
Alex Blutman is a student at Harvard Law School and a member of the Labor and Employment Lab.
Congressional Democrats have pushed forward another front in the movement to reshape college athletics. A bill introduced on May 27 would make college athletes employees of their respective schools with the right to form unions and bargain collectively.
The collegiate athletic system is under attack from three sides. Several suits, most notably O’Bannon v. NCAA and NCAA v. Alston, have raised antitrust challenges against rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”), college sports’ governing body, that limit the compensation received by student athletes. Relatedly, NCAA rules have long prohibited student athletes from being paid by third parties for the use of their names, images, and likenesses (“NIL”). To that end, several states have already passed legislation that will grant NIL rights to college athletes, while Congress has considered various federal bills on the matter.
Much less progress has been made with efforts to classify college athletes as employees. In 2014, football players at Northwestern University filed a petition for a union election with the National Labor Relations Board. The Board, without deciding whether the football players were employees, declined to exercise jurisdiction in the case, finding that asserting jurisdiction would upset stability in labor relations. Despite the open question left by Northwestern and a Board decision two years later finding that students who perform services at a university in connection with their studies are statutory employees, no further challenges on behalf of college athletes have been pressed.
The College Athlete Right to Organize Act would resolve the ambiguity left by the Board, directly amending the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) to define any student athlete compensated by their school for athletic ability as an employee of their respective college. Notably, the classification applies to all athletes, whether at public or private institutions, and the bill explicitly grants to the Board jurisdiction over all institutions of higher education in the context of intercollegiate sports in relation to collective bargaining, representation matters, and labor disputes. This extension of the NLRA would potentially displace some state labor laws, which govern employees at public colleges and universities.
The proposed legislation also directs the Board to recognize colleges within an athletic conference as part of a multiemployer bargaining unit; prohibits schools from enforcing conditions on scholarship agreements that would waive rights granted under the act; and preserves the current federal financial aid status of college athletes as well as the tax status and treatment of compensation they receive.
In response to the bill, which is supported by the AFL-CIO, United Steelworkers, and Advancement of Blacks in Sports, the NCAA released a statement condemning the legislation. The organization said that it would “continue to work with members of Congress to focus on issues that align with our priorities. But turning student-athletes into union employees is not the answer.” Senator Chris Murphy, one of the bill’s sponsors, said that having the right to unionize “will help athletes get the pay and protections they deserve and forces the NCAA to treat them as equals rather than second-class citizens.”
While the bill is unlikely to pass, the legislation represents the evolving public attitudes over student athletes and their relationship with their universities.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
April 18
Two major New York City unions endorse Cuomo for mayor; Committee on Education and the Workforce requests an investigation into a major healthcare union’s spending; Unions launch a national pro bono legal network for federal workers.
April 17
Utahns sign a petition supporting referendum to repeal law prohibiting public sector collective bargaining; the US District Court for the District of Columbia declines to dismiss claims filed by the AFL-CIO against several government agencies; and the DOGE faces reports that staffers of the agency accessed the NLRB’s sensitive case files.
April 16
7th Circuit questions the relevance of NLRB precedent after Loper Bright, unions seek to defend silica rule, and Abrego Garcia's union speaks out.
April 15
In today’s news and commentary, SAG-AFTRA reaches a tentative agreement, AFT sues the Trump Administration, and California offers its mediation services to make up for federal cuts. SAG-AFTRA, the union representing approximately 133,000 commercial actors and singers, has reached a tentative agreement with advertisers and advertising agencies. These companies were represented in contract negotiations by […]
April 14
Department of Labor publishes unemployment statistics; Kentucky unions resist deportation orders; Teamsters win three elections in Texas.
April 13
Shawn Fain equivocates on tariffs; Trump quietly ends federal union dues collection; pro-Palestinian Google employees sue over firings.