Summary and Response - Academic Article

          In an article I read called "The Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete vs. Employee," authors Robert and Amy McCormick explained what it means to be an employee of the NCAA. Under the National Labor Regulations Act, the athletes who are a part of the revenue generating NCAA are considered athletes and because they are considered athletes they have the ability to form labor organizations. With this power in their hands, these student-athletes now employees can negotiate the terms of their "employment" and wages. These athletes feel like they do so much for their institution to a point where it is considered even more work than what the employees at the university do. Being considered employees under the conditions of the NLRA, these athletes can determine wages that can be worth more that the athletic scholarships they received.

         Robert and Amy McCormick made a solid point that because of these certain regulations that these student-athletes are now employees but that is something I can't agree with. These athletes come to college to also take their education to the next level and should be considered students. The authors make their point by using the conditions of the NCAA that defines what it would mean to be an employee of the multi-billion dollar industry. Even though these athletes are considered "employees" they are still learning in their classes. These athletes are students of the institution they are taking classes at and no more.