College athletes were ready to unionize before Trump’s election. What now?
In March, Dartmouth basketball players made history with a 13-2 vote to unionize and be classified as college employees — the first successful union election by student-athletes in US history. After Dartmouth rejected the bid, the two sides began litigating the path forward. But last Tuesday, well before any contract was reached, the players ended their union efforts by withdrawing their federal labor petition.
The athletes “have pushed the conversation on employment and collective bargaining in college sports forward,” said Chris Peck, president of Service Employees International Union Local 560, in a statement. “While our strategy is shifting, we will continue to advocate for just compensation, adequate health coverage, and safe working conditions for varsity athletes at Dartmouth.”
The immediate cause of the withdrawal was almost certainly political. With President-elect Donald Trump set to fill two vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board after Senate Democrats failed to confirm the current Democratic chair for another term, the Dartmouth basketball union opted to preserve their earlier victory rather than risk an adverse ruling from what will likely be a more employer-friendly board. Trump is also expected to replace NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, who has been notably supportive of college athletes’ collective bargaining rights, potentially on his first day in office.
Sports economist Andy Schwarz notes that unionization rights at the federal NLRB level are fundamentally unstable — even if the athletes had succeeded in getting a contract under a new Democratic administration, their victory could be overturned by subsequent Republican-appointed labor boards, as has happened with graduate student organizing rights. Legal experts expect unions to preemptively withdraw more pending cases and say a Trump board could also reverse recent decisions, including on union recognition rules and independent contractors.
It’s not entirely clear what will happen over the next four years. During his first term, Trump’s appointed NLRB general counsel quickly rescinded a previous memo that had suggested college athletes could be classified as employees. However, notable Trump-appointed judges, including Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, have offered strong opinions supporting athletes’ economic rights and challenged the traditional view that student athletes aren’t workers.
A separate federal complaint arguing that USC athletes should be considered employees also faces an uncertain future. Dartmouth’s tactical retreat underscores how the fight for college athlete rights often advances in fits and starts, with organizers choosing their battles carefully in an entrenched system. This latest strategic withdrawal may preview a broader shift in how college teams approach organizing in the Trump era, searching for alternative paths to recognition and negotiation.
An amateur model in a professional industry
The amateur model — where colleges make money from sports while not treating athletes as employees — dates back to the 19th century, when schools first began selling tickets to student contests, explained David Berri, a sports economist at Southern Utah University.
In 2022, as my colleague Bryan Walsh noted, college athletics generated $13.6 billion in revenue, more than any professional sport except the NFL. Individual programs like the University of Alabama’s football team can bring in over $120 million yearly. In 43 states, the highest-paid public employee is a college coach at a major state university. Yet most athletes remain restricted to scholarships and limited cost-of-living stipends, rather than traditional salaries.
Ellen Staurowsky, a professor of sports media at Ithaca College, argues the amateur system is increasingly outdated. “To me, it seems so untruthful to continue to perpetuate the idea that athletes are not the labor force driving this multibillion-dollar industry,” she told Vox. “These ideas about student-athletes were formed long before 24/7 television, a global sport entertainment market. College sports do not have the business model to match the 21st century.”
If college athletes were classified as employees they’d be eligible for salaries, collective bargaining, workers’ compensation, health benefits, and legal protections under labor laws. However, the changes sought by athletes through unionization might be more modest than either supporters or critics imagine. If the Dartmouth players had been able to bargain, “they’d have been able to negotiate new rules — like maybe they wouldn’t have to travel home after midnight after a late game,” Schwarz told Vox. “That’s the kind of thing that a labor union could do that would interfere with the business practices of a university but which would be a health and safety and quality of life issue for the athletes.”
Previous attempts to establish college athletes as employees have faced significant hurdles. A 2015 effort to unionize Northwestern University’s football team failed when even a Democratic-controlled NLRB chose not to get involved, citing concerns about “competitive balance” in a conference where Northwestern was the only private school in a mostly public conference outside NLRB oversight. The Dartmouth case, involving a private school basketball team in the Ivy League, seemed poised to avoid that particular obstacle before last week’s withdrawal.
Beyond the NLRB
While the Dartmouth players’ union effort has ended, the broader fight over college athlete rights continues. In 2021, the US Supreme Court issued a narrow decision characterizing the NCAA as a price-fixing operation, signaling that future legal challenges could further erode the NCAA’s ability to restrict athlete pay. In a landmark settlement last year, the NCAA agreed to pay $2.75 billion to college athletes for the first time, allowing schools to provide direct compensation.
Meanwhile, at USC, athletes supported by the National College Players Association, a nonprofit advocacy group, have filed a complaint seeking to classify football and men’s and women’s basketball players as employees. But with a conservative Trump-era NLRB, the athletes may follow Dartmouth’s lead and still preemptively withdraw.
With traditional NLRB channels becoming more difficult to navigate, unions may increasingly turn to voluntary recognition agreements, pressuring schools to negotiate directly with athletes outside the formal NLRB framework. Though rare in college sports, these agreements could become more attractive to schools as a way to avoid more costly antitrust litigation and to students seeking alternative union routes during periods of Republican board dominance.
“It’s really an open question right now,” Staurowsky said. “There is concern that the momentum we’ve seen over the last few years is going to be stalled.”
The NCAA itself continues lobbying Congress to help preserve aspects of its amateur model, even as recent changes like Name, Image, and Likeness [NIL] rights have begun reshaping the economics of college athletics by allowing athletes to profit from endorsements and sponsorships. As Schwarz notes, “Nobody who is a college football fan feels that the current playoff system is less good because the athletes are receiving NIL money, even though for years we were told no one would watch it.”
The Dartmouth players’ withdrawal may help preserve a favorable precedent for future organizing efforts. SEIU Local 560 has already signaled several paths forward, pledging to support the development of an Ivy League Players Association and expand group licensing programs that allow athletes to collectively negotiate with brands. Still, collective bargaining may ultimately prove “the only viable pathway” to address some of the specific issues student-athletes face, Peck said.
College sports’ amateur model has weathered countless challenges since its inception, but the question today seems less about if amateurism will change, but when — and who will get to shape its future.