The Unionization of College Athletes

An excerpt of this appeared in NYT Room for Debate

National Labor Relations Board’s ruling that qualifies Northwestern football players as employees of the university and grants them the right to unionize is creating much debate around the issue of athletic reform in college athletics. I applaud the activism of these athletes to seek measures to obtain just treatment and a voice in the decision making process that impact their lives. It speaks to the sophistication and determination these modern day college athletes are willing to exhibit in order to bring about reform. This ruling is an example of their grassroots activism; the kind that is necessary to encourage athletic reform.

On the other hand, I am disappointed in the inertia of the NCAA, which has forced the hands of athletes to seek change and resolution externally. The NCAA efforts have been quite reactionary and defensive instead of proactive and visionary since the onslaught of cases that are challenging amateurism. Maybe their track record of losing in the lower courts and winning in the higher court is a tactical strategy they find successful. Maybe there are simply exhibiting “too big to fail” that is pervasive among corporations of this size.

I have mixed emotions about the application of this ruling because of the distance that exist between this ruling and the actual implementation of it. The process of appeals could go on for years before athletes actually benefit from having a union. Northwestern University officials have stated that they will appeal this decision. Until the development of a functional college players union, athletes will be enduring academic neglect and medical injuries that threatens their ability to be mentally and physically functional citizens.

Also, clearly there are pros (e.g., better wages, medical benefits, job security, etc.,) and cons (e.g., annual dues and fees, individuality, employee & employer collegiality, etc.) of having a union; however, I question whether this is the right methodology for college athletes; especially given the current configuration of college athletics, where there is no clear and definitive distinction between the athletes in revenue generating sports and non-revenue generating sports. Will a union be able to serve the values of both categories of college athletes? Finally, is reducing the power and governance of the NCAA in order to submit to another layer of governance and oversight of a union the plausible outcome? Further grassroots efforts should be directed at gaining a greater voice within the NCAA governing structure and making demands, by any means necessary, for long term health benefits, time to achieve a quality academic experience, and equitable economic compensation based on cost-of-living basic expenses.

Legalizing Sport Betting

A portion of this essay appeared in New York Times Room for Debate.

           The rationales for states legalizing sport betting range from the de-criminalization associated with sport betting to increasing tax revenue from the revenues generated from sport betting. In 2012, the Nevada Gaming Commission reported that $3.45 billion was legally wagered in its state’s Casinos in sport bets alone.  It is also estimated that around $380 billion is illegally wagered on sports betting. The Super Bowl is considered the mega-event for sport betting with estimates around $8 billion wagered each year. Clearly, significant revenue is generated in sport betting, which is cause for many states to consider the legalization of sport wagering.

            However, there are other factors to consider beyond the potential tax revenue and the contribution these revenues can make towards education and other civic services.  It is customary to see a rise in detrimental behaviors and physical and/or mental health issues with the legalization of certain social practices; e.g. alcohol, gambling, marijuana, etc.  For example, it has been documented that crime rates associated with the use of alcohol increased after prohibition.  The increase legalization of sport betting can witness a similar fate, where we experience an increase in impulse control disorders and the negative behaviors that are byproducts of this disorder.  As it relate specifically to sport, it can also encourage individuals to try and influence the outcome of the game by enticing players or officials with money.  It can encourage athletes to bet on games in which they compete, regardless of policies in place that prohibit this practice; such as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992.

            In light of the various challenges professional sports are encountering, the increase legalization of sport betting can add another layer of complications.  Baseball is trying to manage the complications of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs); the NFL, although financially fit, concussion litigations may present an ongoing disruption; the NBA is struggling to fill the void of Air Jordan; and the NHL is two years removed from a lockout.  Now add the threat to the integrity of the game to these complications, and you have a disaster waiting to happen.

            Until our collective morality is at a level of maturity to handle the dysfunctionalism gambling induces the legalization of sport betting should be restricted.  Although gambling is big business, state revenues should not have to depend on the selling of false hopes or profiting off pathology.  The short-term gains of legalizing sport betting in more states are not worth the long-term complication it will create for the professional leagues, specifically, and most importantly, the complications it will add to many communities that are already challenged with other social pathologies.