College Athlete Employee Bids Still in Play Despite Trump 2.0

College athletes and labor organizers will have to lean on federal courts and grassroots activism to continue efforts to gain employee rights under a Republican administration they expect will not be friendly to their cause.

In the weeks leading up to President Donald Trump’s second inauguration, unions and advocacy groups pulled cases from the National Labor Relations Board that sought to cement athletes’ employment status. The moves were made in anticipation of a conservative shift at the board and in the legal and political landscape.

But organizers and academics say the NCAA and colleges will face more lawsuits and public pressure campaigns that could push some to voluntarily recognize their athletes as employees.

“You’re not going to see direct unionization pushes in the next four years, but that doesn’t mean that questions over the employee status of college athletes are going to end,” said Alicia Jessop, a sports law professor at Pepperdine University.

While Trump hasn’t publicly stated a position on the student athlete issue, the labor retreat is reminiscent of graduate students reeling in union organizing efforts during his first term to keep a Republican-controlled NLRB from setting precedent to rescind their employment status.

Withdrawn Action

The Service Employees International Union Local 560 withdrew its historic bid to represent the men’s basketball team at Dartmouth College late last month after the Senate failed to reconfirm former NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran.

McFerran’s rejection and Trump’s subsequent firing of General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo and NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox leave the board without a quorum. They also make way for Trump to secure a GOP majority board within the opening months of his term, potentially closing a path to employee recognition through the agency.

The Dartmouth team was the first college athletic team to unionize in March 2024, but the school challenged the election, asking the board to review an official’s decision to classify the players as employees.

The National College Players Association filed a motion Jan. 10 to withdraw its unfair labor practice charges against the University of Southern California, the NCAA, and the Pac-12 Conference. The group had alleged the three entities jointly employed USC’s athletes.

The case, which already went through hearings before an administrative law judge, could’ve tested the limits of the NLRB’s interpretation of employment and joint employer standards. The ALJ overseeing the USC case still needs to rule on NCPA’s motion, but if it’s approved, Judge Eleanor Laws won’t release her decision.

NCAA spokesperson Michelle Hosick said in a statement that the NCAA “looks forward” to working with Trump and Congress to “meet the needs of modern college athletes.”

“There are some challenges only federal intervention can address,” she said.

Federal Court Avenues

Pending federal court cases still present opportunities for student athletes pressing for expanded rights.

A lawsuit accusing Division I schools and the NCAA of violating their wage rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act is back before a federal district judge after the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied the NCAA’s bid to dismiss, with students’ employment status sitting at the center of the case.

Paul McDonald, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Johnson v. NCAA, said the athletes “meet the requirement for employment more than any other student on campus.”

“If the student selling popcorn at the games are employees then obviously the athletes are too,” he said.

Separately, an attempt to finalize a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement between the NCAA, colleges, and athletes is still underway in a California district court. The proposed settlement in House v. NCAA calls for a scheme where Division I colleges compensate athletes from a pool of around $20 million every year, creating the first model for paying players.

Jessop said the House and Johnson cases could crack the employment issue wide open.

“If someone is getting paid a million dollars to go throw footballs down a field every Saturday and be at peak performance and are being compensated heavily to do that, but that doesn’t amount to them being an employee, I’m not really sure what the definition of an employee in the United States is,” she said.

While these cases cannot give players employee designation under the National Labor Relations Act or give them the power to unionize, attorneys and labor observers say it could bolster any arguments presented to the NLRB.

Bringing Parties to the Table

Some advocates are turning away from both the NLRB and court system and toward negotiating directly with schools.

Jason Stahl, founder of the National Football Players’ Association, said he considered the “relentless focus” on the labor board a “shortcut” to building a sustainable movement.

“For the last several years, we’ve been hamstrung by being a top-down movement. The well-meaning advocates and attorneys and academics are just very comfortable with telling the athletes ‘We got you, we’ll figure this out,’” Stahl said. “There are no shortcuts to organizing college athletes.”

Stahl said he’s been in talks with university officials about giving athletes room to negotiate their playing conditions and safety, regardless of their employment status.

As antitrust litigation proceeds, the NCAA and colleges are scrambling to limit their financial liability. One avenue for this would be a loophole carved into statute—House Republicans are pushing for just that with legislation that would also preclude athletes from being employees.

The other is a collective bargaining agreement reached with a union, which would have the protection of a separate antitrust exemption. But that would require recognizing players as employees.

Jessop said pressure is building for administrators to prepare for this eventuality.

“Sometimes leaders may not like the reality presented to them, but you have to address the reality head on,” Jessop said. “Once the House settlement is approved, I think you’ll very quickly start to see a school or two deem their college athletes employees.”