The NCAA has officially expressed its support for Dartmouth College in its efforts to oppose the unionization of men’s basketball players. This decision comes in the wake of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) ruling in February of this year, which favoured the players’ right to unionize.
The NCAA filed an amicus brief with the NLRB to show solidarity with Dartmouth’s appeal of the decision allowing basketball players to form a union. This move from the NCAA follows a similar action taken by the Ivy League, which filed a corresponding brief in April.
The saga began when the Dartmouth men’s basketball team submitted a petition to unionize in September 2023. Following this, the NLRB ruled in favour of the players, giving them permission to proceed with their unionization efforts. A vote among the players in March resulted in a 13–2 majority in favour of joining the local chapter of the Service Employees International Union. In response, Dartmouth University promptly filed an appeal to the national board.
The NCAA’s involvement in the matter reflects its commitment to preserving its business model, particularly the concept of amateurism, which has been challenged in various legal cases. These cases have resulted in allowances for cash payments to players, name, image, and likeness deals, and the potential sharing of broadcast revenue. The NCAA is concerned about the legal recognition of student-athletes as employees.
The NCAA makes a comprehensive case in its 32-page brief, arguing that the NLRB’s regional director made an error in assessing the players as employees, claiming that they do not meet the necessary criteria for classification as such. The brief was prepared by attorneys from Stinson LLP, the same legal team representing the NCAA in a separate case related to the employment status of football and basketball players at the University of Southern California (USC).
Additionally, the NCAA’s brief subtly raises concerns about the potential consequences of recognizing players as employees, warning of perceived threats to gender equity in sports, the athletes’ dual role as students, and the spectre of “labour instability”. Citing the longstanding relationship between student-athletes and the colleges and universities they attend, the NCAA makes a compelling argument that reclassifying athletes as employees would pose an existential threat to athletic programs and the opportunities available to student-athletes at numerous academic institutions across the nation.
The NCAA’s position on this issue is not unexpected, given its long history of opposition to the professionalization of student-athletes. In addition to the ongoing NLRB cases involving Dartmouth and USC, the NCAA is currently involved in a lawsuit known as Johnson v. NCAA, in which a group of athletes is arguing that they should be considered employees. At the same time, the governing body has been conducting an extensive federal lobbying campaign, supported by millions of dollars, with the aim of convincing Congress to legally protect amateurism. Progress has been made on this front, with a bill that would prohibit college athletes from obtaining employment status recently being approved for a vote on the House floor.
The next phase of the Dartmouth case will see the NLRB’s national board deliberating on whether to hear the school’s appeal. If the appeal is accepted, the case is likely to be protracted, potentially lasting a year or more.