Ohio State University's women's basketball players are challenging the athlete-employee status quo in a case that could reshape college sports labor law. The team filed a petition with Ohio's state employment board, marking the first time a state-level labor authority rather than the federal National Labor Relations Board will evaluate whether college athletes qualify as employees with union organizing rights.
The distinction matters. The NLRB operates under presidentially appointed leadership that shifts with administrations, creating political volatility in athlete labor cases. State boards offer different legal terrain and precedent. Ohio's approach could establish a template for athlete organizing efforts at other schools across the country.
College athlete employment status has long occupied murky legal territory. Athletes generate massive revenue for universities through ticket sales, media rights, and merchandise. Men's football and basketball programs at major institutions produce hundreds of millions in annual revenue. Yet universities classify athletes as students, not employees, which exempts schools from federal labor laws, minimum wage requirements, and workplace safety regulations that protect traditional workers.
The O'Farrell case at Northwestern University in 2014 first tested athlete employment status at the NLRB. The board ruled that scholarship football players qualified as employees, but the decision applied narrowly to that specific school. Follow-up cases stalled. The NLRB declined to extend athlete protections across college sports generally.
The OSU women's basketball petition takes aim at this fragmented landscape. The athletes argue they meet employment criteria: they perform labor for the university's direct benefit, they work under the university's control, and they generate revenue that funds athletic operations. The team practices year-round, travels extensively for games, and maintains strict academic and behavioral requirements that resemble workplace conditions more than student activities.
State employment boards lack the political turnover that affects the NLRB. An Ohio ruling in favor of athlete employees would establish precedent in a major college sports state. It could embolden similar petitions at other universities with strong athletic programs, particularly in states with labor-friendly employment boards.
Universities resist employee classification fiercely. They argue that athletic scholarships constitute full compensation, that athlete status differs fundamentally from employment, and that unionization would destabilize NCAA rules governing recruiting and compensation. The NCAA maintains that its current rules protect athlete welfare and preserve amateurism in college sports.
That argument weakens by the year. The NCAA's own policy changes have eroded the amateurism principle. Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals now allow athletes to profit from endorsements and social media presence, contradicting the pure amateur model. Transfer portal rules grant athletes increased mobility similar to free agency. These shifts acknowledge that athletes hold bargaining power and market value.
The OSU case arrives during broader turbulence in college sports. The Supreme Court's 2021 NCAA v. Alston decision limited the association's antitrust immunity regarding athlete compensation. Power Five conferences now openly discuss paying athletes directly. Some states enacted laws protecting athlete compensation rights.
A state employment board ruling that college athletes qualify as employees would force universities and the NCAA to negotiate with athlete unions, establish grievance procedures, and potentially guarantee wage floors or workplace protections. The precedent would likely extend beyond basketball to other revenue-generating sports.
The case highlights a fundamental tension: colleges profit enormously from athlete labor while maintaining that athletes remain amateurs. Ohio's employment board will decide whether that distinction survives scrutiny.