College athletes whose efforts ‘primarily benefit’ their schools may qualify as employees deserving of pay under federal wage-and-hour laws, a U.S. appeals court ruled Thursday. This is yet another setback for the NCAA and member universities. However, the interpretation of the court’s findings is not clear-cut.
“This notion that college athletes cannot be both students and employees is just not accurate when you have student employees on campuses,” Judge McDonald said Thursday. “It’s just beyond belief, the idea that the athletes would not meet the same criteria as employees.”
If the players are deemed to be employees, they would be owed at least minimum wage for their labor and would be eligible for overtime pay. This would almost certainly trigger significant back-pay lawsuits as well.
Another shoe drops as college athletics continues to be transformed: the 3rd Circuit's decision in Johnson. This will drop back to the district court for further consideration, but a win for those arguing student-athletes should be considered employees.https://t.co/2PnrqOSips
— N. Jeremi Duru (@njeremiduru) July 11, 2024
The decision challenged schools to develop a test to determine the difference between student-athletes who play sports for fun and others who “cross the line into legal work.” The other distinction centers on the economics of student-athletes and their role aligning with an employee-employer relationship.
“With professional athletes as the clearest indicators, playing sports can certainly constitute compensable work,” U.S. Circuit Judge L. Felipe Restrepo wrote. “Ultimately, the touchstone remains whether the cumulative circumstances of the relationship between the athlete and college or NCAA reveal an economic reality that is that of an employee-employer.”
The decision is open to a number of interpretations. For example, there is little doubt that gymnasts and soccer players spend as much time practicing and playing as football players. Do the gymnasts and soccer players have more fun? Who knows and how could such a test be determined? More significantly, what will the impact be on women’s sports and so-called secondary/non-revenue sports? Or, is the litmus test merely that by its very existence, a sport is a profit-seeking enterprise? Ultimately, depending on the interpretation, some schools may be forced to drop Division I sports altogether or at least drastically reduce the number of sponsored teams.
The NCAA guidelines were changed in 2021 when the US Supreme Court threw out the limits the NCAA had set on compensating student-athletes. Now, unsurprisingly, nearly everything is on the table because playing sports is seen as a value generator for universities around the country, far above that of a non-athlete student. And simply looking at the dollars and cents of the issue – it’s hard to argue that.
The case, remanded back to U.S. District Court, returns to Judge John Padova’s courtroom, where in 2021 Padova denied the NCAA’s motion to dismiss a different employment test.
I’m sorry, but this is beyond stupid. What is the end goal here? Cast handfuls of D1 schools into lower divisions or rid them of their programs all together? What an insane way to limit opportunities for student athletes by ushering in employee-employment regulations just to make some cash. I know there is a long way to go before all this *potentially* happens, but this is becoming a crap shoot. It seems the that opportunity to be a student-athlete at a D1 university is not enough of a privilege. Oh well, maybe I am just a salty, washed up college athlete…
Plus, there should be a value placed on the scholarship, meals, housing and cost-of-attendence stipends. Add the administrative overhead, coaching and support staff – all free to student athletes. This certainly is more valuable than a minimum wage job.
On top of all the things 5BWest mentions, don’t forget the NIL, travel, medical, equipment and media exposure that being a D-I athlete offers. I think our hockey, basketball, gymnastics and lacrosse athletes are all getting at least a total educational sports package worth $200,00/yr or more.