As debate surrounding Name, Image, and Likeness-related issues swirls, one common refrain is that unionization/collective bargaining would solve many of the current problems at hand. However, a report from Sportico entitled “Duke Union Risk Memo Warned of Kara Lawson, Lacrosse Players” (published on March 2, 2026) reflects why college athlete unionization would be much easier said than done.
As reflected in this article, Duke University hired a law firm to advise it as to the legal implications of potential athlete unionization. This report reflects multiple complicating factors surrounding potential college athlete unionization. First, it implies that schools are anticipating potential unionization efforts involving only their athletes, meaning the NCAA could have not one athlete’s union but as many as one union (or more) per participating school. Members of the Dartmouth men’s basketball team have already made such an attempt at forming a union. To the extent that rules and decisions regarding revenue sharing with athletes and other compensation-related matters are currently being made by the NCAA and schools on a more centralized level, it is unclear how creating a large confluence of school-specific unions could relieve any of the current disagreements or disfunctions surrounding college athletics and NIL.
Second, athletes at public vs. private universities may be subject to distinct labor laws. As specifically noted in this article, Duke (a private school) would likely fall within the National Labor Relations Board’s jurisdiction, whereas public universities may not. Further, many states have differing labor laws regarding public and private employees, including some creating specific distinctions surrounding the right to unionize. Accordingly, college athletes at different schools in the same state could fall under differing labor laws. Expanding this to account for such laws in all pertinent states, as well as applicable federal law, only adds to this likely disparate application and confusion.
Third, this article discusses some of the dynamics within the various Duke athletic programs. To the extent the athletes at a particular school seek to unionize, any such union would have to represent the collective interest of those athletes. However, at least as it relates to compensation, there is likely to be divergence of interest between such athletes. For example, both the football and men’s basketball players may believe they are entitled to the highest percentage of revenue from the school. Even if those two sports could come to agreement, it would likely come at the expense of the other athletic programs at the school, whose athletes would have an interest in obtaining the highest amount of compensation possible. How a union could be created that balances all such interests even at one school (let alone across all participating universities) is difficult to surmise. To the extent sport-specific unions could be more easily accomplished, it is unclear how a university could cleanly manage multi-way bargaining with such groups.
In all, there are far more questions than answers for universities in this area. It would behoove every university to take the same steps as Duke and proactively assess the legal landscape surrounding college athlete unionization and prepare as best they can for all reasonable contingencies.
Such a threat became far less hypothetical the previous September when Jennifer Abruzzo, general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), issued new guidance asserting that scholarship college football players and “similarly situated” NCAA athletes possess statutory employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
