(WASHINGTON) – Top officials in college sports are stepping up their push this spring for federal changes that would help them deal with the growing crowd of athletes who want to play longer – and make more money – at the collegiate level.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association now has efforts underway in Congress and the White House, petitioning lawmakers and President Trump to address the fallout from new rules that allow student athletes to make money off their name, image and likeness (NIL).
The NCAA faces an array of legal challenges that hinge on the question: Who is eligible to play college sports?
College athletics are now a highly profitable endeavor for top athletes, particularly in men’s basketball and football. That’s encouraging them to play longer and longer – and, when limited, to take their grievances to court.
“I understand why the student athletes are doing it. If you’re making money on NIL you want to stay in college as long as possible,” Austin Meo, the NCAA’s assistant director of government relations, told Capital News Service. “But we need to be able to enforce certain rules. You don’t tell the NFL or NBA they can’t enforce certain things because it’s an antitrust violation.”
Congress has tried to help the NCAA with its power to exempt businesses from the antitrust laws designed to prevent monopolies. Efforts to get such an exemption through the legislature haven’t been successful so far.
But after officials visited Trump in early March, the president sent signals that he might try to help. On the day of the meeting, Trump said he would “have an executive order within one week,” one that will “solve every problem in this room.”. In the over three weeks since the meeting, no such executive order has been issued.
Advocates for players say it’s only fair to give them more latitude. For years, players had no seat at the table and were subject to whatever restrictions the NCAA put on them, despite being major cash cows for the universities they attended. The courts offer them a chance to argue their interests.
“We as athletes are the reason the stands are filled, logos are worn and the game thrives the way it does,” said Khalil Poteat, a Temple football player and member of the organization Athletes.org, on the voluntary membership group’s website for college athletes. “We deserve a say, just like the executives and leaders, in sports and in our futures.”
But the association says the lawsuits are just too disruptive, and there are plenty of examples to highlight that concern. Basketball player Charles Bediako sued for the right to move from college to the pros and then back again. Last year, a group of Division I athletes sued the NCAA to challenge the “redshirt” rules that regulate how many years they can be on the field or court during the five-year window for college play.
The courts have ruled against the players in both those cases. President Charlie Baker celebrated the Bediako decision as a win for “common sense.”
He and other officials are worried about a world in which players toggle from pro sports to college and back again, and can extend their college careers for more than five years.
“College sports are for students not for people who walked away to go pro and now want to hit the ‘undo’ button at the expense of a teenager’s dream,” Baker said in a written statement. “It’s time for Congress to stop watching from the sidelines and help us provide some actual stability.”
Congressional Efforts
There have already been NCAA-supported efforts in the U.S. Congress to create the exact exemption.
“Internal reform is not enough when the laws change from state to state,” Baker said in his State of College Sports speech in January. “That’s why we have to engage the federal government not to run college sports, but to stabilize them.”
Although Republicans have been more sympathetic to the NCAA’s cause, the issue is one of few on Capitol Hill that doesn’t break cleanly down partisan lines.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has proposed legislation that would grant the NCAA changes it desires, including the antitrust exemption. The legislation, called the SCORE (Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements), is sponsored by Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.) and Rep. Shomari Figures (D-Ala.)
There is also pushback from both sides of the aisle. A group of senators – including Democrat Cory Booker of New Jersey and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont – penned a letter calling the act a “bailout” for the NCAA.
In December, a vote on the measure was cancelled after it became clear that House Republicans weren’t unanimously behind it.
“If we are going to involve ourselves for ‘antitrust reasons’ – why would we continue to prop up a failed NCAA with power without setting the terms more specifically?” Rep. Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas, wrote on social media the day of the vote.
Resistance has also come from professional player associations and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).
“It was precisely the NCAA’s restraint of trade, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which resulted in much of the historical exploitation of college athletes,” Jody Calemine, the AFL-CIO’s director of government affairs, wrote in a letter to Congress last fall.
With the NCAA’s congressional efforts hitting a wall, it has begun to explore other avenues.
Trump’s hypothetical executive order
Proponents of the SCORE Act in Congress aren’t the only ones interested in helping the NCAA achieve its goals. Recently, it has become clear that Trump is listening to college sports officials’ complaints.
Earlier this month, Trump held a “Saving College Sports” roundtable with Baker, former Alabama head football coach Nick Saban, and several NCAA athletic directors and conference commissioners.
There were no current college athletes or player association representatives at the roundtable.
Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) was the lone Democrat present at the roundtable. When Trump asked if anyone at the table was opposed to using the base of the SCORE Act in its current form for his executive order, Trahan, a former Georgetown volleyball player, was the only one to raise her hand. She cited concerns about the act’s effects on women’s sports.
“Strengthening Title IX has to be part of the SCORE Act,” Trahan said.
The president seemed to leave the meeting with a plan.
“If Congress does not take action fast it could destroy college sports and destroy the colleges that play these sports,” Trump said. “They’ll be destroyed. They’ll be going bankrupt.”
After hearing from members of the roundtable, the president announced he would write an executive order on the subject.
While Trump didn’t provide specifics, he promised it would be a solution to make male and female players and schools happy.
“I will have an executive order within one week. It will be very all-encompassing” Trump said. “[It] will solve every problem in this room, every conceivable problem within one week.”
Some, like UNLV track athlete Angelina Vasquez voiced their displeasure at being locked out of the room where the discussion happened.
“You cannot plan for our future without our input,” Vasquez said on Athletes.org. “If a decision affects our bodies, our scholarships, our eligibility, or our livelihoods, athletes should have a voice in the room from the start, not after the fact.”