About ten years ago, unions were licking their chops at the prospect of swelling their ranks of dues-payers with college athletes. Northwestern University’s football team had voted in favor of unionization, and it was assumed that more schools would follow.

That, however, didn’t happen, in large measure because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of athletes being allowed to cash in on their names. As Professor William Anderson explains in today’s Martin Center article, that was a game changer.

This structure of negotiated pay, in which every athlete is a free agent, is not conducive to labor organization, which needs stability and structured pay contracts. For example, typical college football and basketball teams (to which most NIL money goes) will have huge variations in “salary,” with some players earning millions and others receiving nothing at all. This would not work in a union.

This structure of negotiated pay, in which every athlete is a free agent, is not conducive to labor organization, which needs stability and structured pay contracts. For example, typical college football and basketball teams (to which most NIL money goes) will have huge variations in “salary,” with some players earning millions and others receiving nothing at all. This would not work in a union.

Still, some schools are worried about possible unionization of players. That is the case at Duke University, which chose to hire a law firm that specializes in labor relations to assess the situation. The firm’s conclusion was that the school did not need to worry. Anderson concurs.

Read the whole thing.

© National Review