Dartmouth basketball players have been deemed employees of the university by a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional official, paving the way for a potential labor union for NCAA athletes. The decision by NLRB Regional Director Laura Sacks comes after all 15 members of the Dartmouth men's basketball team signed a petition in September to join Local 560 of the Service Employees International Union. This union already represents some other employees at Dartmouth, an Ivy League school located in Hanover, New Hampshire.

The unionization of the basketball players would allow them to negotiate not only over salary but also working conditions, including practice hours and travel. This move challenges the long-standing stance of the NCAA and universities across the country, who have maintained that their athletes are students, not employees. However, the school still has the option to appeal the regional director's decision to the national board, as happened when members of the Northwestern football team held a union election in 2014. In that case, the ballots were impounded pending a ruling, and ultimately destroyed after the NLRB decided that allowing the football players at the only private school in the Big Ten would disrupt the labor market in the conference.

The issue of whether college athletes should be classified as employees has been a contentious one, with college sports leaders lobbying Congress for a federal law that would codify their classification as students. The NCAA is currently facing a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania on the subject, and the outcome of the Dartmouth case is being closely watched as it comes at a time when the NCAA's amateur athlete model is facing multiple challenges in court.

The NLRB's top lawyer, Jennifer Abruzzo, stated in a 2021 memo that college athletes should be considered employees, citing their involvement in far-reaching and lucrative business enterprises that make them similar to professional athletes. This memo adds weight to the argument that college athletes should have employee status and the right to negotiate their compensation and working conditions.

During the four-day hearing in October, Dartmouth argued that the basketball players should not be considered employees because athletics are part of the school's academic mission, similar to performing in the orchestra or playing club sports. The college also claimed that the men's basketball program operated at a financial loss. However, attorneys for the players countered these arguments, stating that the school's financial reports failed to account for important and lucrative revenue streams generated by the basketball team. They also emphasized that the key factor should be whether the program brings in revenue and whether coaches have control over the players.

The collegiate sports model based on amateurism is facing numerous legal and political threats, in addition to the NLRB ruling. The NCAA is currently facing at least six antitrust lawsuits, including one brought by attorneys general from Tennessee and Virginia challenging how recruits can be compensated for their name, image, and likeness. The NCAA has already loosened its rules to allow players to profit from their celebrity in response to a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that opened up college sports to additional forms of compensation.

Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane University, believes that the Dartmouth case could be a significant step towards employee status for college athletes. However, he also acknowledges that it raises questions about the potential implications for other student groups, such as music students. There is also a separate complaint before a different NLRB body in California, claiming that football and basketball players at the University of Southern California should be deemed employees of the school, the Pac-12 Conference, and the NCAA. The hearing for this case will resume later this month.

Overall, the decision by the NLRB regional director to classify Dartmouth basketball players as employees has the potential to reshape the landscape of college athletics. It brings the issue of athlete compensation and working conditions to the forefront and challenges the traditional student-athlete model upheld by the NCAA and universities. The outcome of this case, along with other ongoing legal challenges, could have far-reaching implications for the future of college sports.