Athletes? Employees? Tug-of-war goes on
WASHINGTON — The college sports stakeholders who assembled here Thursday seemed to be united in their belief that Congress should establish some sort of federal framework for name, image and likeness.
But there was little unanimous agreement beyond that.
In a three-hour hearing hosted by members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, NCAA president Mark Emmert continued to push for an NIL bill that, among other things, would draw a distinction between college athletes and employees. He spoke of “concerning trends” in the first three months of the NIL era, deals that he said could lead to an uneven playing field in recruiting or perhaps even harm athletes.
Ramogi Huma, meanwhile, offered a contrary take. The executive director of the National College Players Association argued that college sports have never had a level playing field, and that any NIL bill should address other crucial issues for athletes, like health care and continuing education.
“It’s imperative that any federal law include broad-based reforms,” Huma said, “and the NIL portion of such legislation should not reduce athletes’ NIL freedoms in pursuit of a level playing field that has never existed.”
Baylor president Linda Livingstone, Washington State golfer Cameron March and Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association commissioner Jacqie Mcwilliams also provided testimony.
The hearing came almost three months to the day after a series of state laws first permitted college athletes to monetize their NIL, and less than 24 hours after the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a memo indicating that she views college athletes as employees of their schools.
In a brief conversation after the hearing, Emmert told USA TODAY Sports that he was not surprised by the NLRB’S memo and that he does not believe it puts any additional pressure on the NCAA.
“This is a position that the general counsel has made,” he said. “We obviously don’t believe that student athletes are or should be employees, but she gets to state her legal position, and that’s fine.”
Rep. Lori Trahan, D-mass., described both the NIL era and the NLRB memo as “long overdue.” She was one of several
Congresspeople at Thursday’s hearing who appeared to side with Huma, arguing that athletes should receive additional benefits and protections beyond NIL.
Trahan also co-sponsored a bill earlier this year that would enable college athletes to collectively bargain.
Others, like Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., sought to keep the focus on NIL matters. Duncan suggested that attempts to address other issues like collective bargaining and revenue-sharing would “muddy the waters.”
Ultimately, much of the discussion Thursday centered around the potential pitfalls of a bill that is too broad or narrow in the way it addresses NIL.
Emmert expressed concern about deals that are brokered at least in part by the school, describing them as “straightforward pay-for-play” that would run afoul of NCAA rules. He also argued that, in lieu of sufficient oversight and educational resources provided by Congress, athletes may encounter “bad actors” and wind up signing “exploitative agreements.”
“Not every college athlete will be approached by professional service providers and third parties with good intentions,” he said.
Livingstone and Mcwilliams, meanwhile, expressed concerns that a federal bill that goes beyond NIL rights – such as one that would provide guaranteed health care or revenue-sharing for athletes – could have detrimental effects.
Mcwilliams, whose conference consists of historically Black colleges and universities in Division II, said any federal financial regulation beyond NIL could prompt her schools to cut teams. And Livingstone, the Baylor president, suggested that “an employment model” could lead to reductions in non-revenue sports, including women’s programs.
“If we reallocate resources away from those (non-revenue sports), to those two sports (football and men’s basketball) that generate the most, we will run the risk of seeing cuts in those sports,” she said.
Some of the other concerns expressed at the hearing bordered on paranoia.
Rep. Larry Bucshon, R.-ind., suggested that a college athlete might sign an NIL deal with a foreign-based company, and then be “pressured or influenced” by the government of that country. He later used China as an example.
“That’s a potential concern,” Bucshon said.