihood that President Trump will make extensive changes to the NLRB’s leadership which could affect their ruling on this case. As of now, the NCPA wants to give these developments time to take shape before the case continues. The NCPA is still awaiting a response from the NLRB on their ruling (USA Herald).
This isn’t the first time that college athletes have made efforts to unionize and collectively bargain. In 2014, the Northwestern University football team attempted to unionize but were ultimately unsuccessful after the NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction over the case in 2015. Because Northwestern is a private school in the Big Ten conference (made up of all public schools besides Northwestern at the time), the NLRB argued they could not assert jurisdiction over Northwestern while public schools, which fall under state labor laws, would not be afforded the same treatment (ESPN).
Additionally, the Dartmouth University basketball team made historical progress in their efforts to be considered employees in March 2024 with a 13-2 vote in favor of unionizing, the first group of college athletes to do so. This came after the NLRB regional director ruled that the basketball players were employees of Dartmouth in February 2024. However, the Dartmouth players withdrew their petition to unionize in December in response to the anticipated shift in NLRB’s makeup due to the new presidential administration. This decision likely came because of concerns that the new appointees would be less than favorable to their position and potentially jeopardize the precedent they had set (AP News).
Why all these efforts to unionize anyway? Unionization would give student-athletes collective bargaining rights, allowing them to negotiate wages, working conditions, and benefits they feel they should receive. This feeling is especially present among athletes in revenue-generating sports who make significant revenues for their schools and athletic departments. While recent NIL deals have allowed some athletes a pathway to make money, unionization would secure direct compensation, stipends, or even salaries for all athletes. It would also help enforce limits on practice hours, travel schedules, and mandatory team activities to ensure student-athletes have ample time to focus on their education and personal lives as well. Another huge point of emphasis in the fight for employment status is pushing for guaranteed medical coverage, insurance benefits, and protections for injuries suffered during their playing careers.
For now, it seems that despite multiple cases strengthening the argument for college athletes to be classified as employees, there are major legal, logistical, and political hurdles ahead. Opposition from the NCAA, schools, conferences, and state labor laws have made it hard for much progress to be made, and possible changes in NLRB leadership will likely affect whether college athletes gain employee status. However, don’t expect these efforts to end any time soon. Future cases could further challenge the existing structure, especially if revenue-sharing ends up functioning similar to an employer-employee relationship. Look out for future legal challenges in response to the House v. NCAA settlement as well as any decisions that Congress may make in response to the issue of college athlete employment. One thing is certain: the fight for student-athlete rights is far from over.
Comments