A Bold Move with Long-Term Implications for Athlete Advocacy

By withdrawing their petition now, the players and their representatives aim to preserve hard-won precedents while navigating an uncertain legal landscape. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 560, made this request to the NLRB Region 01 office in Boston, signaling a pause rather than an abandonment of their mission. The timing of this action is crucial, as it allows the current administration to review the case before any changes in leadership at the NLRB could alter its trajectory.

Political Shifts and Their Impact on Labor Policy

The incoming administration brings with it potential changes in the composition of the NLRB, which could affect how college athletes are classified. One major concern is the replacement of General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, whose influential memo argued that Division I athletes should be recognized as employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Abruzzo’s successor could rescind her memorandum and issue new guidelines that do not favor athlete unionization, creating uncertainty for future efforts.

Moreover, the five-person board of the NLRB is undergoing significant changes. With two vacancies expected to be filled by Republican nominees, the balance of power within the board may shift, potentially leading to decisions less favorable to athlete unions. This political transition adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing debate over athlete rights and employment status.

Legal Challenges and Strategic Considerations

Another critical factor influencing the decision to withdraw is the procedural limitations surrounding appeals of adverse agency decisions. Federal law generally restricts unions from seeking appellate review of NLRB representation decisions, making it difficult to challenge unfavorable rulings. Even if an appeal were attempted, the process would be fraught with uncertainties and could ultimately prove unfruitful.

The players had also filed a separate unfair labor practices charge against Dartmouth over the school’s refusal to bargain. However, continuing this effort risked having the new general counsel dismiss the charge as moot if the representation petition was denied. Given these risks, the strategic decision to withdraw now ensures that the precedent set by the Dartmouth players remains intact and can serve as a foundation for future advocacy.

Advancing the Cause Through Alternative Means

Despite the withdrawal of the unionization petition, the players’ efforts have already made history. They have successfully improved health care benefits for themselves and other Dartmouth athletes, demonstrating the tangible impact of collective bargaining. Moving forward, their focus will likely shift towards developing the Ivy League Players’ Association, a platform aimed at negotiating group licensing deals and advocating for better conditions across the conference.

Local 560 President Chris Peck emphasized the significance of this moment, noting that the players “pushed the conversation on employment and collective bargaining in college sports forward.” He stressed the union’s commitment to continuing advocacy for just compensation, adequate health coverage, and safe working conditions for varsity athletes at Dartmouth. The union also plans to expand its support for group licensing programs and explore legal and administrative avenues to further protect and enhance the rights of college athletes.

Broader Implications for College Sports

The Dartmouth case is part of a larger movement challenging traditional views of college athletes as student-athletes. Other legal actions, such as the pending ruling by NLRB administrative law judge Eleanor Laws on USC football and basketball players, could provide additional insights into whether college athletes qualify as employees. Additionally, federal court cases like Johnson v. NCAA continue to explore the classification of athletes under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

These developments underscore the evolving commercialization of college sports. More judges are expressing skepticism toward rules that limit athletes’ economic opportunities, as evidenced by recent court decisions involving NIL collectives and transfer portal regulations. The rise of NIL and the pending NCAA antitrust litigations suggest that the landscape of college athletics is rapidly changing, with potential implications for how athletes are compensated and governed.

A Historic Milestone in the Fight for Athlete Rights

While the Dartmouth matter will no longer proceed as a unionization effort, it has undoubtedly left an indelible mark on the conversation surrounding college athlete rights. The players’ achievements in securing employee classification and winning their union election have set a precedent that will inform future debates. As college sports continue to evolve, the lessons learned from this case will play a pivotal role in shaping the ultimate resolution of the employee-versus-student-athlete question.