Charlie Clarke Source 1

Thesis Question: How should college athletes be rewarded for their revenue creation?

Entry Question: Should Student Athletes be categorized as employees?

Source: Sims, Tyler, "Student-Athletes are not "Employees" Under the National Labor Relations Act: "The Consequences of the Right to Unionize" (2015). Law School Student Scholarship. Paper 696

This work was an in-depth exploration of 'employee status' among student athletes at American Universities. Written by Sims, who is a former athlete himself, this article displayed high levels of objectivity through the first two sections. The first section provided an introduction to the topic at hand. He studied unionization among athletes closely, diving into two separate court cases. He laid out the basics of those cases in his second section. He moved on to develop his argument, which he labeled 'part 3.' Here, Sims argued that athletes shouldn't be considered employees, and as a result, shouldn't be paid. His argument revolved around three different topics; Revisiting court issues, congress' stance on student-athlete employment, and the consequences of student-athletes becoming employees. Those consequences include costs to institutions and players, such as decreased value of academics and financial harm. Sims' conclusion rounded out his argument and his piece.

Prior to reading this essay, I stood on the side of paying certain college athletes because they produce revenue for the university. However, looking at his evidence, while it may seem like the right idea to call these athletes 'employed,' there would be negative consequences as a result to this action. Sims expanded on my entry question extensively. While he points out that by definition, college athletes can be considered employees, that definition has been overwritten in the past. With the substantial amount of evidence he provides on the topic of employment, Sims brought my thoughts over towards his side throughout my reading of the piece. Once I finished, however, I thought further about how student-athletes fit into the definition of 'employed.'

This has led me to ask, what actually constitutes the meaning of 'employed?' And how strictly does that definition apply to determining employment? I think once I find my stance on the leeway of that definition, I can further evaluate the issue of paid/not paid. Additionally, I'd like to explore Kain Colter and Northwestern football's court case further, so I can figure out the legal issues when it comes to unionization of student-athletes. Overall, this article opened my eyes to the other side of the spectrum and brought me to the question of employment.