+ Show Spoiler +
In a potentially game-changing moment for college athletics, the Chicago district of the National Labor Relations Board ruled on Wednesday that Northwestern football players qualify as employees of the university and can unionize.
NLRB regional director Peter Sung Ohr cited the players' time commitment to their sport and the fact that their scholarships were tied directly to their performance as reasons for granting them union rights.
The Ruling
Colter Former quarterback Kain Colter led the drive to have Northwestern players vote on whether to unionize. Read the ruling that gave them that right. Ruling PDF
• Brief in support of players
• Brief in support of Northwestern
Ohr wrote in his ruling that the players "fall squarely within the [National Labor Relations] Act's broad definition of 'employee' when one considers the common law definition of 'employee.'"
Ohr ruled that the players can hold a vote on whether they want to be represented by the College Athletes Players Association, which brought the case to the NLRB along with former Wildcats quarterback Kain Colter and the United Steelworkers union.
"I couldn't be more happy and grateful for today's ruling, though it is the ruling we expected," said Ramogi Huma, president of both the National College Players Assn, a nonprofit advocacy group that has been around since 2001, and the College Athletes Players Association, the union that would represent the players and was formed in January.
"I just have so much respect for Kain and the football players who stood up in unity to take this on. They love their university but they think it's important to exercise rights under labor law.
"The NCAA invented the term student athlete to prevent the exact ruling that was made today. For 60 years, people have bought into their notion that they are students only. The reality is, players are employees and today's ruling confirms that. The players are one giant step closer to justice."
Northwestern issued a statement shortly after the ruling saying it would appeal to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C.
"While we respect the NLRB process and the regional director's opinion, we disagree with it," the statement read. "Northwestern believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students. Unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes."
CAPA supporters, meanwhile, celebrated the news. Colter tweeted: "This is a HUGE win for ALL college athletes!"
"Amazing victory for college athletes," said Tim Waters, national political director for United Steelworkers. "USW has said all along that these athletes are in fact employees and now the NLRB has agreed. Athletes have tried every way possible to get a seat at the table and this was the only avenue they were left with. We expect the ruling will withstand any appeal."
Colter, whose eligibility has been exhausted and who has entered the NFL draft, said nearly all of the 85 scholarship players on the Wildcats roster backed the union bid, though only he expressed his support publicly. The United Steelworkers union has been footing the legal bills.
CAPA attorneys argued that college football is, for all practical purposes, a commercial enterprise that relies on players' labor to generate billions of dollars in profits. That, they contend, makes the relationship of schools to players one of employers to employees.
In its endeavor to have college football players be recognized as essential workers, CAPA likened scholarships to employment pay -- too little pay from its point of view. Northwestern balked at that claim, describing scholarship as grants.
Giving college athletes employee status and allowing them to unionize, critics have argued, could hurt college sports in numerous ways -- including by raising the prospects of strikes by disgruntled players or lockouts by athletic departments.
The NCAA has been under increasing scrutiny over its amateurism rules and is fighting a class-action federal lawsuit by former players seeking a cut of the billions of dollars earned from live broadcasts, memorabilia sales and video games. Other lawsuits allege that the NCAA failed to protect players from debilitating head injuries.
NCAA President Mark Emmert has pushed for a $2,000-per-player stipend to help athletes defray some of their expenses. Critics say that isn't nearly enough, considering that players help bring in millions of dollars to their schools and conferences.
CAPA's specific goals include guaranteeing coverage of sports-related medical expenses for current and former players, ensuring better procedures to reduce head injuries and potentially letting players pursue commercial sponsorships.
For now, the push is to unionize athletes at private schools, such as Northwestern, because the federal labor agency does not have jurisdiction over public universities.
During the NLRB's five days of hearings in February, Wildcats coach Pat Fitzgerald took the stand for union opponents, and his testimony sometimes was at odds with Colter's.
Colter told the hearing that players' performance on the field was more important to Northwestern than their in-class performance, saying, "You fulfill the football requirement and, if you can, you fit in academics." Asked why Northwestern gave him a scholarship of $75,000 a year, he responded: "To play football. To perform an athletic service."
But Fitzgerald said he tells players academics come first, saying, "We want them to be the best they can be ... to be a champion in life."
An attorney representing the university, Alex Barbour, noted Northwestern has one of the highest graduation rates for college football players in the nation, around 97 percent. Barbour insisted, "Northwestern is not a football factory.
NLRB regional director Peter Sung Ohr cited the players' time commitment to their sport and the fact that their scholarships were tied directly to their performance as reasons for granting them union rights.
The Ruling
Colter Former quarterback Kain Colter led the drive to have Northwestern players vote on whether to unionize. Read the ruling that gave them that right. Ruling PDF
• Brief in support of players
• Brief in support of Northwestern
Ohr wrote in his ruling that the players "fall squarely within the [National Labor Relations] Act's broad definition of 'employee' when one considers the common law definition of 'employee.'"
Ohr ruled that the players can hold a vote on whether they want to be represented by the College Athletes Players Association, which brought the case to the NLRB along with former Wildcats quarterback Kain Colter and the United Steelworkers union.
"I couldn't be more happy and grateful for today's ruling, though it is the ruling we expected," said Ramogi Huma, president of both the National College Players Assn, a nonprofit advocacy group that has been around since 2001, and the College Athletes Players Association, the union that would represent the players and was formed in January.
"I just have so much respect for Kain and the football players who stood up in unity to take this on. They love their university but they think it's important to exercise rights under labor law.
"The NCAA invented the term student athlete to prevent the exact ruling that was made today. For 60 years, people have bought into their notion that they are students only. The reality is, players are employees and today's ruling confirms that. The players are one giant step closer to justice."
Northwestern issued a statement shortly after the ruling saying it would appeal to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C.
"While we respect the NLRB process and the regional director's opinion, we disagree with it," the statement read. "Northwestern believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students. Unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes."
CAPA supporters, meanwhile, celebrated the news. Colter tweeted: "This is a HUGE win for ALL college athletes!"
"Amazing victory for college athletes," said Tim Waters, national political director for United Steelworkers. "USW has said all along that these athletes are in fact employees and now the NLRB has agreed. Athletes have tried every way possible to get a seat at the table and this was the only avenue they were left with. We expect the ruling will withstand any appeal."
Colter, whose eligibility has been exhausted and who has entered the NFL draft, said nearly all of the 85 scholarship players on the Wildcats roster backed the union bid, though only he expressed his support publicly. The United Steelworkers union has been footing the legal bills.
CAPA attorneys argued that college football is, for all practical purposes, a commercial enterprise that relies on players' labor to generate billions of dollars in profits. That, they contend, makes the relationship of schools to players one of employers to employees.
In its endeavor to have college football players be recognized as essential workers, CAPA likened scholarships to employment pay -- too little pay from its point of view. Northwestern balked at that claim, describing scholarship as grants.
Giving college athletes employee status and allowing them to unionize, critics have argued, could hurt college sports in numerous ways -- including by raising the prospects of strikes by disgruntled players or lockouts by athletic departments.
The NCAA has been under increasing scrutiny over its amateurism rules and is fighting a class-action federal lawsuit by former players seeking a cut of the billions of dollars earned from live broadcasts, memorabilia sales and video games. Other lawsuits allege that the NCAA failed to protect players from debilitating head injuries.
NCAA President Mark Emmert has pushed for a $2,000-per-player stipend to help athletes defray some of their expenses. Critics say that isn't nearly enough, considering that players help bring in millions of dollars to their schools and conferences.
CAPA's specific goals include guaranteeing coverage of sports-related medical expenses for current and former players, ensuring better procedures to reduce head injuries and potentially letting players pursue commercial sponsorships.
For now, the push is to unionize athletes at private schools, such as Northwestern, because the federal labor agency does not have jurisdiction over public universities.
During the NLRB's five days of hearings in February, Wildcats coach Pat Fitzgerald took the stand for union opponents, and his testimony sometimes was at odds with Colter's.
Colter told the hearing that players' performance on the field was more important to Northwestern than their in-class performance, saying, "You fulfill the football requirement and, if you can, you fit in academics." Asked why Northwestern gave him a scholarship of $75,000 a year, he responded: "To play football. To perform an athletic service."
But Fitzgerald said he tells players academics come first, saying, "We want them to be the best they can be ... to be a champion in life."
An attorney representing the university, Alex Barbour, noted Northwestern has one of the highest graduation rates for college football players in the nation, around 97 percent. Barbour insisted, "Northwestern is not a football factory.
I think this is a good move though most people seem to disagree because of how colleges have turned "Amateur-athletics" into a billion dollar industry. College conferences are not based on what is best for the "student-athlete," instead they are geographic monstrosities that attempt to maximize television deals. I know a lot of people argue that athletic departments mostly lose money, but that is because of non-revenue sports. In addition, college sports represents huge marketing and is a prime way to channel alumni giving so the claim that college sports are not done for the good of the college is deceptive at best.
A good article on how college athletics needs to go back to a student model or drop the charade and acknowledge that it is a business.
+ Show Spoiler +
Despite all the NCAA tournament excitement, last week’s biggest sports news was the National Labor Relations Board’s ruling that Northwestern’s football players are legally allowed to unionize. No direct ramifications of the ruling will be felt until the end of an indefinitely long appeal process, but a unionized group of athletes — which could spawn many similar groups — presents a long-term threat to the current business model of college athletics. As it does, the NCAA announced its disagreement with the ruling; then, predictably, it was mocked by people who support change, who were in turn mocked by those who support the status quo, and so forth. (For legal implications of the NLRB’s ruling, I recommend John Infante, Erin Buzuvis and Michael McCann.)
One of the most fundamental problems in college athletics is that students don’t actually have much of a voice in how their programs are run. However it shakes out, the Northwestern players’ unionization efforts have drawn attention to that fact and should ultimately give athletes some power, which is a good thing.
Further, I think it could force universities to commit to one of two models of college athletics. On one hand, schools claim that athletic departments exist to serve students’ college experience, and they receive the legal benefits (tax status) and burdens (Title IX) of an educational institution. On the other hand, athletic departments are largely operated as businesses for engaging alumni, marketing the university and, at the largest schools, generating revenue outright. And as the NLRB found, athletes are treated just like employees — ones without much say in the employee-employer relationship, and with their pay capped at the value of a scholarship.
I think either model of college athletics — as a true student-serving experience, or as a business — can be viable. But universities need to follow one path, instead of cherry-picking the best of both models, and each requires a stronger student voice.
A student-serving approach
What would a truly student-centric approach to college sports look like? Athletics would be treated as a student experience first and a commercial product second. TV contracts and changes in conference affiliation would be considered based on how they affect athletes as much as revenue. NCAA rules that protect the interests of coaches and athletic departments, such as transfer restrictions and renewable scholarships, would be abolished. Coaches and administrators would be accountable to the athletes themselves, not to the fans and viewers who demand wins above all else.
Perhaps more importantly, it would require a less authoritarian approach to coaching. Shouting homophobic slurs at players would be not only unacceptable but unfathomable. Attempts to legislate what players do outside the field of play — for example, forbidding or censoring the use of social media — would be incongruous with a truly student-centric mission. And other team rules, such as curfews or possibly practice times, might involve an open discussion with athletes: If they thought the benefit to the team was worth their personal costs, they would agree to it; if not, they wouldn’t.
It would not require “amateurism”, as currently defined. Nothing about banning outside benefits, in general, improves the student experience. Not only would forming a relationship with an agent not be prohibited, but it would be encouraged, to help students make the best decisions for their future. Athletic departments would be free to make their own decisions about what to do with whatever revenue they made, but at least some of it would probably go to athletes — through some combination of scholarships, paychecks and disbursements — and there would be no national cap on compensation.
Above all, this model would require students to have a strong voice in the direction of college sports. That might or might not be a “union”, per se, but athletes would need some way of holding universities accountable and ensuring that athletic programs are actually serving them appropriately.
A business-centric model
The business-centric model looks much more like the current state of college sports. Universities would manage their athletic departments to maximize exposure and profit, and in general, the best way to do that is by winning. Coaches and athletic directors would be held accountable by fans, who would give more support to winning programs. In this world, there would be a place for rules that protect the product of college sports (competitive and high-quality games) which might include transfer restrictions, renewable scholarships, and flexible game scheduling that might inhibit students’ academic experience.
But crucially, as the key employees in this business model, athletes would have to sign off on these rules. Given the examples in American pro sports and the short working life of college athletes, this is probably best accomplished with a players’ union (or unions). If athletes are happy shuffling their academic schedules to play Tuesday night football games on ESPN, they can choose to do so. Maybe they would accept transfer restrictions, but only in exchange for some other benefit — more resources to protect player safety, perhaps.
And in this model, there would be no pretending that athletes are “amateurs.” They would be under a coach’s control, working substantial hours to help market and generate revenue for the athletic department and university. Athletes would be employees of the athletic department — employees who love their jobs, to be sure, but still employees — like other students who work for their universities in various ways. And as employees, they would be able to negotiate and receive compensation in line with their value to their employer.
Which path?
I honestly have no idea which path would be better for college sports. The easy emotional reaction is to say, of course, college athletics should be run for the athletes — but I’m not sure the answer is that obvious. As today’s market shows, there is a lot of equity in the current product of college sports, which might be lost in the student-education model. Fans like Tuesday night football games, millions watch made-for-TV conferences, and most alumni want their teams run as if winning is the only goal. Given the vast financial incentives at stake, it might actually be a better outcome for everybody if college athletics — or at least the revenue sports in power conferences — continued to be run as a business, with players compensated accordingly.
Realistically, college athletics has been trending toward professionalization for several decades, and that trend doesn’t appear to be stopping anytime soon. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which college sports, or at least the most visible subset of them, don’t eventually commit fully to the business-centric model. (Lots of people worry about what the effects of paid players will be, but a true student-centric model, at least as outlined above, brings much more drastic changes.) And if the student experience isn’t the primary goal of college athletics, that’s okay — as long as schools aren’t allowed to pretend otherwise, and as long as players still have some say in how their sports are run.
One of the most fundamental problems in college athletics is that students don’t actually have much of a voice in how their programs are run. However it shakes out, the Northwestern players’ unionization efforts have drawn attention to that fact and should ultimately give athletes some power, which is a good thing.
Further, I think it could force universities to commit to one of two models of college athletics. On one hand, schools claim that athletic departments exist to serve students’ college experience, and they receive the legal benefits (tax status) and burdens (Title IX) of an educational institution. On the other hand, athletic departments are largely operated as businesses for engaging alumni, marketing the university and, at the largest schools, generating revenue outright. And as the NLRB found, athletes are treated just like employees — ones without much say in the employee-employer relationship, and with their pay capped at the value of a scholarship.
I think either model of college athletics — as a true student-serving experience, or as a business — can be viable. But universities need to follow one path, instead of cherry-picking the best of both models, and each requires a stronger student voice.
A student-serving approach
What would a truly student-centric approach to college sports look like? Athletics would be treated as a student experience first and a commercial product second. TV contracts and changes in conference affiliation would be considered based on how they affect athletes as much as revenue. NCAA rules that protect the interests of coaches and athletic departments, such as transfer restrictions and renewable scholarships, would be abolished. Coaches and administrators would be accountable to the athletes themselves, not to the fans and viewers who demand wins above all else.
Perhaps more importantly, it would require a less authoritarian approach to coaching. Shouting homophobic slurs at players would be not only unacceptable but unfathomable. Attempts to legislate what players do outside the field of play — for example, forbidding or censoring the use of social media — would be incongruous with a truly student-centric mission. And other team rules, such as curfews or possibly practice times, might involve an open discussion with athletes: If they thought the benefit to the team was worth their personal costs, they would agree to it; if not, they wouldn’t.
It would not require “amateurism”, as currently defined. Nothing about banning outside benefits, in general, improves the student experience. Not only would forming a relationship with an agent not be prohibited, but it would be encouraged, to help students make the best decisions for their future. Athletic departments would be free to make their own decisions about what to do with whatever revenue they made, but at least some of it would probably go to athletes — through some combination of scholarships, paychecks and disbursements — and there would be no national cap on compensation.
Above all, this model would require students to have a strong voice in the direction of college sports. That might or might not be a “union”, per se, but athletes would need some way of holding universities accountable and ensuring that athletic programs are actually serving them appropriately.
A business-centric model
The business-centric model looks much more like the current state of college sports. Universities would manage their athletic departments to maximize exposure and profit, and in general, the best way to do that is by winning. Coaches and athletic directors would be held accountable by fans, who would give more support to winning programs. In this world, there would be a place for rules that protect the product of college sports (competitive and high-quality games) which might include transfer restrictions, renewable scholarships, and flexible game scheduling that might inhibit students’ academic experience.
But crucially, as the key employees in this business model, athletes would have to sign off on these rules. Given the examples in American pro sports and the short working life of college athletes, this is probably best accomplished with a players’ union (or unions). If athletes are happy shuffling their academic schedules to play Tuesday night football games on ESPN, they can choose to do so. Maybe they would accept transfer restrictions, but only in exchange for some other benefit — more resources to protect player safety, perhaps.
And in this model, there would be no pretending that athletes are “amateurs.” They would be under a coach’s control, working substantial hours to help market and generate revenue for the athletic department and university. Athletes would be employees of the athletic department — employees who love their jobs, to be sure, but still employees — like other students who work for their universities in various ways. And as employees, they would be able to negotiate and receive compensation in line with their value to their employer.
Which path?
I honestly have no idea which path would be better for college sports. The easy emotional reaction is to say, of course, college athletics should be run for the athletes — but I’m not sure the answer is that obvious. As today’s market shows, there is a lot of equity in the current product of college sports, which might be lost in the student-education model. Fans like Tuesday night football games, millions watch made-for-TV conferences, and most alumni want their teams run as if winning is the only goal. Given the vast financial incentives at stake, it might actually be a better outcome for everybody if college athletics — or at least the revenue sports in power conferences — continued to be run as a business, with players compensated accordingly.
Realistically, college athletics has been trending toward professionalization for several decades, and that trend doesn’t appear to be stopping anytime soon. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which college sports, or at least the most visible subset of them, don’t eventually commit fully to the business-centric model. (Lots of people worry about what the effects of paid players will be, but a true student-centric model, at least as outlined above, brings much more drastic changes.) And if the student experience isn’t the primary goal of college athletics, that’s okay — as long as schools aren’t allowed to pretend otherwise, and as long as players still have some say in how their sports are run.
Northwestern football players are voting on whether to Unionize tomorrow.
+ Show Spoiler +
Northwestern University football players are scheduled to vote Friday morning on whether they want to be represented by a union.
Northwestern, which is a private university, is not allowing reporters on campus at Welsh-Ryan Arena, where the vote will take place, citing the players' wishes to avoid media attention.
Peter Sung Ohr, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board, ruled in February that Northwestern's football players on athletic scholarships are universityemployees, setting the stage for the election.
For the College Athletes Players Association, or CAPA, to bargain on behalf of the players, the majority of the football players voting would have to side with the union.
In total, 76 players are eligible to vote, but they are not required to do so.
During football practices earlier this month, the players were uncomfortable with questions about unionization. Some players ducked the media. Some referred questions to Kain Colter, NU’s former quarterback and the face of the unionization campaign.
Others publicly criticized the effort.
Quarterback Trevor Siemian said he no longer believes a union is the right avenue and that he should have gathered more information before signing a union card in January.
"This all began with the best of intentions," Siemian said during a practice. He added that the players should have taken their concerns to coach Pat Fitzgerald and/or the school'sathletic director, Jim Phillips.
Fitzgerald has encouraged the football players to vote against the union.
Earlier this month, the school appealed Ohr’s ruling to the NLRB in Washington. In the appeal, which is known as a request for review, Northwestern argued that Ohr mischaracterized, slanted and ignored relevant facts, such as the evidence of Northwestern's primary commitment to education of all its student-athletes.
The union contended that Ohr's decision was meticulously and carefully reasoned. It added that the school's accusations were unfounded and that many of the supposed errors and omissions the university attributes to Ohr do not qualify for review under NLRB rules.
If the NLRB grants Northwestern's request, both parties would have the opportunity to file more documents in support of their positions. The board would then affirm, modify or reverse the ruling.
The election could be delayed if the NLRB accepts the request before Friday, but that's unlikely. After the election takes place, the ballots will remain secret until the board makes a final decision on the appeal.
Northwestern, which is a private university, is not allowing reporters on campus at Welsh-Ryan Arena, where the vote will take place, citing the players' wishes to avoid media attention.
Peter Sung Ohr, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board, ruled in February that Northwestern's football players on athletic scholarships are universityemployees, setting the stage for the election.
For the College Athletes Players Association, or CAPA, to bargain on behalf of the players, the majority of the football players voting would have to side with the union.
In total, 76 players are eligible to vote, but they are not required to do so.
During football practices earlier this month, the players were uncomfortable with questions about unionization. Some players ducked the media. Some referred questions to Kain Colter, NU’s former quarterback and the face of the unionization campaign.
Others publicly criticized the effort.
Quarterback Trevor Siemian said he no longer believes a union is the right avenue and that he should have gathered more information before signing a union card in January.
"This all began with the best of intentions," Siemian said during a practice. He added that the players should have taken their concerns to coach Pat Fitzgerald and/or the school'sathletic director, Jim Phillips.
Fitzgerald has encouraged the football players to vote against the union.
Earlier this month, the school appealed Ohr’s ruling to the NLRB in Washington. In the appeal, which is known as a request for review, Northwestern argued that Ohr mischaracterized, slanted and ignored relevant facts, such as the evidence of Northwestern's primary commitment to education of all its student-athletes.
The union contended that Ohr's decision was meticulously and carefully reasoned. It added that the school's accusations were unfounded and that many of the supposed errors and omissions the university attributes to Ohr do not qualify for review under NLRB rules.
If the NLRB grants Northwestern's request, both parties would have the opportunity to file more documents in support of their positions. The board would then affirm, modify or reverse the ruling.
The election could be delayed if the NLRB accepts the request before Friday, but that's unlikely. After the election takes place, the ballots will remain secret until the board makes a final decision on the appeal.
Northwestern football coach has come out against unionization and the university is attempting to discourage players from unionizing with several people from within the administration and the athletic department speaking out against it and bribing the players with gifts such as iPads.
+ Show Spoiler +
Tomorrow, Northwestern football players will vote on whether or not to form a union, a right given to them by a National Labor Relations Board ruling last month. NLRB rules stipulate that no meetings can be held today, the day before the vote, to decrease the risk of outside influence—which doesn't mean all those with vested interests in preventing unionization haven't already done their part to sway the players.
Here are some of the actions taken by former players, coaches, administrators, and executives, all with one goal in mind: convincing Wildcats players to vote no.
When players arrived for their first practice after the NLRB ruling, they were all presented with new iPads, and taken to a local bowling alley for a team party. (The university said the iPads were unrelated to the union vote.)
Head coach Pat Fitzgerald emailed his players warning them what would happen if they voted in unionize. They would, he wrote, "be transferring your trust from those you know" to "a third party who may or may not have the team's best interests in mind."
Fitzgerald followed with public comments at a press conference, saying "I believe it's in their best interests to vote no."
The Times reports that former QB Dan Persa is one of a number of former players who have spoken privately with current players to urge them to vote no. Persa "has been among the most vocal in urging the players to vote down the union."
Northwestern's president emeritus said that if players unionize, the university could end up dropping all Division I sports programs.
The women's fencing coach announced that a vote for unionization could mean the cancelation of his sport.
Northwestern's vice president for university relations released a statement saying that "a collective bargaining process at Northwestern would not advance the discussion" of college sports issues.
Northwestern's legal team compiled a 21-page Q&A to distribute to players and their parents. It's meant to answer their questions about forming a union, but contains multiple hyperbolic warnings about all the bad things that will happen if they vote yes. The document claims that unionized players may no longer be allowed to leave the team for family emergencies. It cites how players have "said all along that they have been treated extremely well by Northwestern University," and says the University hopes players vote no. Hilariously, it says college football reform will happen faster via unilateral NCAA decisions than by unionizing.
A Northwestern appeal of the NLRB ruling claims, bafflingly, that "Northwestern's scholarship student-athletes 'are not initially sought out, recruited and ultimately granted scholarships because of their athletic prowess on the football field." To that point, the Q&A distributed to players and parents claims that if they unionize, replacement players may be brought in to take their jobs in the event of a work stoppage.
All of this adds up to a group of college kids being told from all sides that they should vote no. Yesterday, a group of former players alleged that this amounts to illegal interference ahead of the vote.
"We all love our program but we have a problem that this process has been interfered with," former player Kevin Brown told CBS Sports. "We were very disturbed because it was every sort of classic union busting."
Brown also alleged that current players have received phone calls from former players, warning them that if they vote "yes" they'll be shut out of the football alumni network and lose out on future employment opportunities.
A former NLRB general counsel told the Times pretty much the same thing about union-busting.
"It sounds like a vigorous, strenuous anti-union campaign that employers often employ when they're determined to defeat unionization efforts," said Fred Feinstein.
A Northwestern spokesperson says the university has acted within NLRB guidelines since the vote was announced.
Tomorrow's vote is, by all accounts, going to result in players saying "no" to unionization. But for all the fuss about it, this vote is small potatoes. The NLRB ruling clears the way for similar unionization efforts at other private schools, where football and basketball are much bigger business and players may feel differently toward their coaching staffs. And even without that, the NLRB national office may review the regional ruling, and could declare athletes employees. That would bring a host of changes with or without unionization. It's that ruling that ultimately matters, and it's likely to spend years wending its way through the court system before it comes down.
Here are some of the actions taken by former players, coaches, administrators, and executives, all with one goal in mind: convincing Wildcats players to vote no.
When players arrived for their first practice after the NLRB ruling, they were all presented with new iPads, and taken to a local bowling alley for a team party. (The university said the iPads were unrelated to the union vote.)
Head coach Pat Fitzgerald emailed his players warning them what would happen if they voted in unionize. They would, he wrote, "be transferring your trust from those you know" to "a third party who may or may not have the team's best interests in mind."
Fitzgerald followed with public comments at a press conference, saying "I believe it's in their best interests to vote no."
The Times reports that former QB Dan Persa is one of a number of former players who have spoken privately with current players to urge them to vote no. Persa "has been among the most vocal in urging the players to vote down the union."
Northwestern's president emeritus said that if players unionize, the university could end up dropping all Division I sports programs.
The women's fencing coach announced that a vote for unionization could mean the cancelation of his sport.
Northwestern's vice president for university relations released a statement saying that "a collective bargaining process at Northwestern would not advance the discussion" of college sports issues.
Northwestern's legal team compiled a 21-page Q&A to distribute to players and their parents. It's meant to answer their questions about forming a union, but contains multiple hyperbolic warnings about all the bad things that will happen if they vote yes. The document claims that unionized players may no longer be allowed to leave the team for family emergencies. It cites how players have "said all along that they have been treated extremely well by Northwestern University," and says the University hopes players vote no. Hilariously, it says college football reform will happen faster via unilateral NCAA decisions than by unionizing.
A Northwestern appeal of the NLRB ruling claims, bafflingly, that "Northwestern's scholarship student-athletes 'are not initially sought out, recruited and ultimately granted scholarships because of their athletic prowess on the football field." To that point, the Q&A distributed to players and parents claims that if they unionize, replacement players may be brought in to take their jobs in the event of a work stoppage.
All of this adds up to a group of college kids being told from all sides that they should vote no. Yesterday, a group of former players alleged that this amounts to illegal interference ahead of the vote.
"We all love our program but we have a problem that this process has been interfered with," former player Kevin Brown told CBS Sports. "We were very disturbed because it was every sort of classic union busting."
Brown also alleged that current players have received phone calls from former players, warning them that if they vote "yes" they'll be shut out of the football alumni network and lose out on future employment opportunities.
A former NLRB general counsel told the Times pretty much the same thing about union-busting.
"It sounds like a vigorous, strenuous anti-union campaign that employers often employ when they're determined to defeat unionization efforts," said Fred Feinstein.
A Northwestern spokesperson says the university has acted within NLRB guidelines since the vote was announced.
Tomorrow's vote is, by all accounts, going to result in players saying "no" to unionization. But for all the fuss about it, this vote is small potatoes. The NLRB ruling clears the way for similar unionization efforts at other private schools, where football and basketball are much bigger business and players may feel differently toward their coaching staffs. And even without that, the NLRB national office may review the regional ruling, and could declare athletes employees. That would bring a host of changes with or without unionization. It's that ruling that ultimately matters, and it's likely to spend years wending its way through the court system before it comes down.
The unionization vote is happening today for Northwestern. It could be months before we know how it went though.
+ Show Spoiler +
EVANSTON, Ill. -- In a historic vote, Northwestern football players cast secret ballots Friday on whether to form the nation's first union for college athletes -- a decision that could change the landscape of American amateur sports.
"You got to give the people what they want!" one of the players shouted at reporters, who were kept away from the players as they entered a campus building to vote. Some waved and another busted out dance moves.
[+] EnlargeNorthwestern
AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast
Northwestern football player Dan Vitale peeks around the corner as he heads into McGaw Hall, where voting is taking place on whether to form the nation's first union for college athletes.
Results of the unprecedented vote won't be revealed any time soon. After the vote, the ballot boxes will be sealed for weeks or months -- perhaps even years -- as the university challenges the effort to unionize the football team.
The full National Labor Relations Board agreed Thursday to hear the school's appeal of a regional director's March ruling that the players are employees and as such can unionize. Ballots will be impounded until that process is finished, and a court fight could come after that decision.
Supporters of the effort say a union would help college athletes obtain better compensation, medical care for injuries and other benefits. The NCAA this endorsed a plan this week that would give big schools like Northwestern more autonomy to address such issues for its athletes.
None of the players participating in an early round of voting stopped to talk with reporters, but the excitement of some was evident as they waved or thrust their arms into the air in view of TV news cameras. A second round of voting was scheduled for later in the day.
Cheering them on was Fred Massey, a former high school basketball coach from Detroit who is now an advocate for student-athletes.
"These kids are afraid to rock the boat because as athletes ... that big dream of the NFL and the NBA is being dangled in front of them with all the millions of dollars," he said. "So, you just do what you're told. They don't want to jeopardize that."
Last month's decision NLRB official Peter Ohr sent shockwaves through the world of college sports, prompting sharp criticism from the NCAA, Northwestern and college athletic departments nationwide. While the ruling would apply only to private universities -- they are subject to federal labor law while public schools are under state law -- many saw the decision as a first step toward the end of the traditional "student-athlete."
The 76 scholarship football players eligible to cast ballots know the spotlight is on them, said Ramogi Huma, president of the College Athletes Players Association, which would represent the players at the bargaining table if the pro-union side prevails.
Some of the pressure the players feel stems from dire Northwestern claims about the consequences of unionization, Huma said Thursday.
"They're looking at anything and everything to invoke fear in the players," said Huma, a former UCLA linebacker. "We feel like some of the tactics are scare tactics."
Northwestern, which was required by law to let the vote proceed, denied applying undue pressure on players to vote "no." It did send a 21-page question-and-answer document to the players outlining the problems with forming a union. In it, Northwestern said it hoped unionization would not lead to player strikes in the event of a dispute -- but that if it did, replacement players could be brought in to cross picket lines.
"The tension created in such a situation would be unprecedented and not in anyone's best interest," it said.
The school also said divisions could emerge between scholarship players eligible for union membership and walk-ons, coaches and staff.
Mike and Mike
Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic share their thoughts on Northwestern football players' union vote and why it wouldn't surprise them if the majority of the team voted "no."
More Podcasts »
"There is no question but that the presence of a union would add tension in terms of creating an 'us' versus 'them' feeling between the players it would represent and those it would not," it said.
Huma said Northwestern seemed to be intentionally misconstruing the facts, and said the school's "subliminal messages" included the suggestion that a "yes" vote could throw their amateur status into question.
"No one is taking about striking," he said. "They are trying to rattle players."
Northwestern did not release the document publicly, but The Associated Press obtained a copy and the school verified its authenticity. Alan K. Cubbage, the school's vice president for university relations, dismissed Huma's suggestion that the school was using scare tactics.
"I would say strongly that Northwestern has conducted an election campaign ... according to the procedures and the rules of the NLRB," he said.
When outgoing Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter announced in January that he would lead the drive to unionize, helped by CAPA and the United Steelworkers, he said nearly all of his fellow teammates were behind him.
Trevor Siemian, who is expected to replace Colter as the starting quarterback, has said he will vote against a union.
"I'll say there's a significant number of guys on the team who feel the same as me," Siemian said this month.
Safety Davion Fleming said his teammates have slowly begun to understand that the issues aren't clear cut.
"When the union talk initially started, it wasn't very clear what was going on," said Fleming, who doesn't support unionization but can't vote because his eligibility is exhausted. "I think they didn't understand the implications."
After weeks of both sides vying for votes, Fleming said he detects a common sentiment among players.
"They just want this to be over -- and to focus on football," he said.
"You got to give the people what they want!" one of the players shouted at reporters, who were kept away from the players as they entered a campus building to vote. Some waved and another busted out dance moves.
[+] EnlargeNorthwestern
AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast
Northwestern football player Dan Vitale peeks around the corner as he heads into McGaw Hall, where voting is taking place on whether to form the nation's first union for college athletes.
Results of the unprecedented vote won't be revealed any time soon. After the vote, the ballot boxes will be sealed for weeks or months -- perhaps even years -- as the university challenges the effort to unionize the football team.
The full National Labor Relations Board agreed Thursday to hear the school's appeal of a regional director's March ruling that the players are employees and as such can unionize. Ballots will be impounded until that process is finished, and a court fight could come after that decision.
Supporters of the effort say a union would help college athletes obtain better compensation, medical care for injuries and other benefits. The NCAA this endorsed a plan this week that would give big schools like Northwestern more autonomy to address such issues for its athletes.
None of the players participating in an early round of voting stopped to talk with reporters, but the excitement of some was evident as they waved or thrust their arms into the air in view of TV news cameras. A second round of voting was scheduled for later in the day.
Cheering them on was Fred Massey, a former high school basketball coach from Detroit who is now an advocate for student-athletes.
"These kids are afraid to rock the boat because as athletes ... that big dream of the NFL and the NBA is being dangled in front of them with all the millions of dollars," he said. "So, you just do what you're told. They don't want to jeopardize that."
Last month's decision NLRB official Peter Ohr sent shockwaves through the world of college sports, prompting sharp criticism from the NCAA, Northwestern and college athletic departments nationwide. While the ruling would apply only to private universities -- they are subject to federal labor law while public schools are under state law -- many saw the decision as a first step toward the end of the traditional "student-athlete."
The 76 scholarship football players eligible to cast ballots know the spotlight is on them, said Ramogi Huma, president of the College Athletes Players Association, which would represent the players at the bargaining table if the pro-union side prevails.
Some of the pressure the players feel stems from dire Northwestern claims about the consequences of unionization, Huma said Thursday.
"They're looking at anything and everything to invoke fear in the players," said Huma, a former UCLA linebacker. "We feel like some of the tactics are scare tactics."
Northwestern, which was required by law to let the vote proceed, denied applying undue pressure on players to vote "no." It did send a 21-page question-and-answer document to the players outlining the problems with forming a union. In it, Northwestern said it hoped unionization would not lead to player strikes in the event of a dispute -- but that if it did, replacement players could be brought in to cross picket lines.
"The tension created in such a situation would be unprecedented and not in anyone's best interest," it said.
The school also said divisions could emerge between scholarship players eligible for union membership and walk-ons, coaches and staff.
Mike and Mike
Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic share their thoughts on Northwestern football players' union vote and why it wouldn't surprise them if the majority of the team voted "no."
More Podcasts »
"There is no question but that the presence of a union would add tension in terms of creating an 'us' versus 'them' feeling between the players it would represent and those it would not," it said.
Huma said Northwestern seemed to be intentionally misconstruing the facts, and said the school's "subliminal messages" included the suggestion that a "yes" vote could throw their amateur status into question.
"No one is taking about striking," he said. "They are trying to rattle players."
Northwestern did not release the document publicly, but The Associated Press obtained a copy and the school verified its authenticity. Alan K. Cubbage, the school's vice president for university relations, dismissed Huma's suggestion that the school was using scare tactics.
"I would say strongly that Northwestern has conducted an election campaign ... according to the procedures and the rules of the NLRB," he said.
When outgoing Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter announced in January that he would lead the drive to unionize, helped by CAPA and the United Steelworkers, he said nearly all of his fellow teammates were behind him.
Trevor Siemian, who is expected to replace Colter as the starting quarterback, has said he will vote against a union.
"I'll say there's a significant number of guys on the team who feel the same as me," Siemian said this month.
Safety Davion Fleming said his teammates have slowly begun to understand that the issues aren't clear cut.
"When the union talk initially started, it wasn't very clear what was going on," said Fleming, who doesn't support unionization but can't vote because his eligibility is exhausted. "I think they didn't understand the implications."
After weeks of both sides vying for votes, Fleming said he detects a common sentiment among players.
"They just want this to be over -- and to focus on football," he said.