You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum

RE: Wow!!! Penn track and field athletes sue claiming they are entitled to minimum wage - Court disagrees
what time I had to read the decision suggests that it really depends on the following:
"We have held that these rules “define what it means to be an amateur
or a student-athlete, and are therefore essential to the very
existence of” collegiate athletics. Agnew v. Nat’l Collegiate
Athletic Ass’n, 683 F.3d 328, 343 (7th Cir. 2012). The multifac-
tor test proposed by Appellants here simply does not take
into account this tradition of amateurism or the reality of the
student-athlete experience. In short, it “fail[s] to capture the
true nature of the relationship” between student athletes and" Penn.

That is begging the question. Yes, there is a tradition of amateurism but the notion that collegiate athletics in its very concept entails not paying athletes is to determine the answer through that loaded concept. The nature of the activity doesn't establish it is not work: people are sometimes paid for doing track and field. College students are often paid directly for working by colleges without that being incompatible with the very nature of being a student.

Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.

If you feel this is urgent or want a reply, email us at [email protected] about the post and please include a link to the thread the post is on and what page number/post on that page it is.