Universities have been profiting off the endeavors of athletes for years, rewarding them with scholarships and other various opportunities. However, many athletes say a $40,000 scholarship is not fair compensation for the millions of dollars that revenue sports, such as football and men’s basketball, rake into universities.

On March 26, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Northwestern football players were employees of the university and could form a union. The ruling made news across the nation, as it paved the way not only for unions but also for student-athletes to be paid.

NLRB regional director Peter Sung Ohr said that the players qualified as employees because of their time commitment to the sport and the fact that their scholarships are awarded because of their on-the-field contributions. 

In other words, the student-athletes are compensated for their work with scholarships, so they qualify as employees.

The NLRB’s ruling, however, presents more questions than answers and may leave some major holes.

First, if student-athletes are employees, are their scholarships then taxable? And what about their gear and other provided amenities? If these things are taxable, the bulk monetary award student-athletes receive could lessen, much like how lottery winners don’t see every cent they win. It could make college cost money for these student-athletes when it currently doesn’t. 

Not to mention, if football players are employees because they generate money for universities, then this brings about a multitude of unanswered questions about sports less focused on generating revenue. What does this ruling mean for golf, diving or women’s basketball, just to name a few? 

These student-athletes also work for their university and put in countless hours for their sports; however, these non-revenue sports ultimately lose a lot of money and are supported by the profit from men’s basketball and football. Is it fair to reward only the athletes in revenue-generating sports? We think this is an essential question that needs to be appropriately addressed, possibly by the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Aside from these issues, athletics departments at many smaller schools are not profitable enough to compensate athletes, and it is important to consider what becomes of these student-athletes — they should not be left out to dry, considering the sheer number of other people that would affect. 

The ruling, while a potential step in the right direction toward fair compensation of athletes, leaves too many holes and may actually be harmful to student-athletes in many certain respects in the future.