The National College Players Association is seeking to end its legal fight to classify Division I football and basketball athletes as employees of their colleges.
The association, which advocates for college athletes, submitted a motion Friday to withdraw its complaint alleging that the University of Southern California, the PAC-12 Conference, and the National Collegiate Athletics Association commit unfair labor practices by deeming players amateurs, not employees entitled to workplace protections and the right to unionize.
The filing comes just a week and a half after Dartmouth College basketball players withdrew their petition to unionize, possibly in anticipation of a change in partisan control in the National Labor Relations Board’s membership under the incoming Trump administration, one that is considered less friendly to the cause of calling college athletes employees.
President-elect Donald J. Trump is expected to nominate a new chair for the NLRB after Democrats in the Senate failed to confirm the current chair for another five-year term. Trump will also likely replace the NLRB’s general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, who has said that college athletes should be classified as employees under the National Labor Relations Act.
The NCPA did not cite the incoming administration as the reason it withdrew. Instead, the motion lists several developments in college athletics that have occurred since the group presented its case to an administrative-law judge in 2023. Among them were athletes’ ability nationwide to now make money from their names, images, and likenesses (NIL), as well as a pending legal settlement that will allow universities like the University of Southern California to pay athletes up to roughly $20 million a year. “The NCPA believes that it is best to provide adequate time for the college sports industry to transition into this new era before football and basketball employee status is ruled upon,” the motion says.
The NCPA may have the same concern as Dartmouth’s team, said Mark Gaston Pearce, a senior adviser to the Workers’ Rights Institute at Georgetown University and a visiting professor at the university’s law center. Pearce, who served as a board member and chairman of the NLRB under the Obama administration, said the group made a strong argument that universities and the NCAA benefited substantially from the revenue that basketball and football generate. The fact that they’re withdrawing now demonstrates concern that a Republican-controlled NLRB will view the cause of unionization unfavorably, and that the active cases would have been “vehicles for removing the employee classification from students and shutting down efforts by student athletes to be considered employees,” he said.
My speculation is that what you’re witnessing now is the unions going into protective mode.
“My speculation is that what you’re witnessing now is the unions going into protective mode.”
The NCPA argued that college athletes meet all the standards of an employee under the law and should receive the same benefits — minimum wage, social security, worker’s compensation, and the right to unionize. They cited the voluminous handbooks athletes must abide by and argued that they are no different than employee handbooks. The NCAA disagreed, saying that treating college athletes like employees could complicate compliance with Title IX, immigration laws, and worker’s compensation.
In March, the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team voted 13-2 to unionize, making history as the first successful union election by college athletes in the U.S. The college appealed to the full NLRB, and the bid came to a halt when the team decided to withdraw their petition last month.
“While our strategy is shifting, we will continue to advocate for just compensation, adequate health coverage, and safe working conditions for varsity athletes at Dartmouth,” Chris Peck, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 560, said in a statement.
The sudden withdrawals come amid a period of upheaval in college sports. Institutions that compete at the highest levels are making plans for how they’ll adapt to a pending settlement in the House v. NCAA case, which alleges that past athletes had been unfairly cut out of the ability to make NIL money. The settlement, which has yet to be formally approved, would allow Division I colleges to share up to roughly $20 million in revenue directly with players.
That revenue sharing won’t be part of an employment arrangement. But another live court case seeks to push the envelope further: Johnson v. NCAA, which alleges that the NCAA violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not compensating athletes as employees. A federal appeals court last year ruled that the suit could proceed, and it will likely take years to play out.
