I think I’ve written
about the attempts of Northwestern football players to unionize, well the
National Labor Relations Board in Chicago ruled they can on Wednesday.
Northwestern said they’d appeal the ruling.
According to Sara Ganim
for CNN, the university claimed the students weren’t employers and can’t
unionize while the student argued they were employers being paid via
scholarships, working between 20 and 50 hours a week, and generating millions
of dollars for their institutions. The athletes want better medical coverage, concussion
testing, four-year scholarships, and the possibility of being paid. You know outlandish demands.
The regional NLRB
office said any review requests have to be filed in DC by April 9. The appeal
could go as far as the Supreme Court and will likely take years to resolve. The
NCAA said it was disappointed with the ruling and disagreed “with the notion
that student-athletes are employees.” NCAA Chief legal officer Donald Remy
said,
“We frequently hear from student-athletes, across all sports, that they participate to enhance their overall college experience and for the love of their sport, not to be paid. While improvements need to be made, we do not need to completely throw away a system that has helped literally millions of students over the past decade alone attend college.“We want student-athletes—99 percent of whom will never make it to professional leagues—focused on what matters most---finding success in the classroom, on the field of life.”
Fuck this guy. Let’s
be clear, the students are employees, but without job security if they are injured
some can lose their scholarships so much for focusing on the classroom. They
have shit insurance, as all of us did when we got it through our universities. Finally,
these students are overwhelming people of color working as entertainment for
white people; that is a clear oppressive power dynamic.
Former Northwestern
University’s President Henry Bienen has threaten to give up Division I sports, “If
we got into collective bargaining situations, I would not take for granted that
the Northwesterns of the world would continue to play Division I sports.”
Sounds like union busting
threats to me. Of course, he also noted that some academically rigorous institutions
opted out of the current model to preserve academic integrity. Notably 15% of
men’s football, baseball, and basketball players have said they would have had
different majors if not for athletes. Additionally, 12% of Division I football
players said athletes caused them to forego majors they wanted. They also found
that the average time devoted to sports hovered around 40 hours per week, which
is in direct violation of the NCAA 20-hour rule.
So back to the
issues of social construction, well we know that college sports are pretty
sexist. They invest far more funds into men’s sports than women’s, they cover
up sexual assaults committed by players (Norte Dame, Duke, Penn State, not OSU
though where our couch benches anyone accused like a boss), and then the whole recruitment
process which lends itself to rape culture, and I’m sure I’m missing things.
I read on Deadspin this morning,
that white people don’t really want college athletes to be paid, in a piece written by Barry
Pechesky. He cites a poll by the Washington
Post and ABC News, which found
that the majority of Americans are opposed to paying student-athletes, mostly
white Americans. Try to contain your shock.
The findings showed that 33% of respondents were strongly or
somewhat in support of paying salaries to student-athletes, while 64% strongly
or somewhat opposed it. Of all respondents about 56% were college sports fans.
As you may expect, young, liberal, less religious people are more likely to
support salaries, while old, conservative, religious people opposed pay. I can’t
really work out that religious piece, because Jesus.
Naturally, the real difference was in race. White people
opposed paying student-athletes by a 72-24 margin, while non-white respondents
supported salaries for student-athletes by a 51-46 margin. There is a 47-47
split when respondents were asked if they were in favor of student-athletes
forming unions, of course with similar breakdowns.
Obviously, I’m in favor of unions and pay for student-athletes
because of the dangers and lack of protection in these sports and institutions.
I find the system (while I like sports) to be exploitative of low-income men of
color. And of course the awful racial implications of promising an escape from
poverty through the means of sports for the entertainment of white, wealthy,
educated people. Anyone else feel like they need a shower? But this is what
inequity yields, who am I to decide this is an unreasonable attempt for class
jumping? However, if it is going to be a means, then it has to be fully thought
out and as beneficial as possible for those participating.
