Senators divided over Congress’ role in college sports.
Senators Debate the Future of College Athletics
Senators engaged in a lively discussion about the future of college athletics, particularly regarding the financial benefits and compensation for collegiate athletes. While there was agreement on the need for athletes to benefit, opinions differed on the extent to which Congress should be involved.
The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing on October 17th to hear from various stakeholders on topics such as Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights and college athletic compensation. This was the first hearing on NIL since 2020.
The issue of NIL has gained significant attention in recent years as college athletes fight for fair compensation. Previously, the NCAA prohibited athletes from receiving money from sponsorships and other income streams enjoyed by professional athletes. However, in 2021, the Supreme Court ruled this prohibition to be unlawful.
Currently, 32 states have implemented NIL laws, with California being the first to pass such legislation. Bronny James, son of NBA star LeBron James, is currently the highest-earning NIL athlete, with a worth of $5.9 million. These developments highlight the changing landscape of college sports.
The witnesses at the hearing, including former Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker and NCAA President Charlie Baker, expressed differing views on the future of college sports and the appropriate compensation for student-athletes.
This includes debates on whether student-athletes should be treated as employees of their respective colleges or universities. Such a designation would have significant implications for athletic programs, particularly smaller ones that may struggle to allocate their budgets towards paying student-athletes. Other issues discussed include equal pay between men’s and women’s athletics programs and the impact of NIL programs on competition between athletic programs.
‘Much-needed Modernization’
“It is no surprise to anyone here today when I share that college sports are at a time of great change and much-needed modernization,” stated Mr. Baker in his written testimony. “This change is largely due to the cultural, legal, and financial forces that are coalescing to evolve student-athlete needs and expectations.”
Mr. Baker also highlighted the NCAA’s efforts to adapt to these changes, such as the creation of a “student-athlete health insurance fund” to provide coverage for athletically related injuries up to two years after graduation.
He expressed appreciation for Congress’s involvement in the NIL issue and referenced legislation, including The College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act of 2023, introduced by Senators Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, and Jerry Moran.
However, other witnesses, such as Walker Jones from The Grove Collective, argued that student-athletes deserve financial rewards for their work and emphasized the importance of maximizing their brand power.
“We are not conflicted in supporting any other agenda except assisting those student-athletes who choose to find opportunities to maximize the power of their brand,” stated Mr. Jones in his written testimony. “Our focus and commitment singularly point towards our participating student-athletes and the long-term viability and health of collegiate athletics.”
Concerns were also raised about potential negative consequences if Congress were to regain control over collegiate athletes, as well as the impact on small schools like St. Joseph’s if student-athletes were classified as employees.
“Our student-athletes do not want to receive a W-2 and pay taxes instead of receiving financial aid, most of which is a qualified educational benefit that is not subject to income tax,” added Jill Bodensteiner, vice president and director of athletics for Saint Joseph’s University, in her written testimony. “Our international student-athletes want to compete, and that likely would not happen due to the work limitations on their F-1 student visa status.”
Despite the differing perspectives, there was a consensus among senators that student-athletes should benefit from their own brand. However, the extent of Congress’s involvement and the establishment of national standards for college athletes remained contentious issues.
The hearing also touched on various other topics, including student-athlete safety, transgender participation in sports, and the potential unionization of student-athletes.
What concerns does NCAA President Charlie Baker have regarding compensating student-athletes and the potential negative impact it may have
Compensation for their contributions to their respective college athletic programs. Jones emphasized that these athletes generate significant revenue for their schools through their performances and should be fairly remunerated. He suggested that a system should be developed to ensure that athletes receive a share of the revenue they generate.
On the other hand, NCAA President Charlie Baker expressed concerns about the potential negative impact of compensating student-athletes.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...