CHICAGO — Northwestern University on Friday criticized a federal agency’s landmark ruling giving Wildcat football players the green light to form the nation’s first college athletic union, also confirming that it will appeal.
If it withstands an appeal, the dramatic decision this week by the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board in Chicago, Peter Ohr, could fundamentally change a college sports industry worth billions of dollars.
Vice President for University Relations Alan Cubbage said in a Friday statement that Ohr had “applied incorrect legal standards.”
“Northwestern believes the decision overlooked or completely ignored much of the critical testimony supporting the University’s position that student-athletes are not employees of Northwestern,” he said.
Reached by telephone later Friday, Ohr declined comment.
The core question Ohr had to answer was whether football players who receive full scholarships to the Big Ten school are employees under federal law and, thereby, are allowed to unionize. In his 24-page opinion, released Wednesday, Ohr concluded the players did “fall squarely” within the broad definition of employee.
The Evanston, Ill.-based university said Friday, as it had immediately after the NLRB ruling, that it will file a request for the full board in Washington, D.C, to review Ohr’s decision. It has until April 9 to file that request.
In the meantime, preparations were underway for a vote by scholarship football players on whether to authorize the College Athletes Players Association, or CAPA, to represent them. A vote normally happens with 30 days of the regional ruling.
Typically, NLRB agents help schedule the voting process according to agreements between the employer and the union-mined employee; its agents would also oversee the vote. One possibility is that the process could be stayed pending a review by the full board in Washington.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less