A congressional hearing Wednesday targeting “NIL chaos” in college sports drifted toward the ramifications of athletes being considered employees of their schools and especially spotlighted those who support Congressional intervention to protect the collegiate model.
A subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce held the first hearing related to college sports on Capitol Hill in more than two years.
The intended objective was the compensation of the name, image and likeness of the athletes. College sports leaders have asked for help in the form of a federal law to standardize regulations on how athletes can earn money from their fame through endorsement or endorsement deals.
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (Fla.-R), chairman of the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce, said passing a federal NIL law that preempts existing state laws would provide clarity and transparency to athletes.
“The lack of uniformity among different states and institutions has created confusion and uncertainty and a federal standard is needed so that all athletes play by the same rules,” Bilirakis said. “In short, we must strike a delicate balance between the right of college athletes to enjoy their own NIL while retaining amateur status for all college athletes.”
Seven previous hearings have been held in the House and Senate, but lawmakers have made no significant progress toward passing a college sports bill since the topic began gaining attention.
The latest hearing took place days before the Final Four of the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments were scheduled to take place in Texas.
Lawmakers questioned six witnesses for nearly three hours. They heard from two college athletic administrators, the president of a Division II university, a former NFL player, a current Florida State softball player and a leader of an athletes’ advocacy group .
Most witnesses encouraged Congress to act on NIL.
“We need transparency in the marketplace,” Washington State athletic director Pat Chun said.
Jason Stahl, executive director of the College Football Players Association, pushed back. He said any NIL regulations would only serve the interests of schools, conferences and the NCAA.
“The federal government should stay out of zero free markets,” he said.
The NCAA lifted its ban on college athletes earning money from their fame nearly two years ago, but fear of lawsuits and a patchwork of state-level NIL laws have deterred the association to establish detailed and uniform rules.
“The current NIL chaos means student-athletes are left to fend for themselves,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.-R). “And those at the top of their game must figure out how to maneuver through a multitude of agents, collectives and high-priced contract offers, while still meeting their academic and athletic commitments.”
The concern among many college athletes is that NIL is being used as a recruiting incentive or de facto payment to play, which is still against NCAA rules but has become difficult to enforce.
New NCAA President Charlie Baker, who was not among the witnesses at the hearing, said athletes are the consumers of this growing market and that federal law would be a form of consumer protection.
“NIL is a powerful vehicle that rightfully allows student-athletes to earn compensation from their unique market value,” Baker said in a statement. “At the same time, the lack of transparency in today’s NIL market puts student-athletes at risk of exploitation by bad actors.”
The hearing also addressed the issue of college athletes’ employee status and the possibility that colleges would be required to share revenue generated from their sports with athletes.
At most Division I schools, revenue generated from football and basketball helps fund all other sports.
“Creating an employee-employer model would significantly threaten this current dynamic and change everything we know about how sports other than football and men’s basketball are supported,” said softball player Kaley Mudge from the state of Florida.
A bill introduced by a California state lawmaker in January, if passed, would require some Division I schools to share a percentage of their revenue with primarily football and basketball players.
An ongoing federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania seeks to force colleges to treat Division I athletes as employees and pay them an hourly wage. A complaint to the National Labor Relations Board could also lead to some college athletes being granted employee status, which could open the door to unions.
“How can a football player join a union and a softball player can’t?” » Chun said.
Patriot League Commissioner Jen Heppel, who testified before lawmakers, said in written testimony that having Division I college athletes considered employees “would likely represent a breaking point for sponsorship of sports programs at Patriot League institutions.”
