Dartmouth men’s basketball team is the first to successfully unionize, and recent past decisions by the Supreme Court affirm that athletes should get a fair share of the money colleges make off them, PLUS a recent memo by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has affirmed the rights of college athletes to unionize and negotiate.
Some are speculating that more will (have to) follow suit before the NCAA changes its rules:
https://jacobin.com/2021/10/college-athletes-pay-unionizing-nlrb
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/03/07/ncaa-future-dartmouth/
Resolves YES as more colleges follow Dartmouth’s lead.
Resolves YES if more teams at Dartmouth unionize.
Resolves NO of no more teams unionize by 2025.
See parallel market:
1,000
3.00Resolves NO if local rules or policies are enacted or clarified that prevent some schools from unionizing.
Surely some local rules or policies would prevent some schools from unionizing. Is this really what you mean? The question title seems to be about at least some other athletes being able to unionize, regardless of whether some athletes are blocked from unionizing.
@CDBiddulph This market resolves on a per school basis, so if that school is blocked from unionizing, that school resolves NO.
Can you expand on the scenario where only some student athletes at a school would be allowed to unionize?
@CDBiddulph Ah disregard my previous comment, that verbiage is for the other market, it was included accidentally here, where it doesn’t make sense. Removed.