There's a new battle brewing over the movement to give college athletes the right to monetize their name, image and likeness, and it's between some unlikely combatants: Triangle athletic directors and the legislators who represent their constituents.
Two legislators _ one federal, one state _ issued scathing responses Wednesday to positions taken last week by North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham and his Duke counterpart Kevin White on Tuesday stoutly against any individual right to image rights, also known as NIL.
Mark Walker (R-NC), the author of one of the NIL bills moving through Congress right now, called it "fear-mongering." Wiley Nickel, a Democratic state senator whose district includes Western Wake County and is the author of a similar bill in the General Assembly, said White "makes over $1.45 million per year off the backs of an unpaid student workforce and is defending the system that makes him rich."
As the NCAA essentially negotiates with Congress in search of an omnibus NIL bill that would not only supersede the many NIL bills states have already passed or are debating now _ while also meeting the NCAA's needs, to be sure _ athletic directors have staked out a far less amenable stance.
Tom McMillen, a former congressman who now heads a group that lobbies on behalf of athletic directors, said last Thursday that opposition to NIL was based on "losing income because it goes to the athlete." Cunningham authored a letter to a nonpartisan bill-drafting group that outlined the threat he thought NIL presents to college athletics, co-signed by several organizations that represent college coaches. And White issued a statement Tuesday supporting Cunningham which was mocked on social media by people like Jay Bilas and an assistant basketball coach at Rutgers, among others.
"Along with my colleague and friend Bubba Cunningham, of the University of North Carolina, I am concerned about potential complications attendant upon the actual implementation of NIL legislation," White said in the statement. Among their shared concerns: the impact on recruiting and how it could affect overall athletic department budgets.
I know I will catch flack for this. I'd rather hear this come from someone who does not already have exclusive advantages in recruiting. Their resident spot with ESPN programming and advertising and relationship with USA basketball is not something that is fair across the board.
Walker has been pushing his NIL bill since last March, and in April wondered if the NCAA's very public statements in support of NIL were instead a "bait and switch." On Wednesday, his office released a statement in response to what McMillen, Cunningham and White had to say.
"Tom McMillen's fear-mongering statements are wrong," Walker's statement read. "Our legislation and the fight for basic equity for student-athletes would not cost the schools a single dollar. It only enforces that the school does not own the rights to their first and last name only because they choose to seek an education. The NCAA made over one billion dollars last year. They will likely make even more next year. Why are they so concerned with a college softball player earning a few hundred dollars by hosting a skills clinic in their hometown?
"Look at what Mr. Cunningham said. Those same words can be applied to how student-athletes see the system now. In every aspect of their lives, they are told what to do and when. Then they find out they have no rights to their name or image. No right to earn even modest income for work or talent. That system is wrong. The NCAA and their athletic directors need to understand that their monopoly is falling and they would be better served by coming to the table to develop solutions, rather than trying to die on a hill attempting to restrict the basic rights of young men and women."
Nickel proposed a similar bill in North Carolina last month, co-sponsored by Paul Lowe (D-Forsyth). In an email to The News & Observer, he excoriated White for "defending the system that makes him rich" while lauding Walker's efforts in Washington to underline the bipartisan support for athlete image rights.
"My bill would allow North Carolina student-athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness and put an end to this bankrupt model," Nickel wrote in the email. "Senate Bill 759 would provide greater equality and fairness to an NCAA system that discriminates against student-athletes, particularly athletes of color in football and basketball.
"The NCAA will never change unless legislatures across the country step in to force the issue. The old system where athletes had to play for the 'love of the game' while the NCAA and universities reap huge profits off their hard work is quickly coming to an end. It's critical that North Carolina stay ahead of the curve to make sure our college athletics programs remain the best in the country."
Cunningham and White may not have meant to kick over this nest of legislative hornets, but they're extremely influential in the world of college athletics, and you can be sure their words were heard loudly. So may this response, because the harsh truth of the matter is NIL rights are going to be imposed on the NCAA, whether by legislators or by a judge, and the ground for compromise is shrinking by the day.
As then-Miami president Donna Shalala liked to say (often) during ACC expansion, that train has left the station. Shalala is now a U.S. representative for Florida. She happens to be pushing an NIL bill of her own.
