For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Labor/Employment,
Entertainment & Sports

Feb. 29, 2024

The rights of college athletes take center stage in Trustees of Dartmouth

Despite potential challenges in determining bargaining units and addressing gender discrimination, the ruling signifies a significant shift in collegiate sports, aligning with labor law principles favoring collective bargaining and raising questions about the NCAA’s rules amidst emerging “collectives” seeking player compensation.

Shutterstock

This February, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Boston Regional Director sent ripples through the collegiate sports world when she held that Dartmouth’s basketball players were “employees” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), thus entitling the players to petition the NLRB to be represented by a union. In so doing, the Regional Director tapped into two developments which have been unfolding during the past decade or so.

To continue reading, please subscribe.

Already a subscriber?

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Related Content

Antitrust

O'Bannon v. NCAA

NCAA may permit schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to student-athletes but is not required to allow $5,000 yearly payment.

Antitrust

National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston

District court did not err in enjoining defendant's caps on education-related benefits because defendant could have imposed less restrictive restraints on those benefits.



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.