Brown: NCAA should embrace athletes as employees instead of fighting another losing battle

Well, at least the NCAA is consistent.

During the 1950s it created the term “student-athlete” to sidestep paying workers' compensation to the widow of a football player who died as a result of injuries suffered during a game.

It held the line as long as it could, fighting against the dirty “professional” label for said “student-athletes,” holding steadfast to the pollyannaish ideal of amateurism.

Now, the line is drawn at having those same athletes being labeled as employees. The NCAA is creeping up on achieving GOAT status in fighting losing battles. This here is another one.

The House v. NCAA proposed settlement agreement that now awaits approval from Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court of Northern California will officially allow universities to pay players directly, officially bringing a time of death to the façade of amateurism.

As part of that agreement, the NCAA reportedly has an option to terminate it if athletes push forward for employment and collective bargaining.

Louisville football coach Jeff Brohm isn’t actively campaigning for employment but believes it would make things “easier for all.”

“This is obviously going into the direction to benefit players and to help them, I think we’re all for that to a certain degree,” Brohm said. “How it ends up, I don’t make those decisions, but I think at this point players are being taken care of more and I’m sure that will continue in the future. And to have a path and a format and some regulations to do it, I think would be beneficial.”

Maybe the NCAA believes having athletes as employees would swing too much power in their direction. What I think the NCAA is scared of, is college athletes figuring out they’re not getting a big enough share of revenue.

The estimate in the first year of shared revenue is more than $21 million. That sum will be defined as 22% of the average power conference school revenue from broadcast rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. And schools are not required to spend the full amount allotted, they just can’t spend more than that amount.

The 22% share won’t change through the 10 years of the agreement, although the total amount to be distributed will increase by 4% each year.

That’s a problem. Athletes should get a bigger slice of that share. If this deal were ever collectively bargained, they’d know that and fight for it.

The NCAA is again being shortsighted, as it was just before name, image and likeness (NIL) rights became legal for college athletes.

The organization could have been forward thinking and outlined measures to hold every school in every state to the same standard. Instead, it fought NIL by ignoring it. Acting like its passage was not inevitable as states began instilling their own laws and thus an unbalanced playing field for NCAA schools.

A year ago, before the NCAA moved toward settling the House lawsuit, it solicited conferences and coaches to go before Congress begging for federal intervention to reel in NIL.

It’s as if the NCAA was helpless in creating a standard for all its schools.

Before it reaches the same crossroad with employment, the NCAA should spend more time trying to think of how to make it work — not waste more time on ways to obstruct it.

Student-athletes stopped being amateurs when geography no longer mattered in conference affiliation and basketball teams were scheduled for 9 p.m. tipoffs on school nights, thanks to charter flights that crossed over three or four state borders.

That sounds like something an employer would ask of their employees.

Reach sports columnist C.L. Brown at clbrown1@gannett.com, follow him on X at @CLBrownHoops and subscribe to his newsletter at profile.courier-journal.com/newsletters/cl-browns-latest to make sure you never miss one of his columns.

This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: NCAA athletes as employees should be embraced: House v NCAA settlement