College Athletes May Qualify as Employees Deserving Pay, U.S. Appeals Court Rules

College athletes whose efforts primarily benefit their schools may qualify as employees deserving of pay under federal wage-and-hour laws, a U.S. appeals court ruled Thursday in a setback to the NCAA.

The court challenged the NCAA’s long-held notion of “amateurism” in college sports, pointing out that a test should be developed to differentiate between students who play for fun and those whose efforts cross the legal line into work.

U.S. Circuit Judge L. Felipe Restrepo emphasized that playing sports can constitute compensable work, depending on the relationship between an athlete and the college/NCAA. The ruling follows the Supreme Court decision allowing athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness.

The Division I athletes and former athletes behind the suit are seeking hourly wages and fair labor practices, arguing that colleges should pay them for the hours dedicated to their sports. Lawyer Paul McDonald mentioned that athletes might make around $2,000 per month for participating in NCAA sports.

The unanimous Supreme Court decision in favor of NIL payments lifted the ban on compensation beyond scholarships, leading to schools offering education-related benefits to athletes.

While the NCAA argues against athletes being classified as employees, the relationship between student-athletes and universities continues to come under scrutiny. In a memo, a top lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board suggested treating college athletes as employees.

Players have taken their voices to social media, advocating for a share of the revenue generated by NCAA schools. The debate on whether college athletes should be considered employees entitled to direct pay remains ongoing.

Despite opposition from the NCAA, the fight for fair compensation for college athletes continues as they seek recognition for their efforts on the field and in the classroom.

Source: AP News