The Experts below are selected from a list of 172023 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Marc Edelman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
from student athletes to employee athletes why a pay for play model of college sports would not necessarily make Educational scholarships taxable
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: Marc EdelmanAbstract:In recent years, numerous commentators have called for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) to relax its rules prohibiting athlete pay. This movement to allow athletes to share in the revenues of college sports arises from the belief that college athletes sacrifice too much time, personal autonomy, and physical health to justify their lack of pay. It further criticizes the NCAA’s “no pay” rules for keeping the revenues derived from college sports “in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches.” Nevertheless, opponents of “pay for play” cite to numerous problems that they believe will emerge from lifting the NCAA’s “no pay” rules. Among these problems, they argue that granting college athletes the legal status of “employees” would convert the athletes’ tax-exempt scholarships into taxable income – a result that may offset any economic benefits of “pay for play.” Their argument, however, is not necessarily accurate. This article explains why a “pay for play” model of college sports would not necessarily require college athletes to pay taxes on their Educational scholarships. Part I of this article discusses the economic and legal landscape of big-time college sports, and introduces the fallacious legal argument that “pay for play” would saddle college athletes with substantial tax liability related to their Educational scholarships. Part II provides a brief primer on the U.S. tax code – exploring sections of the code that may allow for paid college athletes to enjoy a tax-Free Education. Finally, Part III explores how, with proper tax planning, colleges may provide their athletes with bona fide employment contracts that do not likely risk the tax-exempt status of athletes’ college scholarships.
-
from student athletes to employee athletes why a
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: Marc EdelmanAbstract:In recent years, numerous commentators have called for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) to relax its rules prohibiting athlete pay. This movement to allow athletes to share in the revenues of college sports arises from the belief that college athletes sacrifice too much time, personal autonomy, and physical health to justify their lack of pay. It further criticizes the NCAA’s “no pay” rules for keeping the revenues derived from college sports “in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches.” Nevertheless, opponents of “pay for play” cite to numerous problems that they believe will emerge from lifting the NCAA’s “no pay” rules. Among these problems, they argue that granting college athletes the legal status of “employees” would convert the athletes’ tax-exempt scholarships into taxable income – a result that may offset any economic benefits of “pay for play.” Their argument, however, is not necessarily accurate. This article explains why a “pay for play” model of college sports would not necessarily require college athletes to pay taxes on their Educational scholarships. Part I of this article discusses the economic and legal landscape of big-time college sports, and introduces the fallacious legal argument that “pay for play” would saddle college athletes with substantial tax liability related to their Educational scholarships. Part II provides a brief primer on the U.S. tax code – exploring sections of the code that may allow for paid college athletes to enjoy a tax-Free Education. Finally, Part III explores how, with proper tax planning, colleges may provide their athletes with bona fide employment contracts that do not likely risk the tax-exempt status of athletes’ college scholarships.
-
from student athletes to employee athletes why a pay for play model of college sports would not necessarily make Educational scholarships taxable
Boston College Law Review, 2017Co-Authors: Marc EdelmanAbstract:IntroductionIn recent years, numerous commentators have called for the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") to relax its rules prohibiting ath lete pay.1 This movement to allow athletes to share in the revenues of college sports arises from the belief that college athletes sacrifice too much time,2 personal autonomy,3 and physical health to justify their lack of pay.4 It further criticizes the NCAA's "no pay" rules for keeping the revenues derived from college sports "in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches."5Nevertheless, opponents of "pay for play" cite to numerous problems that they believe will emerge from lifting the NCAA's "no pay" rules.6 Among these problems, opponents argue, is that granting college athletes the legal status of "employees" would convert the athletes' tax-exempt scholarships into taxable income-a result that may offset any economic benefits of "pay for play."7This article explains why a "pay for play" model of college sports would not necessarily require college athletes to pay taxes on their Educational scholarships. Part I of this article discusses the economic and legal landscape of big-time college sports, and introduces the fallacious legal argument that "pay for play" would saddle college athletes with substantial tax liability related to their Educational scholarships.8 Part II provides a brief primer on the U.S. tax code-exploring sections of the code that may allow for paid college athletes to enjoy a tax-Free Education.9 Finally, Part III explores how, with proper tax planning, colleges may provide their athletes with bona fide employment contracts that are unlikely to risk the taxexempt status of the athletes' college scholarships.10I. The Changing Economic Landscape of Big-Time College SportsA. Historic Treatment of U.S. College AthletesThe college sports industry represents a more than eleven billion dollar U.S. enterprise.11 At present, over fifty U.S. colleges generate upwards of seventy million dollars per year in athletic revenues.12 Meanwhile, twentyeight colleges generate annual athletic revenues that exceed $100 million.13 Most colleges with big-time sports programs focus their efforts on generating revenues in two sports: football and men's basketball.14 In these sports, the star athletes devote upwards of forty hours per week to team travel, play, and practice.15If U.S. colleges were for-profit entities, the most successful football and men's basketball programs would produce high shareholder distributions.16 Because the NCAA consists of exclusively non-profit colleges, however, the collegiate sports enterprise operates subject to a "non-distribution constraint."17 This means that colleges with big-time football and men's basketball programs either reinvest their revenues into other college programs, or they allocate their revenues as windfall payments to quasi-shareholders such as school administrators, athletic directors, and coaches.18Given the revenues brought in by these programs, one might expect colleges to allocate some of their athletic revenues to the athletes.19 Nevertheless, the NCAA Principle of Amateurism disallows colleges from paying athletes and threatens to ban any NCAA member college that engages in "pay for play."20 Thus, pursuant to the NCAA's bylaws, no NCAA member college would dare publicly offer any financial benefits to its athletes beyond a tax-exempt scholarship to cover the costs of tuition, books, and room and board.21B. Three Approaches to Reforming College SportsBased on the colossal disparity between the revenues derived from college sports and the college athletes' compensation, there is an emerging movement to reform the financial aspects of collegiate sports.22 Some advocates of reform have called for the NCAA to make voluntary changes to its Principle of Amateurism.23 Others have explored the potential for players to unionize under federal labor laws. …
Jody Heymann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of tuition Free primary Education on women s access to family planning and on health decision making a cross national study
Social Science & Medicine, 2019Co-Authors: Bijetri Bose, Jody HeymannAbstract:At least one in ten married or in-union women of reproductive ages had an unmet need for family planning in 2017. Gender inequalities in multiple social settings, including Education, work and household decision-making, influence access to family planning. In this paper, we examine whether laws and policies that increase gender equality in Education can lead to improved family planning outcomes. In particular, we focus on tuition-Free primary Education policies as a means of change. We estimate the impact of girls being exposed to tuition-Free primary Education policies on their health decision-making and on their family planning needs as women. Using a difference-in-difference methodology on 17 low- and middle-income countries, we find that women who were exposed as children to tuition-Free Education policy throughout primary school have a greater likelihood of meeting their family planning needs and of shifting from traditional to modern contraceptives, relative to women without similar exposures. These women also have a greater likelihood of having some say in health-related decisions of the couple. More gender-equal decision-making is shown to mediate a portion of the positive impact of the Education policy on reproductive health. The results of this study indicate the need for increased investments in Education and for health policy makers to prioritize cross-sectoral engagements.
Bijetri Bose - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
effects of tuition Free primary Education on women s access to family planning and on health decision making a cross national study
Social Science & Medicine, 2019Co-Authors: Bijetri Bose, Jody HeymannAbstract:At least one in ten married or in-union women of reproductive ages had an unmet need for family planning in 2017. Gender inequalities in multiple social settings, including Education, work and household decision-making, influence access to family planning. In this paper, we examine whether laws and policies that increase gender equality in Education can lead to improved family planning outcomes. In particular, we focus on tuition-Free primary Education policies as a means of change. We estimate the impact of girls being exposed to tuition-Free primary Education policies on their health decision-making and on their family planning needs as women. Using a difference-in-difference methodology on 17 low- and middle-income countries, we find that women who were exposed as children to tuition-Free Education policy throughout primary school have a greater likelihood of meeting their family planning needs and of shifting from traditional to modern contraceptives, relative to women without similar exposures. These women also have a greater likelihood of having some say in health-related decisions of the couple. More gender-equal decision-making is shown to mediate a portion of the positive impact of the Education policy on reproductive health. The results of this study indicate the need for increased investments in Education and for health policy makers to prioritize cross-sectoral engagements.
Doreen Isoke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
socioeconomic determinants of primary school dropout the logistic model analysis
African Journal of Economic Review, 2008Co-Authors: Ibrahim Mike Okumu, Alex Nakajjo, Doreen IsokeAbstract:This paper attempts to examine the socioeconomic determinants of primary school dropout in Uganda with the aid of a logistic model analysis using the 2004 National Service Delivery Survey data. The Objectives were to establish the household socioeconomic factors that influence dropout of pupils given Free Education and any possible policy alternatives to curb dropout of pupils. Various logistic regressions of primary school dropout were estimated and these took the following dimensions; rural-urban, gender, and age-cohort. After model estimation, marginal effects for each of the models were obtained. The analysis of the various coefficients was done across all models. The results showed the insignificance of distance to school, gender of pupil, gender of household head and total average amount of school dues paid by students in influencing dropout of pupils thus showing the profound impact Universal Primary Education has had on both access to primary Education and pupil dropout. Also the results vindicated the importance of parental Education, household size and proportion of economically active household members in influencing the chances of pupil dropout. The study finally calls for government to; keep a keen eye on non-school fees payments by parents to schools as these have the potential to increase to unsustainable levels by most households especially in rural areas; roll-out adult Education across the entire country; and expand Free universal Education to secondary and vocational levels as it would allow some of those who can not afford secondary Education to continue with schooling. This has the effect of reducing the number of unproductive members in the household.
-
socioeconomic determinants of primary school dropout the logistic model analysis
Research Series, 2008Co-Authors: Ibrahim Mike Okumu, Alex Nakajjo, Doreen IsokeAbstract:This paper describes the socioeconomic determinants of primary school dropout in Uganda with the aid of a logistic model analysis using the 2004 National Service Delivery Survey data. The Objectives were to establish the; household socioeconomic factors that influence dropout of pupils given Free Education and any possible policy alternatives to curb dropout of pupils. Various logistic regressions of primary school dropout were estimated and these took the following dimensions; rural-urban, gender, and age-cohort. After model estimation, marginal effects for each of the models were obtained. The analysis of the various coefficients was done across all models. The results showed the insignificance of distance to school, gender of pupil, gender of household head and total average amount of school dues paid by students in influencing dropout of pupils thus showing the profound impact Universal Primary Education has had on both access to primary Education and pupil dropout. Also the results vindicated the importance of parental Education, household size and proportion of economically active household members in influencing the chances of pupil dropout. The study finally calls for government to; keep a keen eye on non-school fees payments by parents to schools as these have the potential to increase to unsustainable levels by most households especially in rural areas; roll-out adult Education across the entire country; and expand Free universal Education to secondary and vocational levels as it would allow some of those who can not afford secondary Education to continue with schooling. This has the effect of reducing the number of unproductive members in the household.
Ibrahim Mike Okumu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
socioeconomic determinants of primary school dropout the logistic model analysis
African Journal of Economic Review, 2008Co-Authors: Ibrahim Mike Okumu, Alex Nakajjo, Doreen IsokeAbstract:This paper attempts to examine the socioeconomic determinants of primary school dropout in Uganda with the aid of a logistic model analysis using the 2004 National Service Delivery Survey data. The Objectives were to establish the household socioeconomic factors that influence dropout of pupils given Free Education and any possible policy alternatives to curb dropout of pupils. Various logistic regressions of primary school dropout were estimated and these took the following dimensions; rural-urban, gender, and age-cohort. After model estimation, marginal effects for each of the models were obtained. The analysis of the various coefficients was done across all models. The results showed the insignificance of distance to school, gender of pupil, gender of household head and total average amount of school dues paid by students in influencing dropout of pupils thus showing the profound impact Universal Primary Education has had on both access to primary Education and pupil dropout. Also the results vindicated the importance of parental Education, household size and proportion of economically active household members in influencing the chances of pupil dropout. The study finally calls for government to; keep a keen eye on non-school fees payments by parents to schools as these have the potential to increase to unsustainable levels by most households especially in rural areas; roll-out adult Education across the entire country; and expand Free universal Education to secondary and vocational levels as it would allow some of those who can not afford secondary Education to continue with schooling. This has the effect of reducing the number of unproductive members in the household.
-
socioeconomic determinants of primary school dropout the logistic model analysis
Research Series, 2008Co-Authors: Ibrahim Mike Okumu, Alex Nakajjo, Doreen IsokeAbstract:This paper describes the socioeconomic determinants of primary school dropout in Uganda with the aid of a logistic model analysis using the 2004 National Service Delivery Survey data. The Objectives were to establish the; household socioeconomic factors that influence dropout of pupils given Free Education and any possible policy alternatives to curb dropout of pupils. Various logistic regressions of primary school dropout were estimated and these took the following dimensions; rural-urban, gender, and age-cohort. After model estimation, marginal effects for each of the models were obtained. The analysis of the various coefficients was done across all models. The results showed the insignificance of distance to school, gender of pupil, gender of household head and total average amount of school dues paid by students in influencing dropout of pupils thus showing the profound impact Universal Primary Education has had on both access to primary Education and pupil dropout. Also the results vindicated the importance of parental Education, household size and proportion of economically active household members in influencing the chances of pupil dropout. The study finally calls for government to; keep a keen eye on non-school fees payments by parents to schools as these have the potential to increase to unsustainable levels by most households especially in rural areas; roll-out adult Education across the entire country; and expand Free universal Education to secondary and vocational levels as it would allow some of those who can not afford secondary Education to continue with schooling. This has the effect of reducing the number of unproductive members in the household.
