Dartmouth Administrators, Basketball Team Locked in Battle Over Union Bid

A recent effort by athletes on the Dartmouth University Men’s Basketball team to join the Service Employees International Union Local 560 has led to a fierce battle between the Dartmouth administration, which claims its students do not qualify as employees, and therefore have no right to join a union, and proponents of greater rights for college athletes.¹ The conflict is unprecedented and unique, with implications of enormous magnitude for the future of sports at higher levels of education.²

The 13-2 vote by the Men’s Basketball team to join Union Local 560 comes on the heels of a massive decision by Laura A. Sacks, the regional director for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Boston.³ Sacks ruled that while it may take a rather unorthodox form, Dartmouth athletes are indeed employees of the University. Although athletes do not receive paychecks or other standard forms of monetary payment, Sacks argues that members of the Men’s Basketball team do, on a basic level, receive goods or rewards in exchange for a service. In this case, these rewards take a variety of forms, including room and board, athletic equipment, merchandise, access to medical facilities and professionals, and nutritional specialists.⁴ Dartmouth maintains a high degree of control over their athletes, managing much of their time and energy.⁵ It is far from the standard conception of an employee and employer, but Sacks claims that in essence, Dartmouth athletes work for the university.

Dartmouth administrators were quick to appeal this decision, primarily on the grounds that athletes do not receive genuine compensation for their sports performances.⁶ Dartmouth administrators note that the university does not offer athletic scholarships, just financial aid.⁷ Dartmouth also attempted to downplay the importance and emphasis on sports for these college athletes, releasing a statement detailing how, “For Ivy League students who are varsity athletes, academics are of primary importance, and athletic pursuit is part of the educational experience. . . . Classifying these students as employees simply because they play basketball is as unprecedented as it is inaccurate.”⁸ Dartmouth argues that a lack of a true financial or economic dynamic between athletes and the university makes the definition of these specific students as “athletes” unfounded.⁹

Assuming this appeal is unsuccessful, Dartmouth and members of the Men’s Basketball Team will begin negotiations that could potentially include salaries and healthcare benefits, as well as working hours.¹⁰

The implications of this potential unionization are of enormous consequence. Over the last few years, with the rise of NIL deals, college athletes are starting to wield more and more economic power, but a classification as employees of universities would completely alter the landscape of college athletics. Potentially, the events at Dartmouth could create a precedent of unionization at other private universities, particularly in the Ivy League, of which Dartmouth is a member.¹¹ In some cases, barring wide-scale federal intervention, the decision of how to treat players may come down to the individual university.¹² It is also not unreasonable to assume that these developments regarding unionization may spread far beyond just Men’s Basketball. As of this writing, the situation at Dartmouth is still undetermined, but its potential effects may upset the entire collegiate athletics landscape.