Post by Trojangles on Feb 16, 2023 12:03:24 GMT -8
NCAA "AMATEURISM" CLAIMS SAID, "UNPERSUASIVE & INCONGRUOUS" IN FEDERAL APPEALS HEARING - MICHAEL MCCANN, MCCANN SPORTS LAW, February 15, 2023
"A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard arguments whether Division I college athletes are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The panel regarded the NCAA’s core principle that college athletes shouldn’t be paid as unpersuasive and incongruous, and the judges signaled they view college athletes as employees. The panel’s decision, expected later this year, could eventually lead to college athletes gaining recognition as employees who are owed wages akin to their work-study classmates. Meanwhile, universities and the NCAA would be on the hook to pay those athletes as joint employers . . .
The panel repeatedly stressed that college athletes are under a level of control not faced by their classmates. They referenced how the athletes can’t pursue certain areas of study because of conflicts with the athletic schedule. They also mentioned that a student can hire an agent for professional music or arts pursuits, but an athlete cannot. They even noted that college students in many states can lawfully bet on sports, whereas their athlete classmates are forbidden from doing so . . .
The implications of Johnson are profound. As amicus briefs filed by the Southeastern Conference and a group of education associations argued, some colleges might cut—or at least threaten to cut—teams or athletic departments if those colleges must pay athletes a wage . . .
Colleges would also need to adhere to Title IX in paying athletes, meaning there must be gender equity in pay. Schools might also worry about the impact of paying athletes on the favorable tax treatment they receive because they currently meet education requirements under tax law."
LINK TO THE ARTICLE: www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2023/federal-appeals-court-rebukes-ncaa-1234710033/
"A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard arguments whether Division I college athletes are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The panel regarded the NCAA’s core principle that college athletes shouldn’t be paid as unpersuasive and incongruous, and the judges signaled they view college athletes as employees. The panel’s decision, expected later this year, could eventually lead to college athletes gaining recognition as employees who are owed wages akin to their work-study classmates. Meanwhile, universities and the NCAA would be on the hook to pay those athletes as joint employers . . .
The panel repeatedly stressed that college athletes are under a level of control not faced by their classmates. They referenced how the athletes can’t pursue certain areas of study because of conflicts with the athletic schedule. They also mentioned that a student can hire an agent for professional music or arts pursuits, but an athlete cannot. They even noted that college students in many states can lawfully bet on sports, whereas their athlete classmates are forbidden from doing so . . .
The implications of Johnson are profound. As amicus briefs filed by the Southeastern Conference and a group of education associations argued, some colleges might cut—or at least threaten to cut—teams or athletic departments if those colleges must pay athletes a wage . . .
Colleges would also need to adhere to Title IX in paying athletes, meaning there must be gender equity in pay. Schools might also worry about the impact of paying athletes on the favorable tax treatment they receive because they currently meet education requirements under tax law."
LINK TO THE ARTICLE: www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2023/federal-appeals-court-rebukes-ncaa-1234710033/