Fighting on the Court and in the Courtroom: Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Team Votes to Unionize
The Vote
On March 5, 2024, the Dartmouth Men’s Basketball team voted 13-2 to join Service Employees International Union Local 560, despite the objections from Dartmouth College.[1] A junior player who had been fighting for the team’s right to unionize emphasized that students can be, “both campus workers and union members.”[2] This vote was made possible by a surprising ruling from a regional office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which deemed the Dartmouth players employees of the school within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), thus entitling them to unionize.[3] The regional director reasoned that the players qualify as employees, “[b]ecause Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the Dartmouth men’s basketball team, and the players perform that work in exchange for compensation.”[4] This ruling marks a victory for the players and may signal a shift in how college athletes are treated, especially considering past failed attempts at unionization.
In 2014, there was a similar situation with Northwestern football players where the Regional Director of the NLRB ruled that scholarship athletes were employees of the university under the NLRA.[5] However, Northwestern appealed, and in 2015, the national division of the NLRB unanimously declined to assert jurisdiction over the issue, claiming it did not fall under the scope of the NLRA.[6] The Dartmouth players are hoping to avoid a similar outcome, but the college has made it clear that they will continue to oppose the unionization efforts.[7]
The Debate
The debate over the rights of college athletes has intensified in recent years as players have fought for the ability to make money while playing for their school’s teams. These issues have been gaining more traction since the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) amended its rules in 2021 to allow athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness.[8] Athletes have continued to call for further change and want to be recognized as employees of their universities so they can unionize and engage in collective bargaining. Advocates for athlete unionization argue against the notion that these players are primarily students.[9] Although they are pursuing their education, their athletic commitments often dominate their schedules.[10] With practices, home and away games, travel commitments, and team meetings, athletes face time constraints that are beyond the typical student experience.[11] Players maintain that the time commitment devoted to their sport and their service to the university demonstrate that their role on the team is akin to an on-campus job.[12] Critics of the current model assert that this treatment of athletes is essentially free labor.[13] Some players must get other on-campus jobs to earn spending money, forcing them to work two jobs while also remaining committed to their academic studies.[14] Additionally, college sports generate billions of dollars in revenue and the athletes themselves do not share in the profits.[15] While some athletic programs generate more money than others, the Dartmouth players propose a fair solution. They are not demanding their compensation reflect the annual revenues brought in from powerhouse programs like Duke Men’s Basketball, they simply want to be paid the minimum wage.[16]
It is not unsurprising that other universities facing similar challenges oppose the classification of their student athletes as employees.[17] Dartmouth released a statement in response to the unionization asserting that the players are not employees of the college and that for student athletes, “[a]cademics are of primary importance, and athletic pursuit is part of the educational experience.”[18] Dartmouth strongly opposes the unionization arguing that “[c]lassifying these students as employees simply because they play basketball is as unprecedented as it is inaccurate.”[19] Charlie Baker, the president of the NCAA, has expressed that a significant majority of NCAA schools lack the financial resources to treat their athletes as employees.[20] He believes that imposing such a requirement would result in fewer sponsored teams.[21] Moreover, critics argue that paying players would fundamentally alter the traditional scholastic model of college sports, potentially commercializing it and turning the NCAA into a semi-professional league.[22]
Next Legal Steps
Dartmouth has requested a review of the regional office of the NLRB’s decision.[23] If the review is granted, either party can appeal the decision in federal court – further delaying the players’ right to collective bargaining.[24] However, the Dartmouth players may have reason to be optimistic given the political leanings of the current administration. President Biden appointed Jennifer Abruzzo to lead the NLRB and she supports college athletes’ right to unionize.[25] Abruzzo issued a memo outlining why college athletes are considered employees under the NLRA and offered a path forward for private colleges to compensate their players.[26] However, the lengthy legal process makes it more likely that the decision will be made by another administration. While the success of this case remains uncertain, one thing is clear: athletes are no longer willing to accept the current model of college sports.
Footnotes
