The motion in query considerations the reversal of a coverage directive. This directive, initially established in the course of the Biden administration, addressed the classification of faculty athletes as staff beneath labor regulation. The rescission, enacted by the Trump administration, successfully nullifies the earlier steering on this matter.
The preliminary memorandum sought to make clear the authorized standing of faculty athletes, doubtlessly granting them the rights and protections afforded to staff, corresponding to minimal wage, collective bargaining, and staff’ compensation. Reversing this place has vital implications for the connection between athletes, universities, and the Nationwide Collegiate Athletic Affiliation (NCAA), doubtlessly influencing income distribution fashions and institutional oversight.
This alteration in administrative stance raises questions concerning the way forward for athlete compensation, the continued debate about amateurism in collegiate sports activities, and the authorized challenges surrounding the rights of student-athletes. These points necessitate a deeper examination of the evolving panorama of faculty athletics.
1. Authorized Standing Reversal
The motion of the Trump administration rescinding the Biden-era memo straight resulted in a authorized standing reversal for faculty athletes. Previous to the rescission, the memo supplied a framework for doubtlessly classifying faculty athletes as staff, a classification with far-reaching authorized and financial implications. The rescission successfully reverted the authorized standing of those athletes to some extent the place they’re typically not thought of staff beneath federal labor regulation. Which means that the authorized protections and rights related to worker standing, corresponding to minimal wage legal guidelines, collective bargaining rights, and employee’s compensation advantages, are typically unavailable to them.
The significance of this authorized standing reversal lies in its rapid impression on the continued debate surrounding athlete compensation. The prior memo, even when solely advisory, supplied a authorized argument for athlete compensation past scholarships and stipends. Its removing weakens that argument considerably. An actual-life instance is the continued authorized battle over identify, picture, and likeness (NIL) rights for faculty athletes. Whereas NIL rights are actually largely established, the talk concerning athletes being compensated straight by universities for his or her athletic efficiency is straight tied to their potential worker standing. The sensible significance of understanding this reversal is essential for universities, athletic associations just like the NCAA, and athletes themselves. Every stakeholder should navigate the authorized panorama that not consists of the Biden-era memo’s assist for potential worker classification.
In abstract, the rescissions impression on authorized standing is central to understanding the broader implications of the coverage change. The authorized standing reversal created a definite shift within the panorama of collegiate athletics. Navigating the ramifications requires a radical understanding of labor legal guidelines, the economics of faculty sports activities, and the various authorized interpretations of the athlete-university relationship. With out the clarifying steering of the rescinded memo, the authorized standing of faculty athletes will possible stay a topic of rivalry and litigation.
2. Worker Classification Change
The potential worker classification change for faculty athletes is a direct consequence of the memo rescission. The rescission removes a layer of potential assist for recognizing these athletes as staff beneath federal labor regulation, thereby straight influencing their classification standing.
-
Authorized Framework Shift
The rescission alters the authorized framework thought of when figuring out whether or not faculty athletes needs to be categorized as staff. With out the Biden-era memo, authorized arguments supporting worker standing face a steeper problem, requiring reliance on present labor legal guidelines with out the advantage of particular steering directed at collegiate athletics. Examples embody potential lawsuits arguing for worker standing based mostly on the financial worth athletes generate for his or her establishments. The implications are that athletes have a much less clear path towards gaining worker rights via authorized channels.
-
Impression on College Insurance policies
Universities’ insurance policies concerning athlete compensation, advantages, and protections are straight affected. The rescission permits establishments to keep up the established order, the place athletes are primarily thought of college students receiving scholarships reasonably than staff entitled to wages and advantages. An actual-world instance is a college opting to not present staff’ compensation protection for injured athletes, citing their non-employee standing. This impacts athletes financially and medically, rising their reliance on private insurance coverage or institutional goodwill.
-
Affect on NCAA Laws
The NCAA’s regulatory setting is intently tied to the worker classification debate. The memo rescission gives the NCAA with extra leeway to keep up its conventional definition of amateurism, which restricts athletes from receiving compensation past permissible advantages. An instance is the NCAA implementing guidelines in opposition to direct pay-for-play preparations, arguing that such preparations would violate the ideas of amateurism. This influences athletes’ incomes potential and their potential to revenue from their athletic skills.
-
Financial Penalties
The financial penalties of sustaining the present classification system are vital. Universities can proceed to generate substantial income from faculty sports activities whereas limiting direct compensation to athletes. For instance, a significant faculty soccer program can generate tens of millions of {dollars} in income, with solely a fraction going on to the athletes within the type of scholarships and stipends. This creates an financial disparity that fuels ongoing debate and authorized challenges concerning the equity of the system.
In conclusion, the worker classification change triggered by the rescission has intensive ramifications, impacting the authorized framework, college insurance policies, NCAA laws, and the general financial panorama of faculty athletics. The absence of the Biden-era memo reinforces the prevailing system the place athletes are largely categorized as college students, not staff, regardless of the numerous income they generate. This challenge will possible proceed to be a central level of rivalry and authorized scrutiny within the evolving world of faculty sports activities.
3. Athlete Compensation Impression
The motion by the Trump administration to rescind the Biden-era memo concerning faculty athlete worker standing straight and considerably impacts the panorama of athlete compensation. The rescinded memo had provided potential assist for classifying faculty athletes as staff, thereby opening avenues for elevated compensation via wages, advantages, and collective bargaining. Its removing represents a setback for these advocating for expanded compensation for student-athletes. This isn’t a mere procedural change; it has materials penalties for the financial realities dealing with many athletes. For instance, with out the potential protections afforded by worker standing, injured athletes might discover themselves with out recourse to staff’ compensation, inserting a larger monetary burden on them and their households. The significance of understanding this lies in recognizing the direct causal relationship: the coverage change impacts the monetary well-being of a big phase of the athletic inhabitants.
The rescission’s impression extends past rapid monetary implications. The talk surrounding NIL rights, whereas nominally separate, is intrinsically linked to the broader challenge of athlete compensation. Whereas athletes can now revenue from their identify, picture, and likeness, the absence of worker standing implies that universities will not be obligated to share income generated by the athletes’ athletic efficiency. Think about the case of a star soccer participant whose jersey gross sales generate substantial income for the college, but the athlete receives solely a scholarship in return. The rescission reinforces this present energy dynamic, permitting universities to keep up a income mannequin that’s closely skewed of their favor. The sensible significance of this understanding is significant for athletes negotiating NIL offers, because it highlights the restrictions of their incomes potential inside the present framework.
In abstract, the rescission of the Biden-era memo has far-reaching penalties for athlete compensation. It solidifies the present energy construction in faculty sports activities, the place universities retain the lion’s share of income generated by athletes. Challenges stay for advocates searching for to increase athlete compensation, because the authorized and regulatory panorama now presents a extra formidable barrier. Understanding this connection is essential for policymakers, athletes, and establishments as they navigate the continued debate over equity and fairness in faculty sports activities.
4. NCAA Regulatory Surroundings
The rescission of the Biden-era memo by the Trump administration straight influences the NCAA’s regulatory setting regarding faculty athletes. The memo had doubtlessly empowered arguments for classifying athletes as staff, which might have necessitated vital adjustments to the NCAA’s long-standing amateurism mannequin. The rescission gives the NCAA with larger latitude to keep up its present regulatory framework, constructed on the precept that student-athletes are primarily college students, not staff entitled to intensive compensation and labor protections. The significance lies in understanding that this alteration permits the NCAA to proceed implementing guidelines proscribing direct pay-for-play preparations and limiting athlete compensation to scholarships, stipends, and permissible advantages. For instance, the NCAA can extra simply defend its guidelines in opposition to challenges arguing that they violate antitrust legal guidelines or unjustly prohibit athletes’ financial alternatives.
The NCAA’s potential to control identify, picture, and likeness (NIL) actions can also be affected. Though the NIL panorama has advanced, the rescission presents the NCAA some stability in its efforts to handle and doubtlessly regulate elements of NIL offers, making certain they don’t devolve into direct pay-for-play preparations. A sensible utility is the NCAA’s potential to research and doubtlessly penalize establishments or athletes if NIL offers are deemed to violate NCAA tips or are used as a mechanism for circumventing amateurism guidelines. Moreover, the NCAA can proceed to implement guidelines associated to recruiting and eligibility, stopping establishments from utilizing NIL offers as inducements to draw prime athletes. This isn’t to say that the NCAA’s regulatory energy is absolute; authorized challenges to NCAA guidelines persist, however the rescission strengthens the NCAA’s place in defending its present mannequin.
In abstract, the Trump administration’s rescission of the Biden-era memo has a demonstrable impression on the NCAA’s regulatory setting. It bolsters the NCAA’s potential to keep up its conventional amateurism-based mannequin, regulate athlete compensation, and implement its present guidelines. Nevertheless, challenges to the NCAA’s authority stay, and the long-term future of faculty sports activities will possible contain additional authorized and regulatory changes. The rescission of the memo underscores the complicated interaction between governmental insurance policies, authorized challenges, and the evolving panorama of faculty athletics.
5. Labor Regulation Implications
The rescission of the Biden-era memo by the Trump administration carries vital labor regulation implications for faculty athletes. This motion straight impacts the applying of federal labor legal guidelines, shaping the rights and protections obtainable to those athletes and impacting the duties of universities and regulatory our bodies just like the NCAA.
-
Software of the Honest Labor Requirements Act (FLSA)
The FLSA mandates minimal wage, additional time pay, and different labor requirements for workers. With the rescission, the opportunity of classifying faculty athletes as staff beneath the FLSA diminishes. As such, universities are much less prone to be compelled to pay athletes minimal wage or additional time, even when athletes dedicate intensive hours to coaching and competitors. A sensible instance is the continued absence of wage protections for athletes in revenue-generating sports activities, the place they could spend over 40 hours per week on athletic actions with out receiving compensation past scholarships.
-
Collective Bargaining Rights
Worker standing beneath labor regulation confers the appropriate to type unions and have interaction in collective bargaining. The rescission weakens the argument for athletes to unionize and negotiate phrases of employment collectively. This impacts their potential to collectively tackle points corresponding to working circumstances, compensation, and healthcare advantages. A historic parallel exists in skilled sports activities, the place unions have negotiated collectively to safe higher circumstances for athletes. With out worker standing, faculty athletes lack an analogous avenue to advocate for his or her pursuits collectively.
-
Employees’ Compensation Protection
Worker classification typically entitles staff to staff’ compensation advantages for accidents sustained on the job. The rescission reinforces the state of affairs the place many faculty athletes will not be eligible for staff’ compensation, leaving them to depend on university-provided insurance coverage or private medical insurance to cowl medical bills ensuing from sports-related accidents. The implication is a doubtlessly unequal enjoying subject, the place injured athletes might face vital monetary burdens for medical remedy and rehabilitation.
-
Authorized Legal responsibility and Institutional Obligations
The rescission impacts the potential authorized liabilities and obligations of universities. With out the steering of the memo, universities face much less authorized strain to deal with athletes as staff, doubtlessly decreasing their publicity to labor-related lawsuits. This will additionally have an effect on institutional insurance policies concerning athlete welfare, as universities might face much less regulatory oversight concerning working circumstances and compensation practices. An instance is universities dealing with fewer mandates to implement particular security protocols or present complete medical care, elements usually related to employer duties.
The rescission of the Biden-era memo has solidified a framework the place faculty athletes are much less prone to be thought of staff beneath federal labor legal guidelines. This choice carries intensive labor regulation implications, notably concerning wage requirements, collective bargaining rights, staff’ compensation protection, and institutional obligations. The authorized and regulatory panorama now requires athletes and advocates to hunt various pathways for securing enhanced rights and protections inside faculty athletics.
6. Financial Results on Universities
The Trump administration’s rescission of the Biden-era memo regarding faculty athlete worker standing has a discernible impression on the financial operations of universities. The prior memo created a possible pathway for classifying athletes as staff, a change that might have compelled establishments to allocate substantial monetary sources towards wages, advantages, and compliance with labor legal guidelines. The rescission successfully alleviates this rapid monetary strain, permitting universities to keep up their present monetary buildings and income distribution fashions with out the added burden of employee-related bills. The significance of this stems from the truth that many universities, notably these with giant athletic applications, derive vital income from collegiate sports activities, and any alteration to the present financial framework might have profound budgetary implications. For instance, universities might face diminished earnings if they’re compelled to supply minimal wage and advantages for sports activities gamers. The choice reinforces the established order that’s useful to many universities.
Moreover, the rescission influences how universities handle their athletic budgets. The potential for worker classification would have necessitated vital restructuring of those budgets, redirecting funds from different areas, corresponding to tutorial applications or infrastructure tasks, to cowl athlete compensation. With the rescission in place, universities can proceed to prioritize investments in services, teaching employees, and recruiting efforts, whereas limiting direct monetary compensation to athletes within the type of scholarships and stipends. Universities might spend money on extra services and sources, and never have to fret about chopping income for sport participant payouts. An instance illustrating that is the allocation of funds towards constructing new state-of-the-art coaching services, designed to draw prime recruits, with out the financial constraint of needing to supply employment-based monetary assist. This choice helps universities spend money on a number of applications, the place they don’t have to chop spending.
In abstract, the rescission of the Biden-era memo is economically vital for universities, notably these with substantial athletic applications. It alleviates the potential monetary burdens related to classifying athletes as staff, preserving present income fashions and budgetary priorities. The rescission just isn’t with out its challenges; authorized and moral debates surrounding athlete compensation and rights persist, doubtlessly creating future financial pressures on universities as authorized challenges and public scrutiny proceed to evolve. The long-term financial implications require steady monitoring and adaptation by universities as they navigate the altering panorama of collegiate sports activities.
7. Future Litigation Potential
The rescission of the Biden-era memo by the Trump administration creates a heightened potential for future litigation associated to the standing of faculty athletes. This motion removes a layer of potential authorized assist for classifying athletes as staff, which in flip is prone to provoke lawsuits difficult the present framework. Lawsuits might come up from athletes asserting their rights beneath federal labor legal guidelines, arguing that regardless of the rescission, the financial realities of faculty sports activities necessitate worker classification. A believable situation includes athletes submitting class-action lawsuits in opposition to universities and the NCAA, alleging violations of minimal wage legal guidelines, denial of staff’ compensation, or unfair labor practices. The significance of recognizing this potential lies in understanding that the rescission doesn’t remove the underlying authorized arguments for worker standing; it merely shifts the burden of proof onto the athletes and their advocates. The true-life instance of ongoing authorized battles regarding NIL rights illustrates the present litigious setting surrounding faculty athletics, suggesting that the rescission will additional gasoline these disputes. Understanding that is virtually vital for universities as they need to put together for potential authorized challenges and alter their operational methods accordingly.
Additional fueling the probability of litigation is the evolving public notion of faculty athletes and the rising consciousness of the substantial revenues generated by collegiate sports activities. Athletes might more and more be considered as staff contributing vital financial worth to their establishments, thereby strengthening the ethical and authorized arguments for worker standing. Furthermore, the rising prevalence of information demonstrating the bodily and psychological toll of faculty sports activities might bolster claims for staff’ compensation and different employment-related advantages. Litigation might additionally come up from state-level actions. For instance, sure states might enact laws granting worker standing to school athletes, resulting in conflicts with federal regulation and the NCAA’s laws. This layered authorized panorama provides complexity and uncertainty, rising the chance of universities dealing with authorized challenges from a number of fronts. The sensible utility for athletes lies in recognizing that litigation could also be a viable, albeit difficult, pathway to safe enhanced rights and compensation.
In abstract, the rescission of the Biden-era memo has elevated the potential for future litigation concerning the employment standing of faculty athletes. This potential is fueled by present authorized arguments, evolving public perceptions, and the complicated regulatory panorama. Universities, athletes, and regulatory our bodies should anticipate and put together for future authorized challenges, as the talk over athlete rights and compensation is prone to persist within the courts. The rescission has not resolved the elemental questions surrounding the athlete-university relationship, and the courts might finally play a pivotal function in shaping the way forward for faculty sports activities.
8. Amateurism Debate Resurfaces
The rescission by the Trump administration of the Biden-era memo regarding faculty athlete worker standing has reignited the talk surrounding amateurism in collegiate sports activities. This motion has far-reaching implications, straight influencing the financial and authorized framework inside which faculty athletes function and prompting renewed scrutiny of the elemental ideas governing their relationship with universities and the NCAA.
-
Reinforcement of Conventional Amateurism
The rescission reinforces the normal definition of amateurism, whereby faculty athletes are considered as college students collaborating in sports activities primarily for academic functions, not as staff entitled to compensation past scholarships and stipends. This permits the NCAA to uphold laws that prohibit direct pay-for-play preparations, making certain that athletes stay largely unpaid for his or her athletic performances. As an illustration, the NCAA can proceed to implement guidelines that prohibit athletes from receiving salaries from their universities based mostly on their athletic abilities, even when these abilities generate substantial income for the establishment. The implication is the perpetuation of a system the place athletes contribute considerably to the monetary success of faculty sports activities with out commensurate monetary reward.
-
Problem to the Financial Mannequin of School Sports activities
The rescission prompts a renewed problem to the financial mannequin of faculty sports activities, whereby universities and the NCAA generate billions of {dollars} in income, whereas athletes obtain solely restricted compensation. Critics argue that this mannequin is exploitative, because it permits establishments to revenue from athletes’ skills with out adequately compensating them for his or her contributions. An actual-world instance is the disproportionate allocation of income from main faculty soccer and basketball applications, with a small fraction going in the direction of scholarships and a good portion being directed towards teaching salaries, facility upgrades, and administrative bills. The implication is the rising scrutiny of the monetary imbalances inside faculty sports activities and rising requires larger income sharing with athletes.
-
Authorized and Moral Scrutiny Intensifies
The rescission intensifies authorized and moral scrutiny of amateurism guidelines. Authorized challenges to the NCAA’s laws, arguing that they violate antitrust legal guidelines or unjustly prohibit athletes’ financial alternatives, are prone to persist. Ethically, the talk facilities on whether or not the present mannequin is honest to athletes, given the bodily calls for of collegiate sports activities and the income they generate. The continuing litigation surrounding NIL rights, even with current adjustments, demonstrates the continued rigidity between amateurism ideas and athletes’ rights to revenue from their very own picture and likeness. The implication is that the authorized and moral foundations of amateurism will proceed to be questioned, doubtlessly resulting in additional regulatory and authorized reforms.
-
Athlete Activism and Advocacy
The rescission might impress athlete activism and advocacy for expanded rights and compensation. Pissed off with the restrictions imposed by amateurism guidelines, athletes might more and more search to prepare and collectively discount for improved working circumstances and larger monetary rewards. The current emergence of athlete-led actions, advocating for racial justice and improved healthcare advantages, exemplifies the rising willingness of athletes to talk out in opposition to perceived injustices. The implication is that athlete advocacy will grow to be a extra distinguished power in shaping the way forward for faculty sports activities, doubtlessly pushing for larger reforms to amateurism guidelines and compensation fashions.
In conclusion, the rescission of the Biden-era memo has reignited the amateurism debate by reinforcing the normal NCAA mannequin whereas concurrently prompting intensified challenges to its underlying ideas. The talk over amateurism now encompasses financial, authorized, moral, and activist dimensions, signaling a fancy and evolving panorama for faculty sports activities that requires cautious consideration by all stakeholders.
Ceaselessly Requested Questions
The next questions and solutions tackle important elements of the Trump administration’s choice to rescind the Biden-era memo in regards to the employment standing of faculty athletes. This data is meant to supply readability on the coverage change and its potential penalties.
Query 1: What was the aim of the Biden-era memo that was rescinded?
The Biden-era memo aimed to make clear the authorized standing of faculty athletes, suggesting that they might doubtlessly be categorized as staff beneath sure labor legal guidelines. This classification might have afforded athletes rights and protections, corresponding to minimal wage, collective bargaining, and staff’ compensation advantages.
Query 2: Why did the Trump administration rescind the Biden-era memo?
The precise causes for the rescission haven’t been explicitly said. Nevertheless, the motion aligns with a broader strategy that favors sustaining the normal NCAA mannequin, the place athletes are primarily thought of college students and never staff. This doubtlessly reduces the regulatory burden on universities and preserves the present income distribution mannequin.
Query 3: What are the rapid penalties of the rescission for faculty athletes?
The rapid consequence is that the steering suggesting athletes could possibly be categorized as staff has been withdrawn. This weakens authorized arguments supporting worker standing, making it harder for athletes to assert worker rights and protections. The rescission reinforces the present state of affairs the place athletes are primarily thought of college students receiving scholarships, not staff entitled to wages and advantages.
Query 4: How does the rescission impression the NCAA and its laws?
The rescission gives the NCAA with larger latitude to keep up its present regulatory framework, constructed on the precept of amateurism. The NCAA can proceed to implement guidelines proscribing direct pay-for-play preparations and limiting athlete compensation to permissible advantages. Nevertheless, this doesn’t remove the opportunity of authorized challenges to the NCAA’s guidelines.
Query 5: What’s the potential for future litigation associated to this coverage change?
The rescission will increase the potential for future litigation. Athletes and advocates might file lawsuits arguing that regardless of the rescission, the financial realities of faculty sports activities necessitate worker classification. These lawsuits might problem present income fashions, labor practices, and the authorized standing of faculty athletes.
Query 6: How will the rescission have an effect on the talk over athlete compensation and rights?
The rescission intensifies the talk over athlete compensation and rights. By eradicating a possible authorized foundation for worker standing, the rescission reinforces the present system the place universities retain a big share of income generated by athletes. That is prone to spur additional advocacy for expanded athlete rights and requires reforms to the present financial mannequin of faculty sports activities.
In conclusion, the rescission of the Biden-era memo has profound and multifaceted implications for the authorized standing, financial rights, and regulatory setting of faculty athletes. This motion reinforces the present framework whereas concurrently heightening the potential for authorized challenges and requires reform inside the evolving panorama of faculty sports activities.
The following part will analyze potential coverage implications that might happen from rescission.
Navigating the Panorama
This part gives important insights for stakeholders navigating the complexities arising from the rescission of the memo regarding faculty athlete employment standing.
Tip 1: Conduct Complete Authorized Opinions: Universities should undertake thorough critiques of their present insurance policies and practices associated to athlete compensation, advantages, and authorized protections. Compliance with labor legal guidelines and adherence to NCAA laws stay important. As an illustration, establishments ought to assess whether or not their present insurance coverage protection adequately addresses potential athlete accidents.
Tip 2: Interact in Proactive Danger Administration: Universities ought to implement proactive threat administration methods to mitigate potential authorized challenges from athletes searching for worker standing or expanded rights. This consists of documenting honest practices, searching for authorized counsel, and staying knowledgeable about evolving authorized precedents. Documented harm protocols for athletes must also be reviewed in gentle of any rescission.
Tip 3: Monitor Legislative and Regulatory Developments: Stakeholders should intently monitor legislative and regulatory developments at each the federal and state ranges. Coverage adjustments concerning athlete compensation, NIL rights, and labor legal guidelines can considerably impression the school sports activities panorama. Consciousness and adaptation to new laws are important for continued compliance.
Tip 4: Foster Clear Communication with Athletes: Open and clear communication between universities and their athletes is paramount. Clear communication concerning rights, compensation, advantages, and institutional insurance policies can assist construct belief and mitigate potential disputes. Establishments want to elucidate to athletes their classification and the implications.
Tip 5: Put together for Potential Litigation: Universities ought to anticipate potential litigation from athletes searching for to problem their non-employee standing or the NCAA’s laws. Creating a proactive litigation technique and fascinating authorized consultants can assist handle the dangers related to potential lawsuits. All documentation should be maintained.
Tip 6: Think about Different Compensation Fashions: Whereas sustaining compliance with present laws, universities might discover various compensation fashions inside the permissible bounds of amateurism. This might embody enhanced scholarships, stipends, or tutorial assist companies to higher assist athletes’ wants. A radical evaluate of present NCAA laws needs to be made.
These concerns underscore the significance of proactive planning, authorized consciousness, and open communication in navigating the complexities ensuing from the coverage change. Stakeholders who prioritize these steps can be higher positioned to handle potential dangers and guarantee honest remedy of faculty athletes inside the evolving panorama.
The next conclusion summarizes the results of this motion.
trump administration rescinds biden-era memo on faculty athlete worker standing Conclusion
The rescission, as examined, represents a big shift within the authorized and financial panorama of faculty athletics. It solidifies the present mannequin, the place athletes are primarily thought of college students and never staff, thus reinforcing the NCAA’s regulatory authority and assuaging potential monetary pressures on universities. Nevertheless, this motion additionally reignites debates over athlete compensation, heightens the potential for future litigation, and intensifies scrutiny of amateurism ideas.
The ramifications of this coverage change are far-reaching and demand cautious consideration from all stakeholders. Because the authorized and regulatory setting continues to evolve, a proactive strategy, knowledgeable by authorized consciousness and open communication, is crucial to make sure honest remedy of faculty athletes and sustainable practices inside collegiate sports activities.
