Paul Zeise: The NCAA, college athletic departments need to fully embrace athletes as employees

PITTSBURGH — Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy is often criticized for being a bit too brazen, a bit too outspoken, and at times maybe even a bit too conservative, but he is always very entertaining, and quite often, his unfiltered takes cut through the noise with a refreshing clarity. In a landscape increasingly muddled by the complexities of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) and transfer portal dynamics, Gundy’s straightforwardness serves as a stark reminder of the fundamental truth many in college athletics seem reluctant to acknowledge: the athletes who generate billions of dollars for their institutions and the NCAA are, in all but name, employees. It's time for the NCAA and its member institutions to shed the outdated amateurism facade and fully embrace this reality.

The current NIL era, while a necessary step forward, has only highlighted the inherent contradictions of the so-called "student-athlete" model. Athletes are now permitted to profit off their personal brand, yet they remain without the basic protections and benefits afforded to traditional employees. They dedicate 40+ hours a week, often more, to their sport, enduring grueling training, travel, and the constant risk of career-altering injury, all while juggling academic demands. They are the primary product in a multi-billion-dollar industry, yet they lack collective bargaining rights, long-term health benefits post-career, or even basic worker's compensation should an injury end their professional aspirations. This precarious position is not only unfair but unsustainable, leading to an environment rife with uncertainty and inequity.

Embracing athletes as employees would bring much-needed structure, transparency, and fairness to college sports. It would necessitate the establishment of clear employment contracts, defining roles, responsibilities, and compensation beyond just NIL deals. This could involve direct salaries, comprehensive health insurance, retirement contributions, and even post-athletic career development programs. Such a framework would not only protect the athletes but also stabilize the competitive landscape, potentially reducing the chaotic churn of the transfer portal as players would have more defined commitments and benefits. Athletic departments would shift from managing "scholarship recipients" to managing a professional workforce, demanding a more sophisticated approach to human resources, talent development, and financial planning.

Of course, the transition would be complex, fraught with challenges related to Title IX compliance, the funding of non-revenue sports, and the sheer administrative burden. However, these are not insurmountable obstacles. Solutions could include tiered compensation models based on revenue generation, collective bargaining agreements that address the unique needs of different sports, and a re-evaluation of how collegiate athletic programs are funded and operated. The alternative — clinging to a romanticized notion of amateurism that no longer exists — only perpetuates a system that exploits the very individuals who drive its immense popularity and profitability. The long-term viability and integrity of college sports depend on a fundamental paradigm shift, one that prioritizes the well-being and fair compensation of its most valuable assets: the athletes.