Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Penn State football
There is a solution to the exploitative power dynamics inherent in the US college sports system: unionization. Photograph: Scott Taetsch/Getty Images
There is a solution to the exploitative power dynamics inherent in the US college sports system: unionization. Photograph: Scott Taetsch/Getty Images

There’s never been a better time for US college athletes to unionize

This article is more than 2 years old

The only meaningful counterweight to the NCAA system’s exploitative dynamics is unionization: the empowerment of athletes to defend their own interests as a collective

At times it can feel like it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of exploitation, abuse and harm in the world of US college sport. This is after all an athletic system that produces billions of dollars of revenue for universities and the NCAA and yet denies the workers who generate it a basic wage, the ability to engage in compensatory promotional work and the equivalent educational experience enjoyed by their non-sporting peers, even as it tolerates physical, sexual and emotional abuse and the subjection of its participants to extreme physical harm. And we haven’t even mentioned the plantation dynamics.

“We are at the mercy of our respective schools, they get to set the rules and treat us however they want and the worst consequence is some bad press, but the machine keeps on going,” a Pac-12 football player told the Guardian. “The power dynamics between player and coaches/schools is so off balance, guys were scared to speak up and advocate for themselves in the middle of a pandemic. The NCAA has shown they don’t give a fuck about us, it’s all about protecting the bottom line and making money.”

And yet, there is a solution to these power dynamics and the attendant forms of exploitation and harm that result: unionization. If college athletes have the right to organize and wield their solidarity against the hegemonic power of universities, they can systematically address what sociologist Erin Hatton calls their status coercion: the fundamental precarity and systematic subordination that they experience as campus athletic workers. As former Northwestern University quarterback Kain Colter has put it: “It’s like a paternalistic relationship. It’s a lot of ‘yes sirs’ and listening to their orders. [Coaches] have all the control.”

As Rutgers University associate professor Rebecca Givan further explains: “Unionizing would mean that athletes could bargain collectively and regain some control over their working conditions. These contracts may or may not cover salaries, but they could also govern numerous other aspects of these athletes’ work. College players could negotiate for the right to choose their majors and course schedules, the right to opt out of so-called voluntary workouts that are essentially mandatory, and the right to physical and mental healthcare that extends beyond their time as a college athlete.”

Players have recognized that unionization might be the best pathway to improving their rights and working conditions in college sport. Starting in 2014, Colter, along with Ramogi Huma and Luke Bonner, formed the College Athlete Players Association (CAPA), with the support of the United Steelworkers, to unionize the Northwestern football team. Although initially successful – the regional National Labor Relations Board ruled in their favor – the decision was overturned by the national NLRB in 2015. In 2020, labor organizing surged back onto the agenda due to the failure of universities to protect athletic workers from the pandemic, notably in the Pac-12 (#WeAreUnited) and the Big Ten (#BigTenUnited).

Enter the College Athlete Right to Organize Act, a bill introduced on Thursday by US senators Chris Murphy and Bernie Sanders and in the house of representatives by Jamaal Bowman of New York, Andy Levin of Michigan, and Lori Trahan of Massachusetts that would provide collective bargaining rights for college athletes. The act is designed to assert and assist college athletes’ right to collectively bargain by amending the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to define any college athlete in any sport as an employee if they receive any direct compensation (including grant-in-aid or any other form of financial assistance provided by the institution).

The act also amends the NLRA to define public and private colleges as employers within the context of college sports, allowing athletes to collectively bargain at any college regardless of state laws that restrict their labor rights, and facilitates the creation of bargaining units for college athletes by directing the NLRB to consider colleges within an athletic conference (such as each of Power Five conferences, although the bill does not only include revenue generating sports) as part of a bargaining unit with which athletes can negotiate.

Importantly, the act would also assert the NLRB’s jurisdiction over all higher education institutions within the context of college sports, and on all collective bargaining and representation matters, including labor disputes. This would give campus athletic workers the ability to petition the NLRB to handle any issues that arise in the process of collective bargaining. The act would also prohibit any unilateral or bilateral agreements, such as scholarship agreements, which waive the right of athletes to collective bargain, while ensuring the tax and financial aid status of athletes’ scholarships and other benefits does not change due to their employment status.

As Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, put it: “Big-time college sports haven’t been ‘amateur’ for a long time, and the NCAA has long denied its players economic and bargaining rights while treating them as commodities.”

Sanders, an independent representing Vermont, adds: “College athletes are workers. They deserve pay, a union and to own their name, image and likeness. It is long past time we gave these workers the rights they deserve.”

The bill is also supported by AFL-CIO, United Steelworkers, and Advancement of Blacks in Sport.

In the 2019 fiscal year, 19 US college and universities reported football ticket revenue of at least $20 million, including 11 at more than $30 million. Photograph: Kevin C Cox/Getty Images

In what follows, we share the perspectives of 14 current and former college players, as well as labor organizers, on what union rights would mean for college athletes.

Luke Bonner, former University of Massachusetts men’s basketball player and CAPA organizer, like everyone we spoke with for the story, commented before having a chance to see the legislation: “The biggest issue in college athletics is the imbalance of power. Too many people are acting like (name, image and likeness) reform solves the exploitative nature of the system. It does not. NIL is easy and obvious. Right now, no organization exists solely to represent the best interest of the athlete. And NCAA rules dominate every facet of a college athlete’s life – and their family’s lives, too. Having the ability to collectively bargain over mandatory subjects could result in some seriously meaningful reform, driven by the actual needs of the athletes.”

Hayley Hodson, a former Stanford University volleyball player, agreed. “The current landscape of college sports codifies a power imbalance that deprives the performer – the athletes – from having representation and protection in discussions, agreements and decisions that impact their bodies, schedules, and careers,” Hodson said. “Amateurism is an outdated ideal and giving college athletes a way to work together to protect their interests through unionization could be a great way at offsetting the exploitation that is baked into the NCAA’s governance model.”

It should be noted that for many apologists, the US college sports system is justified according to a basic principle of consent: players sign up to play, therefore coercion does not exist. Yet this tidy rationale overlooks the economic and social stratifications within US racial capitalism that inform participation. The choice to subject oneself to extreme exploitation when the alternatives are worse is not in fact consent, but rather structural coercion, and the only remedy is recourse to resistance – something offered by a union.

As the Pac-12 football player put it: “A union would be powerful for us. There are so many issues across all of our sports that a union could help resolve ranging from coaches that habitually cross the line, or being able to put our foot down and ask for health benefits and ultimately being able to profit off our talents. As of right now there isn’t an entity that is able to hold the schools accountable and act in our best interest.” He added, “I just don’t want to be used anymore. A union would give us a legitimate voice by being represented and having a seat at the table so we can protect ourselves from continuously being taken advantage of.”

Tulane University basketball player Jordan Walker echoes that point. “I definitely feel like us being able to have a union would make us athletes in college and the athletes after us have a voice,” he said.

Indeed, in general, the current and former college athletes we consulted were vehement that union rights were an important mechanism for addressing exploitation in college sports. As former UCLA soccer player Kaiya McCullough explained: “Union rights for college athletes would be revolutionary in a lot of ways. I know first hand what it’s like to have the interests of the institutions I played for placed above and beyond my own interests and well-being in terms of health and safety, education and economics.” McCullough, a 2019 graduate, continued, “Union rights for college athletes would act as a counterbalance to the corrupt system that has kept athletes pinned down through the exploitation of labor from some of the most vulnerable communities. My hope is that college athletes and their allies feel empowered enough to both find and use their voices in this fight towards justice, and right the wrongs of the past that have come from amateurism and its consequences on racial, gender and economic equity for athletes.”

Similarly, Liam Robbins, a basketball player who just transferred to Vanderbilt University, said: “I believe that union rights for NCAA student-athletes are paramount to empower student-athletes to hold the NCAA and their member schools accountable for providing proper treatment and care. Student-athletes are not NCAA property and it should not treat them as such.”

Labor organizer Mindy Isser concurs, saying: “Unionization would improve working conditions for college athletes the same way they improve working conditions for all workers – allowing workers to have a voice in their workplace and to bargain over wages, benefits and other relevant issues. Unions are at their highest approval rate in decades now, but only 11% of workers are actually in them. That’s because the process is unnecessarily hostile to workers. Passing the PRO Act, along with of course giving college athletes the right to organize, would make forming unions much, much easier.”

Perhaps the most urgent issue that can be addressed via unionization is the physical, verbal and emotional abuse athletes are sometimes subjected to by those who wield power over them in athletic departments. Unionization would provide a formal channel for bringing forth grievances and, crucially, could protect athletes from reprisal. As WTA pro and former UMass tennis player Brittany Collens said: “In the worst cases we have sexual assault, physical abuse, and mental abuse permanently ruining athletes’ lives. A players’ union allows players to say, ‘No, I’m not enduring that.’ Right now they have zero say over their health and safety. This would change that.”

Taryn Taugher, a former college basketball player who has written about the “emotional abuse” she experienced as a player, said: “I think a union for college athletes would help our voices be heard. My teammates and I’s voices were not heard, which means girls currently there are being abused like we were. A union would give us athletes the opportunity to come together, make change together and see change together.”

Hillary Dole, a former college softball player who has spoken elsewhere about her experiences of “bullying, intimidation, and a blatant lack of care from her coach”, explained that “teammates are apt to keep quiet in the presence of wrongdoings out of fear of missing out on playing time or jeopardizing their future on the team. As a result, coaches face minimal to no consequences for their actions, allowing for continued mistreatment of their players. Meanwhile, those who try to speak up are discarded and portrayed as unhappy with the amount of playing time they got, or unable to handle the demanding schedule college athletics requires.”

Aside from abuse, there is no more urgent reason for collective bargaining rights than the question of health and safety, particularly in the context of a global pandemic. At present, players are not provided with health insurance by universities either during or after their careers. Yet, whether it is football players subjected to head impacts and CTE, or baseball pitchers tasked with excessive throwing, the lack of formal control of players over working conditions means that their bodies are subjected to the whims of coaches who are incentivized to privilege winning over occupational health and safety. As Simon Cvijanović, former University of Illinois football player said, in the current system “college athletes generally hold the misbelief that the NCAA ensures athlete safety, when in actuality, they effectively play the role of a consumer tolerance buffer on behalf of universities”.

The collective bargaining agreements of professional leagues in North America provide some insight into what might be possible for college athletes. In the NBA and NFL, players receive medical, dental, vision and prescription drug insurance benefits. In the NBA, former players receive health insurance benefits, as well. Meanwhile, in the WNBA, players receive medical and dental insurance, as well as the entirety of their base salary if they need to take leave for pregnancy.

‘Unionization would allow athletes a seat at the table and who better to ask for health and safety standards than the athletes themselves?’ Photograph: Evert Nelson/NCAA Photos via Getty Images

As former Duke and current Atlanta Dream basketball player Elizabeth Williams said: “The opportunity to have their bodies protected, especially post college would be game-changing. Some college athletes sustain injuries that impact them for life, and having the security of a union could positively impact them moving forward.”

Collens, the former UMass tennis player, added: “Unionization would allow athletes a seat at the table and who better to ask for health and safety standards than the athletes themselves? I think this year alone has shown that having a players’ union could be beneficial. Players who were returned to play during a pandemic as test subjects for general student population for returning to school or simply women’s March Madness getting complete unequal treatment compared to the men’s are two examples alone.”

Of course, when it comes to questions of exploitation in college sports, compensation is usually top of mind, as we have seen in the recent #NotNCAAProperty activism connected to the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. And, indeed, it appears that a wave of state legislation across the country may be on the verge of granting college athletes the right to be compensated for their name, image, and likeness. West Virginia University men’s basketball player Jalen Bridges said: “Considering how much revenue student athletes generate for universities, it’s only fair that the athletes are allowed to profit off their own name and likeness.

“We have virtually zero income as a college student other than a monthly stipend.”

Yet, regardless of how the NIL saga plays out, here too bargaining rights are essential because the most egregious form of economic exploitation in college sport is not the denial of NIL, but in fact the extraction of revenue from players without appropriate remuneration. For comparison, in the NBA, players see 50% of revenue. That number is 48% in the NFL and 25% in the WNBA.

As Walker, the Tulane basketball player, put it: “For someone who never had a lot of money and never came from a lot, it’s hard to provide for yourself especially on the small amount of money we are given. It is as if we are supposed to use just that money for food and nothing else. But let’s be real, not one of those people in power from the coaches, to the president of the schools only use their paychecks just for food. It just sucks that people can make millions of dollars off of us while some nights me and a lot of other athletes are going to bed hungry because we have no money at all. It’s just not fair at all.”

It is impossible to accurately assess the exploitative dynamics of college sports without ultimately coming to see it as an issue of racial justice, particularly in the revenue-generating sports in the Power Five conferences, wherein Black athletes are disproportionately providing the labor that generates revenue, yet are simultaneously underrepresented within the student body at large. The only meaningful counterweight available is unionization – the empowerment of athletes to defend their own interests as a collective.

University of California, Berkley runner and #WeAreUnited organizer Andrew Cooper explains: “Economic rights for college athletes is racial justice for Black communities. A union for college football and basketball players is the truest form of justice. College athletes deserve a voice capable of representing, protecting, and advancing their best interests.

“By divesting predominantly Black athletes of fundamental economic rights, amateurism is a racial injustice that ought to be abolished.”

The recent wave of NIL laws passed across the country should be best understood as little more than a fig leaf for the myriad exploitative practices ubiquitous in college sport. Union rights, on the other hand, while perhaps less glamorous, are precisely the tool campus athletic workers need to resist harm and exploitation in all the forms it is experienced.

And they can’t do it alone.

There is a burgeoning unionization movement in higher education to counter adjunctification and the ever-increasing neoliberalization of the university. The unionization of college athletes would create greater potential for alliances on campus with unions of faculty, staff, and service workers.

Preeminent labor organizer and author Jane McAlevy argues that is precisely why unionization is critical if campus athletic workers are to shift the balance of power. “College athletes are often at the intersection of economic, racial and gender exploitation. There’s never been a better moment for college athletes to tap into the intersection of the movement for economic justice, Black Lives Matter and the movement for free tuition and student debt cancellation. To succeed, the highest achievers in the campus athletics sports teams will have to lead and in some cases continue to lead, by converting their extraordinary physical talents into extraordinary social and cultural power. There’s no time like now to harness the power of collective action – college athletes are leaders, and lead they must.”

What that means for former softball player Hillary Dole is that “with a union, athletes would have a line of defense against universities that are exploiting their talent for their own financial gain. Athletes would no longer be treated as disposable and replaceable elements in the face of mistreatment, corruption and abuse. Athletes would no longer have to choose between speaking up about abuse and their athletic career.

“If we were unionized during my time as a student-athlete, I would likely still be playing.”

Or, as a former SEC football player put it: “If this goes through, it would be fuckin’ huge.”

  • Nathan Kalman-Lamb, Derek Silva, and Johanna Mellis are co-hosts of The End Of Sport podcast.

Most viewed

Most viewed