The women’s fencing coach, Laurie Schiller, told his team on April 9 that if the football team were unionized, it could mean the end of the team. He also questioned the motives of organized labor seeking to represent the players. Two days after the meeting, he apologized in an email to his team.

“If any of you interpreted my comments at the team meeting Wednesday night that Northwestern might or would cancel any of its nonrevenue sports if the football scholarship athletes vote in favor of union representation that was not my intention,” he wrote.

Northwestern did not make Schiller available for comment, but a spokesman, Alan Cubbage, said the university had no plans to change how the athletic programs operate. “There is certainly understandable confusion over the issues and the process,” Cubbage added.

Northwestern voiced concerns similar to Schiller’s at the labor board hearing. The money brought in by the football team ($235 million from 2003 to 2012, as reported by Northwestern to the Department of Education) largely subsidizes nonrevenue sports. How the athletic department would be affected by revenue sharing or salaries for football players is unknown. What a union could mean to Title IX, which governs gender equity rules, is also unclear.

The union’s supporters say they are seeking expanded medical coverage and want to be sure that athletic scholarships line up with how much it actually costs to attend college.

“This employee decision has the potential to blow up the model,” said Craig LaMay, the interim associate journalism dean at Northwestern. “As much as we’re looking for answers, we’re still trying to ask the right questions, too.”

Nielsen, the sociology professor, is among the backers of the union movement. She said that many of her colleagues worried about head injuries for football players and that there was general recognition that unionized workers were in a better position than students to have good, safe working conditions.