No more amateur hour: How Dartmouth ruling could change college sports

A rule change for basketball players at Dartmouth College could be a harbinger of things to come in college sports. 

Last week, an official with the National Labor Relations Board ruled that members of the men’s team are employees, opening the door for the first union for NCAA athletes. 

The decision comes amid ongoing legal challenges to the NCAA and a system that limits compensation for students. Dartmouth plans to appeal the decision. And any effect of athletes unionizing would likely be felt first in the all-private Ivy League conference. But not unlike the 2021 name, image, and likeness change that allowed collegiate players to profit from branding, the new ruling raises questions about the staying power of amateur status.

Dartmouth players were smart to use labor law to make their case, says Michael McCann, law professor and director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire. They presented examples of other students at the school, those who are paid to work in dining halls, for example, who have unionized.

“I think it’s about equality,” he says. “Why is it that some college students can be employees and unionize, but not others?” 

A rule change for basketball players at Dartmouth College could be a harbinger of things to come in college sports. 

Last week, an official with the National Labor Relations Board, which governs private sector businesses, ruled that members of the men’s team are employees, opening the door for the first union for NCAA athletes. 

The decision comes amid a number of ongoing legal challenges to the NCAA and a system that limits the compensation that students – who often help bring schools millions, sometimes billions of dollars – can receive. In the New Hampshire case, Dartmouth plans to appeal the decision. And any effect of athletes unionizing would likely be felt first in the all-private Ivy League conference. But not unlike the 2021 name, image, and likeness change that allowed collegiate players to profit from branding, the new ruling raises questions about the staying power of amateur status.

“The decision reflects what was a good argument and good reasoning offered by the players,” says Michael McCann, law professor and director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire. “We’ll see what happens from here, but of course this is big news.”

Professor McCann says Dartmouth players were smart to use labor law to make their case. They presented examples of other students at the school, those who are paid to work in dining halls, for example, who have unionized.

“I think it’s about equality. Why is it that some college students can be employees and unionize, but not others?” Mr. McCann says. Members of the team feel as though they spend more than 40 hours a week committed to playing sports and that their time is controlled, he adds, citing conditions that are associated with employment. 

In a September opinion column in the student paper The Dartmouth, players Cade Haskins and Romeo Myrthil described their hope of helping to transform college sports “into a less exploitative business.” 

They argued that some of their teammates work part-time jobs to help pay bills, including medical expenses related to sports-related injuries. Even though players get some financial aid (though not athletic scholarships, which are not offered in the Ivy League), they wrote that they want hourly pay, like that of other unionized students and employees on campus.

“We are excited to see how this decision will impact college sports nationwide,” the pair said in a statement released after the Feb. 5 ruling from a regional National Labor Relations Board official. They added that they are forming an Ivy League Players Association for basketball athletes across the eight-school conference. 

In a statement to the Monitor, Dartmouth spokesperson Diana Lawrence said the college is “extremely proud” of its varsity athletics program. But, she adds, “it’s important to understand that unlike other institutions where athletics generates millions of dollars in net revenue, the costs of Dartmouth’s athletics program far exceed any revenue from the program – costs that Dartmouth bears as part of our participation in the Ivy League.” 

Given that, and that athletes are not compensated nor do they receive sports scholarships, Ms. Lawrence says, “we believe firmly that unionization is not appropriate in this instance and will be seeking a review of the decision.”

Dartmouth has until March 5 – the day the players plan to vote on whether to unionize – to appeal. In 2014, a similar case involved football players at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. In that instance, Northwestern prevailed in part because it is the only private school in the Big Ten, says Michael LeRoy, the LER Alumni professor of labor and employment relations at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 

In the Ivy League conference, there are no public universities, he notes. The schools are all governed by the federal National Labor Relations Act – which means the potential for more unions and conferencewide bargaining. “There’s no jurisdiction problem anymore, so that makes this a blockbuster,” Professor LeRoy says.

Other legal experts have noted that student-athletes as employees could mean high costs for colleges and universities in terms of benefits they are required to offer under labor laws, for example. 

The Monitor contacted the other seven members of the Ivy League conference. Only Cornell University’s department of athletics responded, declining to comment. It will likely be years before a final resolution is reached in the Dartmouth dispute. 

On the opposite coast, the University of Southern California, the NCAA, and the Pac-12 Conference are also facing a National Labor Relations Board complaint relating to whether “student-athletes,” as the NCAA calls them, should instead be “employees.” 

It’s one of many battles the NCAA is managing, including multiple antitrust lawsuits in states from California to West Virginia. The cases deal with everything from player pay to transfer eligibility. Some coaches – and the NCAA – have said name, image, and likeness deals need strict guidelines, even asking Congress to intervene with regulation. Multimillion-dollar NIL contracts for student-athletes have shifted attitudes about students being considered amateurs.

Charlie Baker, the NCAA president, submitted a proposal to several hundred member schools in December calling for top-tier Division I schools to set up trust funds to pay at least half of their student players at least $30,000 annually and set up NIL licensing deals. The proposal, which wouldn’t consider players employees or allow them to unionize, is expected to be considered over the next year. 

For his part, Mr. LeRoy – who filed an amicus brief in Johnson v. NCAA, a case looking at whether college athletes are employees – sees an uncertain future for the status quo.

“The money has gotten so big, and the competition for the premium TV contracts has gotten so cutthroat, that it has exposed the hypocrisy of their amateurism model,” he says. “They have built a house, a foundation, that is cracking.”