Introduction and Position Statement
Promoting fairness in the treatment of employees is among the mandates of the US government. As part of efforts to fulfill this mandate, the government has enacted laws which spell out the rights of workers and the obligations of employers. Offering workers compensation that is either at or above minimum wage and providing overtime pay are among the requirements that US law requires employers to uphold. The protection that the law offers has empowered employees to demand fair compensation. However, this protection has also had some unintended impacts; it has inspired parties who are traditionally not considered employees to demand compensation. Football players and athletes are among those who despite generally not being regarded as employees, are pushing for minimum wage and overtime pay. While there is some merit to their demands, stakeholders in the sports industry should rest assured that they are not obligated to offer any compensation to the players since they are not employees.
Background
Recently, there have been numerous cases filed by football players and athletes seeking the courts to intervene in disputes regarding pay. The Dawson v. NCAA case exemplifies the demands of the players. In this case, arguing that he should be considered an employee, Dawson petitioned the court to rule that he was owed minimum wage and overtime pay (Fenno, 2016). This case is part of a series of other legal challenges in which footballers and athletes playing for educational institutions demanded to be treated as employees. Placed in a larger context, the issue of treating college football players and athletes as employees reflects the increasing empowerment of American workers and calls for better and fairer treatment of employees in the workplace.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Current Status
The court before which the Dawson v. NCAA case appeared issued a ruling which settled the question of whether players representing educational institutions qualify to be considered employees. After consulting such laws as the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court established that the players are not employees, and as such, they are not entitled to the minimum wage and overtime pay that the law grants regular employees (Piasecki, 2015). It is important to note that while the court ruling offered a legal perspective on the question of compensation for college athletes, it failed to settle the matter completely. This issue remains controversial as the public seems divided on whether college athletes should be treated as employees.
Importance
The importance of the rights of college athletes cannot be overstated. These athletes are the source of pride and immense revenue for the institutions that they represent. For this reason, the institutions should take all steps to ensure that their wellbeing is safeguarded. However, the demands for minimum wage and overtime pay place the institutions in a difficult position. These institutions need to maintain morale and commitment among the athletes while securing their financial interests. It is therefore important for the institutions to understand that whereas it is critical to promote the welfare of the athletes, they are not mandated to offer compensation. Essentially, the institutions should be confident that they will be acting according to the law when they refuse to pay their athletes. The importance of the question of how to treat the athletes extends beyond colleges. This issue also affects other parties who provide some service but do not receive any compensation. It is likely that the US will witness cases filed by these parties, demanding minimum wage and other benefits.
Key Stakeholders
Colleges, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), student athletes and the courts at the main stakeholders in the issue described above. The colleges and the NCAA are in charge of ensuring that the needs of college athletes are met. In the Dawson v. NCAA case, colleges and the NCAA stood accused of failing to accord student athletes fair treatment (Piasecki, 2015). The student athletes are another main stakeholder. They are pushing for recognition as employees in the hope that they will receive the benefits accorded other employees. The mandate of the courts is to render a ruling which defines the status of college athletes.
Arguments in Support of Position
In an earlier section, colleges were advised to confidently refuse to honor the demands of minimum wage from college athletes. This advice rests on a number of arguments. One, U.S. law does not define college athletes as employees. Evidence for this can be found in the Dawson v. NCAA case. In this case, the court ruled that contrary to the arguments of the petitioner (Dawson), athletes are not employees (Piasecki, 2015). The implication of this ruling is that colleges have no legal mandate to treat their student athletes as employees. In issuing its ruling, the court cited the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court was led to conclude that the play in which the athletes engage cannot be considered work and should therefore not be compensated. One of the arguments presented to support the need for treat college athletes as employees is that college athletes commit remarkable effort which earns colleges immense amounts of revenue (Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015). Whereas it is true that the effort of the athletes is a source of revenue, colleges reward this effort in the form of scholarships. Therefore, the argument that college athletes are employees has no basis in law. When they refuse to pay their athletes, colleges should remain confident that they have the full backing of the law.
In an earlier discussion, it was mentioned that the Dawson v. NCAA was among other similar cases in which athletes sought to be defined as employees. Berger v. NCAA is one such case. This case is similar to the Dawson v. NCAA in that the petitioner also appealed to the court to compel colleges to pay athletes minimum wage (Piasecki, 2015). In dismissing this case, the court found that NCAA’s own guidelines shield colleges from having to pay their athletes. These guidelines contain a provision regarding amateurism. Essentially, all college athletes under the NCAA umbrella are regarded as amateurs who deserve no payment for their work. This provision was part of the rationale for the ruling that the court issued. An objection that can be raised to this provision is that there are other students who receive payment for their work (Piasecki, 2015). For example, students who offer tours to visitors are usually paid. While there are clear parallels between the work of these students and the effort of college athletes, NCAA guidelines are binding and must be followed. Furthermore, colleges are mandated to pay such students as those who offer tours because the services that these students offer benefit the colleges (Badel, 2017). On the other hand, the play in which athletes engage are largely in their benefit. Therefore, universities can turn to the NCAA guidelines and court decisions to support their refusal to pay student athletes minimum wage.
The nature of the relationship between students and colleges is another basis for denying the athletes compensation in the form of minimum wage. For an individual to deserve wages, all the work that they do must benefit the employer. As has been established in various court cases, college athletes do not meet this requirement. In responding to its victory in the Dawson v. NCAA case, the NCAA made it clear that through participation in sports, students gain skills and offers them access to quality education (Bonagura, 2017). Essentially, college sports are a platform for student advancement. While it is true that the colleges derive financial benefit from the sports, these institutions take steps to safeguard the wellbeing of the athletes. Therefore, college athletes should be grateful for the opportunities that their schools offer them. They are able to study without worrying about such costs as tuition or board. The contribution that they make to sports is the least that they should do to demonstrate their gratitude.
Recommendations
Colleges have been advised to remain adamant in their refusal to pay college athletes. However, it is recommended that they should offer some form of compensation which extends beyond scholarships. That colleges offer scholarship opportunities to the athletes is commendable. However, as the various legal challenges have revealed, many athletes feel that the scholarships are not fair or sufficient compensation. The colleges need to offer such incentives as pay that is based on the number of hours of training in which a player engages and the number of games won. The implementation of this recommendation will allow the colleges to display their concern and commitment to the wellbeing of the athletes.
The recommendation offered above is based on a solid foundation. That it will enable them to motivate student athletes is one of the reasons why colleges should implement the recommendation. It is generally understood that monetary compensation has the effect of incentivizing individuals to work harder and to be more committed (Litman, Robinson & Rosenzweig, 2015). Another reason why the colleges need to offer some level of monetary compensation is so as to save costs. Unless they offer compensation, the colleges should brace for costly and protracted legal challenges. The need to uphold fairness is another basis for the recommendation. As already noted, thanks to the efforts of their athletes, colleges receive huge amounts in revenue. It is only fair for the colleges to ensure that the athletes receive part of this revenue.
In conclusion, all organizations need to safeguard the wellbeing of their employees. However, as they strive to honor the rights of employees, the organizations need to understand that there are some gray areas in labor relations. How to treat college athletes is among these areas. Various court cases have shown that the athletes wish to be treated as employees and given due compensation. In nearly all these cases, the courts have dismissed the claims of the athletes, asserting that they are not employees. These rulings should embolden college students. However, even as they understand that they do not need to pay the athletes minimum wage, the colleges should offer compensation that goes beyond mere scholarships.
References
Badel, J. (2017). Ninth circuit court rules students athletes are not employees: Dawson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The National Law Review. Retrieved June 29, 2018 from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ninth-circuit-court-rules-student-athletes-are-not-employees-dawson-v-national
Bonagura, K. (2017). Ex-USC player Lamar Dawson’s lawsuit against NCAA, Pac-12 Dismissed. ESPN. Retrieved June 29, 2018 from http://kwese.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/19242998/ex-usc-football-player-lamar-dawson-lawsuit-ncaa-pac-12-dismissed
Fenno, N. (2016). Former USC linebacker Lamar Dawson sues NCAA and Pac-12 . LA Times. Retrieved June 29, 2018 from http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-lamar-dawson-lawsuit-20160928-snap-story.html
Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Rosenzweig, C. (2015). The relationship between motivation,monetary compensation, and data quality among US- and India-based workers on Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 47 (2), 519-528.
Piasecki, M. (2015). Law review: are college athletes employees? Insights on Law & Society, 16 (3). Retrieved June 29, 2018 from https://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/16/spring-2016/law-review--are-college-athletes-employees-.html
Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2015). The case for paying college athletes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29 (1), 115-38.
