Recently, Dartmouth University men's basketball players voted to form a union, leading to an appeal by Dartmouth University against the National Labor Relations Board's decision recognizing the players as employees. The appeal follows a ruling by Region 1 of the NLRB on February 5.
Two distinct approaches are being considered by Dartmouth University's legal team for the upcoming appeal. The first approach aligns with the NCAA's stance, asserting that college athletes are amateurs and not employees. This viewpoint has faced challenges in recent legal battles, including the NCAA v. Alston case in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Alternatively, Dartmouth University could adopt a different strategy, acknowledging that certain college athletes may indeed be considered employees. This approach may enhance the university's credibility with the NLRB and aligns with academic research in the field.
By acknowledging the potential employee status of the basketball players, Dartmouth's lawyers could then seek to differentiate them from other groups of college athletes recognized as employees, such as those at Duke University or USC and Ohio State University.
While this nuanced approach may not be favored by the NCAA, it presents more reasonable arguments that could sway the NLRB. Dartmouth University may focus on the unique characteristics of the Ivy League model, where athletes do not receive athletic scholarships, or challenge the level of control exerted over the players.
Despite potential backlash from the college sports industry, Dartmouth University's legal team is obligated to vigorously represent their client's interests. The outcome of the appeal and subsequent proceedings will shed light on Dartmouth's stance and its willingness to diverge from the NCAA's traditional rhetoric.
As the legal process unfolds, observers will be keen to see how Dartmouth University's lawyers navigate the complexities of the case and whether they can effectively advocate for their client's position.
