As the House prepared to head out early for its summer break, Republicans made a push Wednesday to advance key legislation that would standardize the ways in which college athletes can be paid via name, image and likeness deals.
But several sticking points remain, as some Democrats continue to argue Congress shouldn’t shut the door to college athletes being considered employees, while knocking legislation they said hands more power to universities, athletic conferences and the NCAA.
“Congress should be working to uplift and protect the college athletes. Unfortunately, that’s not what we’re doing today. The legislation we’re debating today … is promoted as a measure to empower college athletes, when in reality it’s a series of blank checks and bailouts to the NCAA,” said Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Va., ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, which marked up the bill, dubbed the SCORE Act.
Around the corner on the first floor of the Rayburn House Office Building, the Energy and Commerce Committee met simultaneously to debate the legislation. Both panels favorably reported amended versions to the full House.
The proposal, according to supporters, is a landmark step toward regulating the wild world of NIL deals in college sports. Coupled with relaxed rules on transfers, those deals have led to major paydays for top student athletes, particularly in the highest-grossing sports like football and basketball, but created confusion for others.
The current situation, according to Rep. Michael Baumgartner, R-Wash., amounts to “unfettered free agency with no salary caps.”
“And chaos has ensued,” said Baumgartner, who was the lone Republican on the Education and Workforce panel to vote against advancing the bill, with two others not voting.
Led by Republican Rep. Gus Bilirakis of Florida, the bill is backed by two Democratic co-sponsors, Reps. Janelle Bynum of Oregon and Shomari Figures of Alabama. But other Democrats are re-upping a range of concerns voiced last week during an Energy and Commerce subcommittee markup, despite changes negotiated since then
“We’ve made edits to improve student athlete representation in decision-making processes, narrowed preemption, clarified and narrowed the antitrust language and added additional enforcement mechanisms,” said Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie, R-Ky.
Still, Rep. Troy Carter, D-La., said without labor rights for athletes, the plan would merely be “rebranding the status quo.”
“This bill would block student athletes from organizing or negotiating over basic necessities such as medical care, long-term health coverage, or protecting against abusive training practices,” Carter said. “If we lock in a system that denies athletes a seat at the table, we’re not reforming the system.”
Republicans countered that categorizing student athletes as employees would create too large a burden for many universities and could lead to the shuttering of nonrevenue-generating athletic programs.
The employment status question has sparked intense debate in recent years, along with shifting stances from the National Labor Relations Board. In February, the acting NLRB general counsel rescinded a Biden-era memo outlining the position that certain players at academic institutions could be considered employees.
Democrats are also concerned about provisions of the bill that would carve out exceptions to antitrust law for the NCAA and similar organizations, saying it could leave students with little recourse.
“The SCORE ACT slams the courtroom door in the face of college athletics,” said Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J. “We should be celebrating the progress college athletes have won in the courts to profit from their own name, image, and likeness, share in the revenue they bring their institutions, and more.”
After registering complaints from Energy and Commerce Democrats last week that the bill failed to mention Title IX, Republicans on the Education and Workforce panel on Wednesday adopted a substitute amendment explicitly stating that nothing in the legislation would limit the federal anti-sex discrimination law, which has been a boon to women’s college sports.
But some members weren’t satisfied.
Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., argued the legislation should build in more protections for female athletes, including Title IX training requirements for those involved in college sports.
Baumgartner, meanwhile, offered an amendment that would have required universities that compensate their student athletes to distribute that money equally, no matter the “sex, sport, position, athletic performance, market value or any other individual characteristic of a student athlete.” It comes as some universities grapple with how to directly share revenues with students after a watershed settlement resolving antitrust lawsuits brought by former Division 1 athletes.
That amendment was voted down, as were Democrat-led proposals to include a private right of action allowing athletes to sue, to remove the bill’s prohibition on being considered employees, and to extend health care coverage requirements for former college athletes to 10 years.
“Extending coverage to 10 years places significant financial strain on universities, many of which already face tight budgets,” said Education and Workforce Chair Tim Walberg, R-Mich.
Walberg said there were already “robust” health care provisions for student athletes in the bill, including coverage for up to three years after collegiate playing careers.
Backers of the bill might have their work cut out for them to lock down more support. While the final tally in Energy and Commerce broke along party lines, Baumgartner was not the only Republican who voiced concerns at the Education and Workforce meeting. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., railed against a provision he said would provide “absolute protection when it comes to dictating conference membership” and kick down the ladder for certain schools.
“I will have to vote against the bill when it comes to the floor if this issue isn’t resolved,” said Kiley, who offered and withdrew an amendment on the topic.
The Californian pointed to Sacramento State University, saying it was as “prepared as any in the country to move from FCS to FBS,” referring to football subdivisions. His objections highlight the regional rooting interests that may come into play as lawmakers decide whether to support the legislation, with imbalances between smaller schools and athletic powerhouses.
The post Should college athletes be employees? House panels say no appeared first on Roll Call.
