Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Team Granted Union Election, Raising Questions About Athletes’ Employee Status
In a groundbreaking ruling, a regional director for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has granted the Dartmouth men’s basketball team the right to hold a union election. This decision has raised significant questions about the employee status of college athletes and could have far-reaching implications for the future of college sports.
The ruling by Laura A. Sacks stated that because Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the basketball team and the players receive compensation for their work, they should be considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act. This decision has sent shockwaves through the college sports community and is expected to be met with resistance from the school. A Dartmouth spokeswoman has already announced that the school will appeal the decision, stating that they believe the students are not employees.
This is not the first time that college athletes have sought to unionize. In 2015, a regional director ruled that Northwestern’s football team could hold a union election, but the NLRB ultimately dismissed the petition. However, the landscape of college sports has changed significantly since then. Athletes are now able to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) through brand deals and collectives. This newfound ability to earn income has fueled the argument that college athletes should be considered employees.
The NLRB is currently in the middle of a trial to determine whether Southern California’s football and basketball players are employees of their school and the Pac-12 Conference. Additionally, there are numerous antitrust lawsuits challenging the current college sports model. These factors, combined with the introduction of NIL payments, have created an environment that supports the push for athlete unionization.
If the Dartmouth players successfully unionize, they will have the ability to collectively bargain with the school over compensation and working conditions. While NIL payments have provided some financial benefits for athletes, there is still a need to address the economic exploitation in college sports. The average Division I athlete does not receive significant compensation through NIL deals, highlighting the need for further reform.
The road ahead for the Dartmouth players is not without challenges. The NLRB’s board typically consists of five members, with the majority aligning with the sitting president’s party. Any ruling on an appeal in the Dartmouth case would require agreement from three members, which could take months. Furthermore, the process could potentially continue to a circuit court or even the Supreme Court, further prolonging the resolution.
The outcome of the upcoming presidential election could also have a significant impact on the future of athlete unionization. A win for Donald Trump would likely change the makeup of the NLRB, just as it did when President Biden took office. Biden has been vocal about his support for unions, and his administration has already made moves to strengthen labor rights. This pro-union stance could influence future decisions regarding athlete employee status.
The ruling by Laura A. Sacks has opened the door for further discussions about athlete unionization. While the NLRB does not have jurisdiction over public universities, this decision could have implications for private universities within the Ivy League. The Dartmouth players’ success in unionizing could set a precedent that extends to other schools within the conference.
In response to the ruling, Dartmouth basketball players Cade Haskins and Romeo Myrthil have announced the formation of the Ivy League Players Association. This organization aims to organize basketball players across the conference and advocate for their rights.
Dartmouth’s argument against unionization centered around the claim that the school does not profit from its men’s basketball team. However, Sacks dismissed this argument, stating that profitability does not affect the employee status of individuals performing work for a business. She also considered free apparel, equipment, and tickets provided to the players as compensation, further solidifying their employee status.
Another crucial element of Sacks’s decision was the recognition that the coaching staff and the school set rules for the work environment. The Dartmouth Student-Athlete Handbook functions as an employee handbook, outlining tasks and regulations for the athletes. This acknowledgment further strengthens the argument that college athletes should be considered employees.
As the Dartmouth players await their union election, the outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of college sports. It remains to be seen how this ruling will impact public-school athletes and international athletes at universities. However, one thing is clear: the landscape of college sports is evolving, and the conversation about athlete employee status is far from over.
