Should College student-athletes be allowed to unionize?

[EABtx]

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/eye-on-college-football/24501646/college-athletes-players-association-wins-case-at-nlrb
 

This is my first post on the FDR forum so here goes.

1) What do libertarian-minded free-market types think about this recent development in college athletics?  Is this a step in the right direction towards the free market?

2) Many typical anti-union arguments are being thrown at this.  Examples:

• Democrats like unions.  Republicans hate unions. Unions are bad. 
• Aren't students being compensated with an all expensed paid education?
• Why stop with the athletes?  What about the marching band, cheerleaders, debate team, engineering team.
• Won't this destroy college athletics?

[weeb]

Nothing with public universities has anything to do with the free market.  Though, I understand that Northwestern is a private school, but it raises interesting implications for the rest of scholarship athletes and performers.  I see a strike during March Madness in the future, or perhaps during the BCS bowl games, lol sigh... the drama of statist subsidized sports irks me.  We can only hope, them demanding pensions and insurance coverage might drive these universities into abandoning their sports programs.  Then, maybe, semi-professional sports can break away from the statist college apparatus.

[Magenta]

"Allowed"? Should X be "allowed"? What kind of perspective begins with the assumption that all is unallowed unless granted permission? Who is granting permission? What is their authority?

[dsayers]

Democrats like unions.  Republicans hate unions.

 

Isn't this gross collectivism? You're generalizing democrats, republicans, and even unions. There's nothing wrong with voluntary unions because they're voluntary. There's something wrong with coercive unions because they're coercive.

 

For that matter, what does liking or hating have to do with anything? Does liking equate to the perpetuation of coercive unions? If so, the coercion is far more important that the sterile-sounding "like." Does hating equate to coercively obstruction voluntary unions? If so, the coercion is far more important that the sterile-sounding "hate."

 

Aren't students being compensated with an all expensed paid education?

 

Some might be getting compensated with (partially) subsidized schooling. I don't think education is accurate. Those who are being subsidized have likely done so under contract, which would preempt or severely limit what they might get out of a union.

 

Won't this destroy college athletics?

 

I don't know if it's intentional, but in the context of your post, it almost seems as if you're suggesting that college sports is a given. Like weeb pointed out, if players want things that would be beneficial to people pushing their bodies to the limits, and those things will not be provided, they'll either have to bear the expense themselves or get out of the pushing their bodies to the limits game. This might end up being a market signal that people don't want such things when they actually have to pay for it themselves. I'm talking about sports in general (excluding leisurely play of course).

[cab21]

the union laws are government laws, so it's not like a free market union.

when union means state privalige, it's not talking about a free market union.

[NumberSix]

Children are pushed into athletic careers by parents and coaches, before they are mature enough to make an informed decision, before they get to college.  The values taught in team sports (winning at any cost, tribalism, valuing skill and ability over character) are horrible, and have no place in the education of youth.  College athletes are getting a raw deal, but I doubt a union will solve the problem.

[fractional slacker]

Should violence be used to fund education, and college athletics? I would argue that is the primary question that needs to be addressed and shown the light of day. Everything thing after that is up for debate.