Introduction
The topic is a discussion of the ruling that was made by the National Labour Relations Board in which it argued that the football players in Northwestern University could be classified as employees. Because of this argument, the footballers, therefore, had a right and capacity to form a union that could see them collectively bargain to their advantage. In essence, the question that was presented to the board for an advisory opinion was whether it was right to consider the players as students or as the university’s employees. Over a long time, they had been considered as students, effectively meaning that they could not have major benefits from participating in the schools’ competitions that ended up being profitable. As with other universities, college sports were based on the student-athlete principle. Through this principle, the students, in return for practicing and competing for their universities, were given scholarships through which they could pay their school fees. Among the revelations that were made at the hearing was that the footballers that were given scholarships ended up spending much of their time practicing and playing for the school. Such participation in competitions saw the university hugely benefit as they won many valuable awards. On their part, the footballers were pushing for a directive that could see them classified as employees in order to have a collective bargaining agreement instead of being considered as a student. Such an issue would surely be interesting and be keenly followed since it was the first of its kind. Whichever side, the ruling, would favor, it would be essential to note that a precedent was being set, which would dictate how other footballers from similar universities would carry out their activities.
The facts of the case make it a difficult case to make a decision on. In their ruling, the regional National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asserted that the Northwestern footballers were employees to the university and as such, they had every right that employees would be granted. This would include the right to have a union in place that would ensure they collectively bargained for the services they offered to the university. This ruling, though controversial, took into account several issues. In essence, the board made the correct decision in making a ruling. Keenly analyzing the facts of the case reveals that the footballers were more of players than students. The major consideration that the university took into account before admitting them was based on their talent, not their academic excellence ad desire. A school must concentrate on the studies before it can lay emphasis in sports. In essence, the students ended up dedicating more hours to practicing and playing for the school than the hours they spent studying. The scholarships they were accorded were merely compensation for the effort they put in playing, not realistically supporting their education.
Primarily, the players would not be considered to be students as such. As a result of the effort that the players put in sports, the university stood to gain around $235 million as revenue from the year 2003 to the year 2012. This shows the prolificacy of the players and the major benefits they were giving the school. A close analysis also revealed that the players spent more time practicing and playing for the school when compared to the number of hours that many employees spent in their jobs. The fact that the students spent much of their time playing rather than studying reveals that the basic interest of the university was to maximize revenue through the employees whom it termed as being students. In conclusion, therefore, the board was correct in ruling in favor of the students, since they were more of employees than students.
References
Acuña, R. (2004). Occupied America: A history of Chicanos. New York: Pearson Longman.
McCulloch, F. W., & Bornstein, T. (1974). The National Labor Relations Board. New York: Praeger Publishers.
