• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文OA文献 >I’m the One Making the Money, Now Where’s My Cut? Revisiting the Student-Athlete as an “Employee” Under the National Labor Relations Act
【2h】

I’m the One Making the Money, Now Where’s My Cut? Revisiting the Student-Athlete as an “Employee” Under the National Labor Relations Act

机译：我是一个赚钱的人，现在哪里去赚钱？根据《国家劳资关系法》重新审查学生运动员为“雇员”

页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This Article argues why the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) Big-Time Division I College Football and Men’s Basketball student-athletes are legally “employees” and why these student-athletes are inadequately compensated for their revenue-producing skills.Part II of this Article sets forth the common law “right of control” test and the National Labor Relation Act’s (NLRA) special statutory test for students in a university setting, and shows how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the judiciary determine whether a particular person, specifically a university student, meets these standards and is legally an “employee”. Moreover, the NCAA asserts it does not have to compensate these student-athletes above their grant-in-aid because their relationship with their universities is an educational one. Part II also discusses the right of publicity tort to show that the relationship between these particular student-athletes and the NCAA is predominantly an economic one and not an educational one.Part III of this Article applies two tests, the common law “right of control” test and the NLRB’s special statutory test it developed and applied to university students in Brown to show that these particular “student-athletes” are legally “employees.” As such, they should be compensated more than the grant-in-aid they already receive from the NCAA for their revenue-producing skills. This section also discusses Texas Au26M Quarterback Johnny Manziel, and why Texas Au26M University is reaping major financial benefit for the misappropriation of Manziel’s “likeness.” Part III also discusses NCAA Proposal 26 and how the NCAA and its member schools are continuing to invent innovative ways to misappropriate student-athletes’ “likenesses” for financial gain without compensating them. Additionally, this section illustrates that former student-athletes in addition to current athletes recognize that the NCAA is exploiting them for commercial gain without compensation. This section concludes with three potential solutions to how the NCAA could pay the student-athletes and at the same time advances the NCAA’s amateurism dogma in college athletics. The NCAA can no longer use its affirmative defense of “amateurism,” and should develop a payment method to compensate the services rendered by student-athletes who are the true moneymakers for its lucrative commercial enterprise.
机译：本文讨论了为什么国家大学体育协会（NCAA）的第一阶段大学橄榄球和男子篮球学生运动员是合法的“雇员”，以及为什么这些学生运动员的创收技能没有得到适当补偿。文章阐述了普通法“控制权”测试和《国家劳动关系法》（NLRA）针对大学环境中学生的特殊法定测试，并说明了国家劳动关系委员会（NLRB）和司法机关如何确定特定人员，特别是大学生，符合这些标准，并且在法律上是“雇员”。此外，NCAA断言，这些学生与运动员之间的关系是教育性的，因此不必向这些学生运动员提供高于其资助的补偿。第二部分还讨论了侵权行为的权利，以表明这些特殊的学生运动员与NCAA之间的关系主要是经济方面的，而不是教育方面的。该条款的第三部分采用了两种检验标准，即普通法“控制权”测试和NLRB制定的特殊法定测试并将其应用于布朗的大学生，以表明这些特殊的“学生运动员”在法律上是“雇员”。因此，他们应获得比NCAA已经从其创收技能中获得的补助金更多的补偿。本节还讨论了德克萨斯A u26M四分卫Johnny Manziel，以及为什么德克萨斯A u26M大学因盗用Manziel的“相似性”而获得了可观的经济收益。第三部分还讨论了NCAA提案26，以及NCAA及其成员学校如何继续发明创新的方法来挪用学生运动员的“形象”，以获取经济利益而无需补偿他们。此外，本节还说明，除了现任运动员以外，以前的学生运动员也意识到NCAA正在利用他们谋取商业利益，而没有给予任何补偿。本节总结了三种可能的解决方案，以解决NCAA如何支付学生运动员的费用，同时提高NCAA在大学运动项目中的业余主义教条。 NCAA不能再使用对“业余主义”的肯定辩护，而应开发一种付款方式，以补偿学生运动员提供的服务，这些运动员是其利润丰厚的商业企业的真正赚钱者。

著录项

  • 作者

    Leppler John J.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2014
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号