Name, Image, and Likeness, and the Future of College Sports (U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary)

Hearing	Name, Image, and Likeness, and the Future of College Sports
Committee	U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Date	October 17, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Student Athlete Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Compensation: The hearing largely focused on the growth of student athlete NIL compensation deals in college sports resulting from state laws, litigation, and market interest. Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in developing legislation to establish federal standards for student athlete NIL compensation deals and protections for the student athletes engaged in these deals. These proposed standards and protections include standardized contracts and student athlete agent registries. There was broad support for enabling student athletes to pursue NIL compensation opportunities as a means of deriving income (which can cover tuition and family-related expenses) and teaching valuable business lessons (including entrepreneurship and branding). However, Mr. Baker, Mr. Petitti, and Ms. Bodensteiner expressed concerns over how NIL compensation deals are often used to induce student athletes to come to schools and argued that these deals should not be used as inducements. Of note, Several Committee Members discussed their own student athlete NIL compensation and college sports legislative reform proposals. These included the College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act from Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Jerry Moran (R-KS), a discussion draft bill from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and the Protecting Athletes, Schools, and Sports (PASS) Act of 2023 from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Tommy Tubberville (R-AL).
  • State Student Athlete NIL Compensation Laws: Committee Members, Mr. Baker, Mr. Petitti, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Jones, Ms. Bodensteiner, and Mr. Swarbrick expressed concerns over how states have pursued their own unique student athlete NIL compensation laws. They stated that these state laws have resulted in a competitive imbalance in the benefits and protections enjoyed by student athletes across states. They remarked that states are seeking to provide their schools with recruiting advantages through these laws and called for federal legislation to set baseline standards for student athlete NIL compensation deals. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Mr. Huma argued however that new federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation should not undermine the current state protections and NIL compensation rights already enjoyed by student athletes.
  • Transparency for Student Athlete NIL Compensation Contracts: Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Mr. Baker, and Mr. Bodensteiner expressed interest in making student athlete NIL compensation contract deals transparent so that student athletes can better navigate this space and be protected. Ms. Bodensteirner stated that this transparency can protect against gender pay and resource disparities and ensure that student athlete NIL compensation deals actually involve the use of NIL rights (and are not being used for inducement payments). Mr. Baker testified that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is currently developing student athlete NIL compensation transparency and consumer protection policies for student athletes. He indicated that he expects these policies to be ratified before the end of the calendar year. He also indicated that these policies should be made effective at the beginning of the 2024 scholastic year. Of note, Mr. Jones testified that the NIL collective members of his association, the Collective Association (TCA), share their student athlete NIL compensation deals with their schools.
  • NIL Collectives: A key area of interest throughout the hearing involved the role of NIL collectives. NIL collectives are organizations that are separate from schools that facilitate NIL compensation opportunities for a given school’s student athletes with national sponsors, local sponsors, non-profit organizations, and charities. Mr. Jones also noted how NIL collectives provide resources and tools (including financial literacy education and tax planning assistance) to help student athletes to monetize their NIL rights and prepare for their future careers. Committee Members, Mr. Baker, Mr. Petitti, Mr. Huma, and Mr. Bodensteiner expressed interest in providing increased federal oversight of NIL collectives and warned that these NIL collectives may be improperly influencing college sports. They also stated that federal oversight would help to ensure that the NIL compensation deals provided by NIL collectives are legitimate NIL deals (and not merely recruiting and transfer inducements).
  • Impact of the NCAA’s Transfer Portal: Full Committee Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mr. Petitti, Ms. Bodensteiner, and Mr. Swarbrick raised concerns over the NCAA’s current transfer portal, which allows college student athletes to freely transfer schools. They expressed concerns that schools may use student athlete NIL compensation deals to induce student athletes to transfer schools and that these inducements may undermine the ability of student athletes to obtain an education. Of note, Mr. Jones testified that NIL collectives do not participate in the college student athlete recruiting process and desire to only work with student athletes once the athletes have decided to attend their affiliated schools. He asserted that coaches and athletic departments are best suited to handle student athlete recruiting under the “strict” monitoring of the NCAA.
  • Impact on Gender Equity: Committee Members, Mr. Baker, Mr. Petitti, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Huma, and Ms. Bodensteiner stated that Congress must work to ensure that student athlete NIL compensation deals cannot be used by schools and NIL collectives to circumvent Title IX gender equity rules. They noted how male college student athletes (particularly football and basketball players) are currently receiving the majority of student athlete NIL compensation deals. Ms. Bodensteiner commented that NIL endorsement deals would especially benefit female student athletes who have limited professional sports opportunities and whose economic value peaks during their college athletic careers. Mr. Jones indicated that there has been significant growth in female student athlete compensation deals, which he partially attributed to demand from brands for diversity and inclusivity. Mr. Huma also stated that student athlete NIIL compensation deals are allocated based on free market dynamics. He asserted that Congress should be cautious to not dictate the terms of third-party NIL deals for just college student athletes (especially considering how these athletes are disproportionately Black).
  • Impact on Olympic and Non-Revenue Sports: Committee Members, Mr. Baker, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Swarbrick expressed interest in ensuring that student athletes participating in Olympic and non-revenue sports have access to NIL compensation deals. They highlighted how college sports play a key role in supporting the U.S Olympic Team.
  • Ability of Foreign Student Athletes to Participate in Student Athlete NIL Compensation Deals: Sen. Blumenthal and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in enabling foreign student athletes attending U.S. schools to participate in NIL compensation deals. Sen. Blumenthal noted how these foreign student athletes are put at risk of losing their legal status under the U.S.’s current visa system if they earn NIL compensation.
• Student Athlete Protections: The hearing also considered policies to protect the health, safety, academics, and financial well-being of college student athletes. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Mr. Huma lamented how many student athletes have experienced heat strokes, abusive hazing, and sexual assaults. Mr. Petitti mentioned how the Big Ten Conference has hired a chief medical officer to better protect its student athletes.
  • Oversight of College Sports: A key area of debate at the hearing involved which body should oversee college sports (including student athlete NIL compensation deals and student athlete health and safety. Sen. Blumenthal and Mr. Huma stated that Congress should establish and independent body to oversee college sports and empower state attorneys general to enforce these rules. They argued that this approach would result in the highest likelihood that the rules would be enforced. However, Mr. Baker, Mr. Petitti, Mr. Jones, Ms. Bodensteiner, and Mr. Swarbrick argued that the NCAA should be provided with a limited antitrust exemption to oversee college sports. Mr. Huma expressed opposition to this approach and stated that the NCAA has a poor record in overseeing college sports and should not be further empowered.
  • Health Care Coverage and Protections for Student Athletes: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in having schools cover insurance costs and out-of-pocket medical expenses for their student athletes. They also called for the establishment of a medical trust fund to cover student athlete health care costs for sports-related injuries post-graduation. Mr. Baker mentioned how he had helped to establish a NCAA student athlete health insurance fund that will provide all athletes across all three NCAA Divisions with access to health insurance for athletically-related injuries for up to two years post-NCAA eligibility or graduation. Mr. Petitti also testified that Big Ten Conference schools provide both on campus and post-separation health care, which ensures that their student athletes have access to medical care and mental health services both during and after their time on campus. Ms. Bodensteiner further noted how Saint Joseph’s University maintains a robust insurance policy to protect its student athletes in the event of a student athlete health or safety incident.
  • Academic and Financial Counseling Support for Student Athletes: Committee Members, Mr. Baker, Mr. Huma, Ms. Bodensteiner, and Mr. Swarbrick expressed interest in ensuring that college student athletes can fully pursue their college educations while engaging in college sports. They stated that the U.S. should ensure that student athletes can receive academic counseling and can complete their college degrees post-playing careers. Committee Members, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Jones further expressed interest in providing financial literacy courses to college student athletes so that these student athletes are not taken advantage of in their NIL compensation deals. 
  • Classification of Student Athletes as Employees of their Schools: Several Committee Members, Mr. Baker, Mr. Petitti, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Bodensteiner, and Mr. Swarbrick criticized proposals to classify college student athletes as employees of their schools. They warned that these proposals would threaten the viability of college sports through creating taxation and human resources challenges. Ms. Bodensteiner added that such classification would prevent foreign student athletes from participating in college sports because employee classification would conflict with the terms of the F-1 Visa Program. Mr. Huma questioned these claims and noted how schools already classify many of their students (e.g., bookstore employees) as employees. He stated that the student athletes at top NCAA Division I football and men’s and women’s basketball programs should be made employees of their schools. He remarked however that Congress should not prioritize this employee status issue in its current consideration of college sports reform legislation because it is not politically viable.
  • Unionization of College Student Athletes: Sen. Blumenthal, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Mr. Huma expressed interest in exploring the possibility of allowing student athletes to unionize so that they could better negotiate protections with their schools and the NCAA. Sen. Manchin and Mr. Baker raised concerns however that student athlete unionization would threaten the viability of college sports and could undermine Title IX protections.
• Other Policy Topics: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses also considered several additional policy topics impacting college sports.
  • Provision of Pell Grants to College Student Athletes: Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) discussed how most student athletes are Pell grant recipients and contended that schools should be required to cover educational costs for their student athletes. He called this situation unfair and noted how many non-student athletes require access to Pell grants to afford their college educations. He stated that Congress must address this situation.
  • College Athletic Conference Realignment: Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Mr. Huma expressed concerns that recent college athletic conference realignments will force student athletes to travel further for athletic competitions. They commented that this increased travel will have adverse impacts on the academics, health, and rest of student athletes. Mr. Huma remarked that Congress should pass legislation to base college athletic conference realignment on “reasonable” regional proximity and to limit the number of colleges in a given athletic conference.
  • NCAA Member School Statements on Hamas’s October 7th Attack Against Israel: Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) expressed concerns over how several student groups at NCAA member schools have made statements supporting Hamas’s recent attacks against Israel. Mr. Baker remarked that support for violence should always be condemned and asserted that unprovoked attacks on innocent people are never excusable.
  • NCAA Policies Toward Transgender Student Athletes: Several Committee Republicans expressed concerns over how the NCAA had forced female swimmers to share a locker room with a biological male during a 2022 NCAA championship event. Mr. Baker stated that he would not defend the NCAA’s 2022 actions and mentioned how he was still serving as Governor of Massachusetts when this incident had occurred. He testified that the NCAA has adjusted its standards for governing the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. He also stated that the NCAA is continuing to adjust these standards based on its conversations with other governing bodies.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. 1. Ms. Trinity Thomas, Gymnast, University of Florida
   2. Ms. Jack Swarbrick, Vice President and James E. Rohr Director of Athletics, University of Notre Dame
   3. Mr. Tony Petitti, Commissioner, Big Ten Conference
   4. Mr. Walker Jones, Executive Director, The Grove Collective
   5. Mr. Ramogi Huma, Executive Director, National College Players Association
   6. Ms. Jill Bodensteiner, Vice President and Director of Athletics, Saint Joseph’s University
   7. Mr. Charlie Baker, President, National Collegiate Athletic Association

1.  

Member Opening Statements:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):

• He remarked that the U.S. college sports system needs urgent reform and stated that this system has been exploitative and abusive of college student athletes.
  • He commented that this system’s abuse can be financial, emotional, and physical in nature.
• He also mentioned how several Congressional committees (including the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation) have considered the issue of student athlete NIL compensation rights.
  • He expressed hope that this hearing would help to inform the Committee’s work in developing federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
• He asserted that the U.S. college sports system has focused more on generating profits for schools and college athletic conferences than on protecting college student athletes from abuse and exploitation.
  • He stated that the efforts of college student athletes have enabled college sports to become a $16 billion industry.
• He discussed how many states have passed their own student athlete NIL compensation laws and remarked that a recent unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision necessitates that Congress take action on this issue.
• He asserted that a national standard for student athlete NIL compensation rights is needed to protect student athletes from disreputable agents and unscrupulous deals.
  • He also contended that federal legislation is necessary to provide baseline standards as states seek to pass their own student athlete NIL compensation laws with weaker student athlete protections.
• He stated that while the situation for college student athletes has improved, he emphasized that college student athletes remain subject to exploitation and abuse.
• He mentioned how at least two college football players die every year from heat stroke and noted how heat stroke is a preventable condition.
  • He commented that these heat stroke deaths are the product of bullying and a “win at all costs” culture that is “far too common” in college athletic departments.
• He also stated that the “win at all costs” culture in college sports fosters abusive hazing and sexual assault.
  • He noted how these problems have occurred at Baylor University, Northwestern University, and San Jose State University.
• He remarked that the NCAA has previously failed to address the abuse of college student athletes in a prompt manner.
• He stated that the U.S. must establish strong national standards for college sports and provide enforcement mechanisms for these standards.
  • He commented that this enforcement can be accomplished through the establishment of a separate corporation or some other means.
• He also asserted that Congress must ensure that college student athletes can receive a college education in return for their athletic efforts.
• He mentioned how he had recently proposed the College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), which would establish a strong national standard for student athlete NIL compensation and protect the well-being and educational success of college student athletes.
  • He first indicated this legislation would create health and safety standards to protect college student athletes from serious injury, mistreatment, abuse, and death.
  • He secondly indicated that this legislation would guarantee tuition and aid for college student athletes that suffer career ending injuries or are cut from their teams.
  • He thirdly indicated that this legislation would establish a medical trust fund to cover health care expenses for long-term injuries resulting from an athlete’s participation in college sports.
  • He lastly indicated that this legislation would bring transparency to the student athlete NIL compensation market and college sports programs.
• He reiterated his call for Congress to address the problems in college sports and expressed his gratitude for the Committee’s willingness to address this topic.

Note: Sen. Blumenthal served as the presiding Chairman for the hearing.

Full Committee Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-SC):

• He discussed how college football is very popular within his state of South Carolina and expressed concerns with the current trajectory of college sports.
• He remarked that there must exist a national standard governing student athlete NIL compensation.
  • He warned that proposals to classify college student athletes as employees could lead to the elimination of athletic programs at smaller schools, non-revenue generating sports, and women’s sports.
• He also mentioned how the University of Utah is offering all of their college football players new trucks and expressed concerns that keeping student athlete NIL compensation deals unregulated will result in ever escalating expenditures.
• He stated that the combination of student athlete NIL compensation and the NCAA’s transfer portal has created “chaos” in college football.
  • He reiterated that federal legislation constitutes the only means of fixing these problems.
• He remarked that the U.S. must ensure that unchecked student athlete NIL compensation deals do not threaten the viability of college sports for smaller schools.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Charlie Baker (National Collegiate Athletic Association):

• He first indicated that he had spoken with leaders from all three of the NCAA’s divisions to ensure that his testimony is reflective of the views of all of the NCAA’s stakeholders.
• He then discussed how college sports provide educational opportunities for 500,000 young people and noted how college sports generate $4 billion in college aid.
  • He stated that college sports often serve as “cornerstones” to many schools and their surrounding communities.
• He also mentioned how college sports serve as a “pipeline” for the U.S. Olympic Team and indicated that 75 percent of Team USA’s members in 2022 had participated in NCAA college sports.
• He remarked that college sports are “long overdue” for a change and stated that the NCAA has been pursuing reforms to college sports.
  • He mentioned how he had helped to establish a student athlete health insurance fund that will provide all athletes across all three NCAA divisions with access to health insurance for athletically-related injuries for up to two years post-NCAA eligibility or graduation.
  • He also noted how all NCAA Division I schools are now required to provide for their student athletes health care benefits, degree completion funds for at least ten years after the student athlete stops competing, and mental health services.
  • He further mentioned how college athletic scholarships are now protected and how schools must offer their student athletes academic counseling, financial literacy, and career preparation services.
• He stated that the NCAA has prioritized equitable championship experiences and testified that he had directed the NCAA’s national office leadership to make gender equity central to all of their actions.
  • He also testified that the NCAA is working to advance “common sense changes” to sports betting policies and enforcement policies.
• He further stated that the NCAA is advancing student athlete NIL compensation bylaws to improve outcomes for student athletes and asserted that student athletes deserve to profit from their NIL rights free from manipulation.
  • He called these changes “long overdue” and attributed these changes to calls for action from Congress and student athletes.
• He remarked however that there remain some challenges facing the NCAA that the NCAA cannot address unilaterally.
  • He noted how the NCAA’s new bylaw proposal would require college student athletes to disclose certain information to their schools only and would offer incentives to use fair contract terms and reputable agents.
• He expressed the NCAA’s desire to partner with Congress to enact policies that would curtail inducements in college sports and prevent NIL collectives and other third parties from tampering with student athletes.
• He also expressed the NCAA’s support for the establishment of a national standard for student athlete NIL compensation.
  • He commented that a “patchwork” of state laws currently governs the current student athlete NIL compensation landscape.
• He testified that schools, college athletic conferences, and the NCAA are making changes to their provided benefits and enabling enhanced benefits while protecting college athletic programs from a “one size fits all” approach.
• He called on Congress to codify current regulatory guidance into law through granting college student athletes with special status that would affirm that the student athletes are not employees.
  • He noted how the elected student athlete representatives from all three NCAA divisions have expressed concerns that the current legal landscape for college sports will eventually cause them to become classified employees.
  • He also mentioned how the athletic conferences representing the vast majority of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) have raised concerns over proposals to reclassify college athletic departments as employers.
• He further stated that Congress must ensure that NIL collectives do not discriminate based on race, gender, or sport in their marketing or facilitation of student athlete NIL compensation deals.
• He lastly called on Congress to grant limited liability protections to the NCAA.
  • He commented that these protections would enable the NCAA to set “reasonable” competition standards and to enforce student health and well-being requirements (with direction from Congress).

Mr. Tony Petitti (Big Ten Conference):

• He first mentioned how the Big Ten Conference is working closely with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) to develop federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
• He then recounted how he had played college baseball and commented that this experience had enabled him to pursue a higher education.
  • He commented that his experience is not unique.
• He remarked that college student athlete health and welfare is a top priority for the Big Ten Conference.
  • He testified that Big Ten Conference schools provide both on campus and post-separation medical care and mental health services to their student athletes.
• He noted that while the Big Ten Conference (and other Autonomy Five conferences) currently provide health and wellness benefits to their student athletes, he expressed the Big Ten Conference’s support for expanding the health and wellness benefits offered to their student athletes.
• He remarked that the longstanding college student athlete model has undergone an “incredible and rapid transformation.”
  • He commented that this transformation provides an opportunity to fundamentally modify the dynamics that exist for college student athletes.
• He testified that the Big Ten Conference is prepared to modernize its guidelines to create a new framework for collegiate athletics.
  • He commented that this new framework should more fairly provide benefits to student athletes directly from Conference member institutions, maintain broad-based sports opportunities for men and women, and uphold Title IX.
• He remarked that federal regulation is needed to address four main challenges in college sports and asserted that this regulation is needed to properly protect college student athletes and to support a new governing structure for college sports.
• He first discussed how there currently exist more than 30 different state laws related to student athlete NIL compensation rights.
  • He commented that many states are passing these laws to provide their in-state universities with a competitive advantage in student athlete recruiting through the promise of NIL compensation opportunities.
• He stated that a uniform federal statute governing student athlete NIL compensation is needed to preempt the current network of state laws.
  • He asserted that such federal legislation would provide certainty, equity, and competitive balance to college sports.
• He secondly remarked that the NCAA is currently unable to make or enforce “common sense” rules for governing college sports.
  • He attributed these challenges to a combination of court decisions, current litigation, and state actions.
• He stated that Congress should pass legislation to grant limited and conditional liability protections so that the NCAA can set and enforce “reasonable” competitive standards and promote student athlete welfare.
• He thirdly expressed concerns over the ability of schools, athletic conferences, and policymakers to effectively distinguish between true student athlete NIL compensation deals and “pay for play” inducement schemes.
  • He commented that the growth of NIL collectives makes it even more difficult to distinguish between such deals and schemes.
• He stated that NIL collectives are frequently inducing student athletes to attend specific institutions and to transfer schools without true NIL compensation deals.
  • He commented that this dynamic has resulted in a “pay for play” system that is primarily controlled by college boosters and that is executed under the guise of NIL compensation deals.
• He expressed concerns that the management of college sports is shifting aways from schools and toward NIL collectives.
• He testified that the Big Ten Conference would continue to support students making true business deals using their NIL rights and provide student athletes with the freedom to choose the institutions from which they will obtain an education.
  • He asserted however that the Big Ten Conference could not support such activity when it is tied to a “pay for play” scheme disguised as a NIL compensation opportunity.
• He raised concerns that many NIL collectives are seeking to create competitive advantages for their schools and are not subject to Title IX regulations.
  • He warned that continued Congressional inaction on NIL collectives will undermine the ability of college athletic conferences to manage college sports.
• He lastly raised concerns over proposals to classify college student athletes as employees of their schools.
  • He asserted that employment status is complex and contrary to the education model that has long flourished in American collegiate athletics.
• He expressed the Big Ten Conference’s support for policy proposals that would codify benefits for student athletes and guarantee consistency across states and sports without classifying student athletes as employees.
• He concluded that Congressional action will be key to enabling the Big Ten Conference to embrace the changes that are occurring within the college sports landscape.

Ms. Trinity Thomas (Gymnast, University of Florida):

• She mentioned how she had competed in college sports as a gymnast both before and after the advent of NIL compensation opportunities.
• She stated that one of the largest opportunities that college sports has provided her is the ability to benefit from the recent changes in NIL compensation policies.
  • She testified that it has taken her and her fellow student athletes time to navigate these new policies.
• She discussed how these student athlete NIL compensation policies have enabled her to interview with and sign with agencies, partner with various companies, learn entrepreneurship, build her personal brand, and work on “cool” and meaningful projects.
  • She mentioned how NIL compensation deals had enabled her to purchase gifts for family members, partner with gymnastics camps, and work with companies to support women’s sports.
• She stated however that the varying state laws and regulations governing student athlete NIL compensation deals can create challenges for student athletes seeking to participate in NIL compensation opportunities.
• She noted how there does not exist a single standard governing NIL compensation that applies to all student athletes and sports and commented that this situation can foster confusion.
  • She added that this variation in state laws and regulations can place certain student athletes at a disadvantage depending on where they go to school.
• She expressed support for the establishment of a federal student athlete NIL compensation policy that would apply to all student athletes from every sport at every school and at every NCAA division level.
  • She asserted that a federal standard would create equal opportunity for all student athletes to benefit from NIL compensation and eliminate confusion and unfair advantages.
• She stated that a federal student athlete NIL compensation policy would help to ensure that college sports (including gymnastics) are protected into the future.
• She noted how college sports serve as a platform for showcasing and developing Olympic talent and warned that state laws could threaten the viability of college sports.
  • She asserted that the loss of college sports would have consequences that extend beyond college campuses.
• She remarked that Congress must prioritize the protection of women’s and Olympic sports and highlighted how these sports provide many athletes with educational and NIL compensation opportunities.
• She expressed hope that Congress could develop a national standard for student athlete NIL compensation to improve the future of college athletics.

Mr. Ramogi Huma (National College Players Association):

• He mentioned how his organization, the National College Players Association (NCPA), had helped to develop the U.S.’s first state student athlete NIL compensation law and has successfully advocated for the passage of other state student athlete NIL compensation laws.
  • He noted how college student athletes now can earn NIL compensation in a manner similar to other college students and Americans.
• He remarked however that Congress should not make student athlete NIL compensation legislation a priority because college student athletes already can pursue NIL compensation opportunities.
• He stated that Congress should instead pursue comprehensive college sports reform legislation to protect college student athletes.
  • He commented that Congress should address the student athlete agent certification process as part of this broader reform package.
• He accused the NCAA of refusing to enforce safety standards for college student athletes and stated that NCAA rules do not prohibit college athletics personnel from forcing college student athletes back into a game with a concussion, sexually abusing student athletes, or killing student athletes through a hazardous workout.
  • He also stated that the NCAA has asserted that it has no duty to protect college student athletes.
• He highlighted how colleges receive federal funds and asserted that Congress must protect college student athletes.
• He expressed optimism that Congress can develop bipartisan legislation that can address some of the issues within the student athlete NIL compensation space and make broader reforms to college sports.
  • He indicated that these border reforms would include the enforcement of college sports safety standards, health care coverage for the sports-related medical expenses of student athletes, and a prohibition on sex-based discrimination.
• He mentioned how the NCPA has worked with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) to develop the College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act.
  • He explained that this legislation would address student athlete NIL compensation and provide broader reforms to college sports.
• He stated that any federal legislation related to college sports cannot include “poison pill” provisions that would threaten its political viability.
  • He indicated that these provisions include those that would provide for or prohibit student athlete revenue sharing, address student athlete employment status classification, and give the NCAA an antitrust exemption.
  • He asserted that these provisions may impede the ability of Congress to reach bipartisan agreement in other areas.
• He expressed the NCPA’s opposition to providing the NCAA with an antitrust exemption and stated that antitrust lawsuits, U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) antitrust investigations, and state laws targeting the NCAA’s antitrust violations have resulted in economic freedoms and protections for college student athletes. 
  • He commented that antitrust laws are responsible for the NCAA no longer being able to engage in price fixing an athletic scholarship below the cost of attendance, limit scholarships to only one year, prohibit colleges from providing medical coverage to their student athletes, or ban athletes from earning NIL compensation.
• He called the NCAA a “chronic antitrust violator” and asserted that the NCAA’s actions demonstrate the need for antitrust laws.
• He also raised concerns over conference realignment within college sports and stated that this realignment will require college student athletes to spend additional hours traveling for sports events at the expense of their academics and health.
  • He described conference realignment as a “greedy TV money grab” and asserted that conference realignment harms college student athletes and their ability to pursue an education.
  • He noted how the student athletes engaged in revenue generating college sports are predominantly Black and highlighted how Black college football and basketball players suffer the lowest graduation rates among student athletes.
• He further raised concerns that the emergence of “mega-conferences” will reduce the likelihood of teams winning their conferences.
  • He asserted that schools are pursuing conference realignment for financial reasons so that they can increase salaries for coaches and athletic administrators and purchase newer facilities.
• He remarked that Congress should pass legislation to base college athletic conference realignment on “reasonable” regional proximity and to limit the number of colleges in a given conference.

Mr. Walker Jones (The Grove Collective):

• He indicated that his NIL collective, the Grove Collective, represents student athletes at the University of Mississippi.
  • He also mentioned how he is a founding member of TCA which is composed of 25 NIL collectives from Power Five schools.
• He mentioned how current data shows that NIL collectives are responsible for approximately 80 percent of the money being paid to NCAA student athletes through their NIL activities.
• He expressed the TCA’s interest in partnering with lawmakers to develop federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • He commented that NIL collectives are unique in that they work with all college sports stakeholders on student athlete NIL compensation deals.
• He remarked that TCA is “very bullish” on college athletics and asserted that most of the commerce associated student athlete NIL compensation is positive.
  • He commented that NIL compensation allows for college student athletes to solve for socioeconomic issues, stay in school longer to further their academic careers, locate the best possible situations athletically, and become greater contributors to society post-graduation.
• He discussed how television viewership for college football and college basketball is growing and stated that student athletes have unprecedented opportunities to maximize their value.
  • He acknowledged that while the student athlete NIL compensation landscape is experiencing “growing pains,” he asserted that the overall health of college sports is strong.
• He stated that NIL collectives were formed in response to the need for college student athletes to have a stable, secure, and trusted entity representing their interests.
• He remarked that student athletes trust NIL collectives and acknowledged that this trust has caused some tension between the collectives and their affiliated institutions, athletic conferences, and the NCAA.
  • He stated however that the singular focus of NIL collectives is on student athletes and cautioned that the absence of NIL collectives would force student athletes to navigate the “new and constantly evolving” NIL compensation environment on their own.
• He also testified that NIL collectives work with all college student athletes and do not exclusively focus on high profile student athletes.
• He noted that while college football and men’s college basketball players receive most of the benefits from NIL collectives, he stated that the efforts of NIL collectives have particularly benefited women’s and non-revenue college sports.
  • He mentioned how female student athlete NIL compensation deals had increased by 20 percent from 2021 to 2022 and predicted that there will occur an even larger increase at the end of 2023.
• He remarked that NIL collectives seek to create opportunities for student athletes to match with national sponsors, local sponsors, non-profit organizations, and charities while providing avenues for college student athletes to interact with their fan bases.
  • He indicated that NIL collectives are independent businesses that are separate from universities and the athletic departments and asserted that this independence best serves the student athletes.
  • He noted how NIL collectives provide resources and tools to help student athletes to monetize their NIL rights and prepare for their future professions and careers.
• He stated that NIL collectives provide best practices and standards to keep bad actors out of the marketplace and to ensure the sustainability of the college sports model.
  • He also testified that NIL collectives provide transparency and disclosure to their university partners to remain compliant with state and NCAA rules and regulations.
• He expressed the commitment of NIL collectives to diversity and inclusion in sourcing NIL opportunities for all college student athletes, regardless of the sport that the student athletes play.
• He then emphasized that NIL collectives are not owned by other entities and do not serve as agents or financial advisors for college student athletes.
  • He indicated however that most NIL collectives provide financial literacy education and tax planning assistance to their student athletes.
• He also testified that NIL collectives do not participate in the college student athlete recruiting process and desire to only work with student athletes once the athletes have decided to attend their affiliated schools.
  • He asserted that coaches and athletic departments are best suited to handle student athlete recruiting under the “strict” monitoring of the NCAA.
• He stated that most NIL collectives operate as full-time businesses with infrastructure and staff and provide transparency to their universities and constituents.

Ms. Jill Bodensteiner (Saint Joseph’s University):

• She remarked that college athletics is “extraordinarily diverse” and stated that college athletics is functioning well at her school, Saint Joseph’s University.
  • She cautioned Congress against transitioning all college student athletes across the U.S. to employee status based largely on one sport’s issues.
• She discussed how Saint Joseph’s University has 478 student athletes (which equates to 10 percent of the school’s student body) and offers 20 sports (which do not include football).
• She stated that Saint Joseph’s University’s athletic department has an “incredible” culture that focuses on the holistic development of college student athletes.
  • She indicated that the school’s student athletes attend class and can freely select their majors.
  • She also noted that more than half of her school’s student athletes participate in sports that are not bound to a regular season (which means that these student athletes rarely need to engage in overnight travel and miss classes).
• She testified that Saint Joseph University’s student athletes outperform the school’s non-student athletes in terms of grade point average (GPA), retention rates, and graduation rates.
  • She mentioned that while the school has many student athletes that are former Olympians, professional athletes, and hall of fame coaches, she indicated that most of the school’s pursue successful careers outside of sports.
• She noted that just 3.9 percent of Saint Joseph University’s student athletes had transferred in the previous year and testified that the school’s athletic department’s annual expense budget is “just over” $20 million.
  • She indicated that almost half of this budget goes toward student financial aid.
  • She added that many Power Five schools have athletic budgets that are almost ten times as large as Saint Joseph’s University.
• She stated that Saint Joseph’s University’s athletic revenues (while growing) are less than the school’s athletic expenses.
  • She testified that Saint Joseph’s University covers about 80 percent of its athletic department’s expenses per year.
• She remarked that Saint Joseph’s University makes investments in its athletics department because these investments benefit and enrich the students that participate in college sports.
  • She added that college sports help to prepare student athletes to become future leaders.
• She also stated that NCAA Division I athletics benefit the entirety of Saint Joseph’s University through creating a more vibrant campus and providing the school with national exposure.
• She remarked that Saint Joseph’s University is not waiting for new NCAA rules to protect the health and safety of their student athletes.
  • She commented that her school protects the health and safety of their student athletes because such protection aligns with their moral mission.
  • She mentioned how school employs “dozens” of people whose sole job is to support the physical well-being, mental well-being, and academic success of their student athletes.
• She then testified that Saint Joseph’s University’s athletic department’s second greatest operating expense is student athlete insurance premiums and medical expenses.
  • She indicated that the department’s greatest operating expense is team travel.
• She remarked that college sports is currently functioning well for student athletes and schools and asserted that the main crisis facing college sports is the threat of student athletes becoming classified as employees of their schools.
  • She stated that college student athletes do not want to apply for posted positions when their primary goal is education.
  • She also stated that college student athletes do not want to go through state workers’ compensation systems when they experience injuries or track their athletic activities to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).
• She indicated that schools will need to transition financial aid to wages if student athletes were to be classified as employees.
  • She described the taxation differences between wages and tuition as “extreme” and commented that this taxation would harm student athletes.
• She further highlighted how an employee classification for college student athletes would prevent foreign student athletes from participating in college sports because employee classification would conflict with the terms of the F-1 Visa Program.
• She remarked however that the U.S. “desperately” needs reform to the student athlete NIL compensation system.
  • She commented that NIL endorsement deals would especially benefit female student athletes who have limited professional sports opportunities and whose economic value peaks during their college athletic careers.
• She asserted that the U.S.’s current student athlete NIL compensation system is “untenable” for three reasons.
  • She first stated that NIL collectives are engaged in bidding wars for the attendance and retention of student athletes.
  • She secondly stated that Title IX does not apply to NIL collectives under current rules, which results in a disproportionate share of NIL collective funds going to male student athletes.
  • She lastly stated that the “patchwork” of conflicting state NIL compensation laws is confusing to everyone (especially the student athletes) and have created a “profoundly unequal playing field.”

Mr. Jack Swarbrick (University of Notre Dame):

• He remarked that college sports provide many Americans with a pathway to education, leadership development, and future opportunities.
  • He commented that college sports have provided educational opportunities for first generation Americans, increased the diversity of schools, contributed to school communities, and sustained and supported the U.S. Olympic Team.
• He stated however that college sports must evolve if they are to continue to deliver the aforementioned benefits.
• He mentioned how University of Notre Dame President John Jenkins had been the first university president in the U.S. to call for student athletes to gain the right to monetize their NIL rights in 2015.
  • He also indicated that President Jenkins had recently called for a medical trust fund and graduation guarantees for student athletes.
• He stated that the University of Notre Dame’s support for student athlete NIL compensation rights is based on normalizing the experience of student athletes against that of non-student athletes.
  • He noted that non-student athletes have the right to monetize their NIL rights and asserted that student athletes should have the same right as these non-student athletes.
• He expressed the University of Notre Dame’s support for the NCAA’s efforts to reform the rules governing student athlete NIL compensation and to provide medical and graduation protections for student athletes.
  • He also asserted that the U.S. must do more to ensure that the ability of college student athletes to transfer schools does not undermine the ability of student athletes to obtain an education.
• He remarked that the NCAA and its member schools require Congressional assistance in three areas.
• He first stated that Congress must ensure that student athletes remain students and not be classified as employees.
  • He commented that this student status is being attacked administratively, through litigation, and through state legislation.
• He further asserted that college student athletes do not want to be classified as employees and warned that this classification poses particular risks to Olympic sport and female student athletes.
  • He commented that such classification will create a pressure for schools to separate these sports, which can pose funding challenges for the sports.
• He secondly stated that Congress must preempt the “myriad” of state student athlete NIL compensation laws and noted how these state laws set different standards for college athletics.
  • He asserted that college athletics is the “quintessential” example of interstate commerce and highlighted how the University of Notre Dame has more of its contests held outside of Indiana than within the state.
• He lastly stated that Congress must work to satisfy the interest of student athletes in competitive equity.
  • He commented that this could be accomplished through either empowering the NCAA in “limited areas” to enable competitive equity or developing a process where schools and their student athletes could set rules for college sports.

Congressional Question Period:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):

• Sen. Blumenthal remarked that college sports often serve as a unifying force for communities and provide opportunities for students. He asserted that Congress must address the current issues within college sports. He mentioned how there exists opposition to proposals that would classify student athletes as employees of their schools. He also noted how there appears to exist support for legislation that would address topics beyond student athlete NIL compensation. He commended Saint Joseph’s University and the University of Notre Dame for their self-motivated efforts to expand protections for their student athletes. He then stated that the U.S. must avoid a “race to the bottom” in terms of its student athlete NIL compensation landscape. He raised concerns that the current inconsistency in state student athlete NIL compensation policies has led to bidding wars between schools for student athletes that can make student athletes vulnerable to predatory deals and agents. He then expressed interest in pursuing reforms to college sports that would reduce the need for student athletes to be classified as employees. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether they would oppose the creation of a medical trust fund to cover health care expenses for the long-term injuries experienced by student athletes. (Note: None of the witnesses indicated their opposition to Sen. Blumenthal’s medical trust fund proposal). He also asked the witnesses to indicate whether they would oppose guaranteeing the scholarships of student athletes that suffer career ending injuries or are cut from a team. (Note: None of the witnesses indicated their opposition to Sen. Blumenthal’s proposal for guaranteed scholarship proposal). He then asked the witnesses to indicate whether they would oppose setting enforceable health and safety standards to protect student athletes from serious injury, mistreatment, abuse, and death. (Note: None of the witnesses indicated their opposition to Sen. Blumenthal’s proposal for health and safety standards). He further asked the witnesses to indicate whether they would oppose requiring “high revenue” schools to support the insurance costs and out-of-pocket medical expenses of student athletes. (Note: None of the witnesses indicated their opposition to Sen. Blumenthal’s proposal to have “high revenue” schools support student athlete insurance costs and out-of-pocket medical expenses). He remarked that the lack of opposition from the witnesses to his proposed student athlete protections demonstrate the need for college sports reforms beyond the issue of student athlete NIL compensation. He then discussed how female college student athletes earn approximately $900 per NIL compensation deal while male college student athletes earn approximately $3,000 per NIL compensation deal. He stated that the U.S. must address this disparity. He asked Ms. Thomas and Ms. Bodensteiner to comment on the disparate treatment of men and women in college sports.
  • Ms. Thomas remarked that men and women do receive disparate treatment in college sports. She stated that she must work harder than her male student athlete counterparts to receive fair NIL compensation.
  • Ms. Bodensteiner mentioned how Saint Joseph’s University’s men’s college basketball players have engaged more with the school’s NIL collective relative to the school’s female student athletes. She called it “essential” that the U.S. work to ensure that male and female college student athletes have equal opportunities to participate in NIL compensation deals.
• Sen. Blumenthal indicated that his question period time had expired.

Full Committee Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-SC):

• Ranking Member Graham asked Mr. Swarbrick and Mr. Baker to project the consequences of Congressional inaction on college sports issues.
  • Mr. Swarbrick predicted that courts will likely rule that student athletes are employees and subject to the FLSA if Congress does not pass legislation to address college sports. He stated that these court rulings would likely occur in a serial fashion and create “unsustainable” differences in classifications between states. He also warned that the U.S. will continue to have a “patchwork” of state student athlete NIL compensation laws absent federal legislation. He remarked that Congress must immediately address these problems while it pursues broader reforms to college sports.
  • Mr. Baker first highlighted that there does not exist publicly available information regarding the gender breakdown of student athlete NIL compensation deals. He called for increased transparency for student athlete NIL compensation deals. He mentioned how many college sports reporters will not write stories about student athlete NIL compensation deals because they do not trust the veracity of the available data on these deals.
• Ranking Member Graham interjected to ask Mr. Jones to identify the current highest paid college football player in terms of NIL compensation.
  • Mr. Jones expressed uncertainty regarding who is the highest paid college student athlete in terms of NIL compensation. He stated that Louisiana State University gymnast Olivia Dunne is likely the highest grossing student athlete in terms of NIL compensation. He estimated that that Ms. Dunne has made “well into the seven figures” through her endorsement deals.
• Ranking Member Graham asked Mr. Petitti to project the consequences of Congressional inaction on college sports issues.
  • Mr. Petitti raised concerns that Congress’s failure to address the college sports landscape will result in state laws, litigation, and employment actions governing this landscape. He commented that this situation would foster uncertainty for college sports.
• Ranking Member Graham interjected to raise concerns that there would be “chaos” in college sports because of the NCAA’s transfer portal and its ability to facilitate the poaching of student athletes. He asked Mr. Petitti to indicate whether there will be a “bidding war” for student athletes in college sports.
  • Mr. Petitti answered affirmatively and added that the Big Ten Conference’s coaches would likely share Ranking Member Graham’s sentiment. He also asserted that NIL collectives are often not engaging in true NIL compensation deals with student athletes.
• Ranking Member Graham remarked that college athletics must be available to men and women at every level. He asked Ms. Thomas to indicate whether the University of Florida’s gymnastics team makes money for the school.
  •  Ms. Thomas indicated that she did not know whether the University of Florida’s gymnastics team makes money for the school.
• Ranking Member Graham asked Ms. Bodensteiner to confirm that many college athletic programs are not profitable.
  • Ms. Bodensteiner confirmed that many college athletic programs are not profitable.
• Ranking Member Graham expressed concerns over the future financial viability of certain college sports. He then asked Mr. Baker to project how classifying student athletes as employees would impact NCAA Division II schools.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that NCAA Division II and Division III schools would eliminate their athletic programs if student athletes were to be classified as employees.
• Ranking Member Graham asserted that many schools cannot afford to classify their student athletes as employees.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that classifying student athletes as employees would fundamentally alter college sports. He estimated that this classification would cause student athletic program costs to increase by 400 percent. He noted how a typical NCAA Division II and Division III school’s athletic budget ranges between $5 million and $6 million. He emphasized that 95 percent of schools lose money on their athletic programs. He further stated that classifying student athletes as employees would have a “profound” impact on many NCAA Division I schools.
• Ranking Member Graham asked the witnesses to indicate whether the Committee should strive to make college sports available to many people at different levels, to which all of the witnesses answered affirmatively. He expressed interest in having Congress pass legislation to address student athlete NIL compensation. He warned that Congress’s failure to address this issue within one year will result in irreversible damage to college sports.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI):

• Sen. Whitehouse first expressed interest in working to help student athletes to avoid unfair NIL compensation contracts. He explained that these unfair contracts can involve lengthy exclusivity periods and excessive fees. He also commented that student athletes are often not ready to understand or negotiate their contracts. He secondly noted that while star student athletes should have ready access to NIL compensation deals, he expressed concerns over how the expected increase in student athlete NIL compensation will impact non-star student athletes, non-revenue-generating sports, and schools that lack star student athletes and revenue-generating sports. He commented that the establishment of a new fund may address these issues. He lastly discussed how many student athletes experience injuries as part of their participation in college sports. He expressed interest in developing a medical trust fund that could cover a student athlete’s expenses for college sports-related injuries (including injuries that are manifested later in life). He mentioned how the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) maintains similar medical trust funds that cover health care costs for veterans that have experienced military service-related exposures and injuries. He requested that the hearing’s witnesses respond to these concerns in writing for the hearing’s record.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA):

• Sen. Grassley asked the witnesses to indicate whether a lack of federal preemption of state student athlete NIL compensation laws will raise Title IX concerns. He also asked the witnesses to provide recommendations for how Congress could mitigate Title IX concerns as part of federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • Mr. Huma noted how Title IX is a federal law and can be enforced against schools. He stated however that it can be difficult to ascertain the extent to which NIL collectives are working with schools. He indicated that the College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act would provide clarity as to whether NIL collectives are acting as extensions of their schools (and should thus be subject to Title IX rules). He remarked that the granting of student athlete NIL compensation rights is based on the idea that student athletes deserve opportunities to participate in the free market. He stated however that free markets are not always equitable and elaborated that advertisers will often seek out sponsors from certain demographics. He noted however that Congress does not try to intervene when a certain demographic disproportionately receives sponsorship deals. He commented that the fact that male student athletes receive more NIL compensation deals than female student athletes can be a reflection of broader societal inequities. He also discussed how football and basketball generate most of the revenue in college sports and highlighted how most of the student athletes that play these sports are Black. He commented that NIL compensation deals may therefore disproportionately benefit Black student athletes. He remarked that policymakers must distinguish their oversight and regulation of student athlete NIL compensation between NIL compensation deals from third parties and NIL compensation deals from NIL collectives (assuming that the NIL collectives act as extensions of a school). He stated that Congress should be cautious to not dictate the terms of third-party NIL deals for just college student athletes (especially considering how these athletes are disproportionately Black).
  • Mr. Jones emphasized that the student athlete NIL compensation marketplace is just three years old and stated that the marketplace is still evolving. He mentioned how there has been an uptick in NIL compensation deals involving women’s sports. He testified that his NIL collective has tripled its roster of female student athletes over the previous year. He also highlighted how the NIL collective’s first team-wide NIL compensation deal was with the University of Mississippi’s women’s basketball team. He further noted how some of the college student athletes earning the most money from NIL compensation deals are female student athletes. He remarked that the application of Title IX to his NIL collective would not change the collective’s operations. He stated that his NIL collective seeks to have a diverse and inclusive student athlete roster because brands are demanding this diversity and inclusivity. He acknowledged that while there currently does not exist gender parity in student athlete NIL compensation deals, he indicated that progress toward gender parity is occurring within this space.
• Sen. Grassley indicated that he would submit additional questions for the hearing’s record in writing.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):

• Sen. Coons expressed agreement with Mr. Swarbrick’s statements that college sports can provide a pathway to education, leadership, and opportunity. He also commended Mr. Swarbrick’s support for the creation of a medical trust fund and graduation guarantees for college student athletes. He then expressed interest in exploring whether student athletes ought to be considered employees of their schools. He mentioned how the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are examining this issue. He noted how the University of Notre Dame, Saint Joseph’s University, and the University of Delaware have expressed opposition to proposals to classify student athletes as employees of their schools. He asked Mr. Swarbrick to explain why the University of Notre Dame opposes these proposals to classify student athletes as employees. He also asked Mr. Swarbrick to project how such classification of student athletes as employees would harm college sports (both at the University of Notre Dame and at other schools).
  • Mr. Swarbrick remarked that the U.S.’s intercollegiate athletics model is unique because it integrates athletics into the educational system. He stated that this model allows for athletes to have the same rights and privileges as students. He warned that classifying college student athletes as employees will eliminate these rights and privileges for the student athletes and will prevent them from deriving educational value. He noted how the vast majority of college student athletes will not pursue professional sports careers post-graduation. He stated that education is the primary value of the college student athletic experience and asserted that the U.S. must protect the ability of student athletes to receive an education. He remarked that the elimination of this education benefit would cause “enormous damage” to student athletes.
• Sen. Coons remarked that Congress must act swiftly to address the current changes that are occurring within college sports. He then asked Ms. Bodensteiner to indicate whether there exist factors that are applicable to all schools that Congress should consider when developing student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • Ms. Bodensteiner indicated that she tends to share the same views as Power Five Conference colleagues regarding student athlete NIL compensation. She remarked that classifying student athletes as employees would pose unique challenges for schools, including taxation and human resources challenges. She elaborated that such classification would force Saint Joseph University’s human resources department to work with 487 new employees (i.e., student athletes) and added that this employee pool would have significant annual turnover. She also reiterated that Saint Joseph University’s annual athletic budget is $20 million and annual athletic revenues are just $4 million. She warned that classifying student athletes as employees would threaten the future viability of her school’s athletic program.
• Sen. Coons further asked Mr. Baker to identify the most critical provisions that Congress should include as part of federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation should preempt state laws on the topic. He highlighted how most college athletic conferences include schools from multiple states. He expressed agreement with Ms. Thomas’s assertion that there should exist one set of rules governing student athlete NIL compensation for all student athletes across all sports and all schools. He also called on Congress to ensure that student athletes remain classified as students (and not as employees). He then remarked that Congress should grant limited liability protections to the NCAA so that they can better govern student athlete NIL compensation. He expressed concerns that schools and states may eventually challenge minimum academic standards for college student athletes and asserted that the NCAA must be able to enforce rules for college sports. He further remarked that Congress must make the student athlete NIL compensation market more transparent and commented that no one knows the current state of this market. He contended that student athletes should have more visibility into the NIL compensation market’s price signals so that the student athletes can make more informed decisions. He lastly expressed interest in having Congress establish national health and safety standards to protect student athletes.
• Sen. Coons expressed interest in promoting transparency and fairness in student athlete NIL compensation, as well as preserving the educational mission of college sports.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA):

• Sen. Kennedy discussed how college sports has generated “enormous revenues” for many years. He mentioned how the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in their 2021 NCAA v. Alston decision that student athletes should share in the revenues generated from college sports. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether this decision had resulted in chaos for college sports.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision provides wealthier schools with more flexibility to make payments to their student athletes in particular sports. He noted that these payments (known as Alston payments) must satisfy Title IX requirements.
• Sen. Kennedy interjected to asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision had upended college sports because it had allowed student athletes to receive some of the revenues generated by college sports.
  • Mr. Baker expressed support for U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision and student athlete NIL compensation. He stated however that there should exist more transparency surrounding student athlete NIL compensation deals so that student athletes can better navigate this space.
• Sen. Kennedy recommended that the NCAA and other college sports stakeholders work together to develop a new system for governing student athlete NIL compensation. He warned that a Congressionally designed system may have an inferior design and lead to excessive federal incursion into college sports. He then asked the witnesses to indicate whether the current debate surrounding student athlete NIL compensation is centered around the fact that student athletes can now receive some of the revenues generated by college sports.
  • Mr. Huma expressed agreement with Sen. Kennedy’s description of the current debate surrounding student athlete NIL compensation. He stated that the college sports industry had maintained a monopoly on the NIL value of college student athletes prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision and the passage of state student athlete NIL compensation laws. He also noted how many schools had previously complained that permitting student athletes to directly partner with sponsors on NIL compensation deals would cause them to lose money. He asserted that this complaint constitutes an implicit admission that schools had previously stolen money from their student athletes. He contended that schools are opposed to fairly paying student athletes for the value that they generate. He stated that the NCAA engages in national price fixing with student athletes through only permitting schools to provide a standard scholarship to all of their student athletes. He further questioned claims from the NCAA and schools that employee status is not feasible for student athletes. He noted how schools will employ students to work in their bookstores and commented that these student employees do not appear to have their educational opportunities harmed. He accused the college sports industry of violating antitrust laws and labor laws. He noted how student athletes are beginning to gain rights and disputed the claims that these new rights would undermine the viability of college sports.
• Sen. Kennedy expressed agreement with Mr. Huma’s comments. He remarked that the current debate surrounding student athlete NIL compensation is centered around how the revenues generated from college sports are distributed. He expressed support for permitting student athletes to share in these generated revenues.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):

• Sen. Blumenthal asserted that the College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act does not attempt to micromanage college sports. He also attributed the recent growth in benefits for student athletes to the work of student athlete advocates.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA):

• Sen. Kennedy indicated that he did not intend to degenerate any Congressional efforts to address student athlete NIL compensation. He remarked however that Congress should take a prudent approach to the issue to guard against the creation of overly prescriptive standards.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ):

• Sen. Booker remarked that college sports reform has been a top priority for him during his entire tenure in the U.S. Senate. He called college sports “one of the best parts of American culture” and mentioned how football had enabled him to attend college. He lamented however that many of his friends who had played college sports must now cover the long-term medical costs of sports-related injuries and mentioned how many of these friends have experienced chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) symptoms. He also lamented how student athletes often must devote significant time to sports-related activities, which can force them to delay graduation. He noted how these student athletes will often need to pay for the portion of their college educations that extend beyond their college sports careers. He further lamented how the families of student athletes often could not afford to attend college sports games while schools could sell jerseys of the student athletes for their own profit. He noted that while the NCAA has long claimed to be concerned about the health, safety, and well-being of college student athletes, he stated that the NCAA has only taken action to address these issues in response to public pressure. He thanked Mr. Baker, Mr. Petitti, and Mr. Huma for working with Congress to develop reforms for college sports. He remarked that college student athletes deserve basic standards of health, safety, and justice and expressed optimism that federal bipartisan legislation to reform college sports is possible. He then discussed how college student athletes experience significant physical and mental demands playing sports while balancing their academic schedules. He asked Ms. Thomas to explain why Congress should prioritize the health, safety, mental health, and well-being of college student athletes as part of any college sports legislation.
  • Ms. Thomas described being a student athlete as “super difficult.” She noted how college sports involve a significant time commitment in terms of academics, conditioning, practice, training, travel, and competition.
• Sen. Booker reiterated his appreciation for Mr. Baker, Mr. Petitti, and Mr. Huma for working with Congress to develop reforms for college sports. He also thanked the University of Notre Dame for their efforts to make improvements to college sports.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC):

• Sen. Tillis asked Mr. Huma to explain his assertion that the NCAA has no duty to protect college student athletes.
  • Mr. Huma noted how the NCAA had asserted that it has no legal duty to protect college athletes in response to a lawsuit from the family of Derek Sheely. He explained that Derek Sheely was a college football player who had died during a practice. He stated that the NCAA has maintained this position in its responses to subsequent lawsuits.
• Sen. Tillis noted how schools are primarily responsible for the health and safety of student athletes. He also stated that schools should have a natural incentive to ensure that their student athletes remain healthy so that people will watch their athletic competitions. He asked Ms. Bodensteiner to indicate whether schools prioritize the health and safety of their student athletes.
  • Ms. Bodensteiner remarked that Saint Joseph’s University proactively protects its student athletes and is not awaiting the announcement of new NCAA rules to provide protections. She added that her school maintains a robust insurance policy to protect its student athletes in the event of a health or safety incident.
• Sen. Tillis interjected to comment that schools want their star student athletes to be healthy because these star student athletes attract spectators to athletic competitions (which in turn generates revenue). He then asked Ms. Thomas to discuss the income that she is receiving from her NIL compensation deals.
  • Ms. Thomas indicated that she did not feel comfortable sharing this information.
• Sen. Tillis commented that media reports on student athlete NIL compensation deals have often focused on the highest earning student athletes. He noted however there have also been media reports of student athletes who are using their NIL compensation deals to cover their tuition costs. He asked Mr. Jones to indicate whether there exist student athletes that are making modest NIL income that is simply being used to cover tuition costs.
  • Mr. Jones remarked that many student athletes are using NIL income to solve for socioeconomic issues. He elaborated that these issues could include paying off debts and purchasing flights and tickets for their family members to attend their sporting events. He further stated that student athlete NIL compensation can enable student athletes to afford to remain in school longer so that they can pursue their academic careers.
• Sen. Tillis expressed support for student athlete NIL compensation and commented that there appears to exist general support for student athlete NIL compensation at the hearing. He remarked however that there must exist federal rules governing this issue. He discussed how there exists a “patchwork” of state student athlete NIL compensation laws and asserted that Congress must address these differing laws. He asked Mr. Swarbrick to indicate whether there exists a state student athlete NIL compensation law that should serve as a model for federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • Mr. Swarbrick remarked that there currently does not exist a state student athlete NIL compensation law that Congress should use as a model for federal legislation. He commented that these state laws have been motivated by a “race to the bottom” so that states can advantage their own schools in student athlete recruiting. He remarked that Congress should work to ensure that student athlete NIL compensation deals are actually based on the use of NIL rights. He commented that this approach would address Title IX issues in college sports and highlighted how the most popular college basketball player currently is a woman. He noted how entire college teams will have NIL compensation deals, even though most of the team’s athletes may not be well known.
  • Mr. Jones expressed support for federal regulation of student athlete NIL compensation (including a federal preemption of state student athlete NIL compensation laws).
• Sen. Tillis reiterated his support for federal regulation of student athlete NIL compensation. He also expressed concerns over proposals to classify student athletes as employees and warned that this classification would render certain college sports unviable.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN):

• Sen. Klobuchar expressed interest in working to pass federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation. She asked Mr. Baker to elaborate on how the NCAA’s new policies will help financial outcomes for student athletes. She specifically expressed interest in the NCAA’s new policies related to financial literacy, standard contract terms, and agent registration.
  • Mr. Baker testified that the NCAA’s Division I Council is working on policies that should be voted on before the end of the year. He stated that these policies are meant to create transparency and accountability for college sports. He mentioned how many schools already offer financial literacy courses to their student athletes and expressed the NCAA’s support for requiring all schools to offer these courses to their student athletes. He then discussed how the NCAA’s proposed uniform standard contract would provide a contract that represents basic terms. He indicated that agents that do not wish to use this uniform standard contract would need to explain to student athletes and their families why they do not wish to use this contract. He further noted how the NCAA has proposed requiring student athletes to disclose the terms of their NIL compensation deals to their schools. He indicated that this disclosed information would be de-identified and incorporated into a public distribution. He commented that this information would allow college student athletes to assess the types of NIL compensation deals that are occurring within their sports. He lastly mentioned how the NCAA is seeking to establish an agent registry, which would require agents to affirmatively state that they are working for their clients (among other things). He lamented how many agents have taken advantage of student athletes.
• Sen. Klobuchar then mentioned how 31 states have passed their own student athlete NIL compensation laws. She asked Mr. Petitti to address how the U.S.’s inconsistent state student athlete NIL compensation laws put schools in states without such laws (including her state of Minnesota) at a disadvantage.
  • Mr. Petitti remarked that states with student athlete NIL compensation laws now have an advantage in attracting student athlete recruits and transfers. He noted how the Big Ten Conference contains member institutions across multiple states and remarked that his Conference desires some level of competitive balance. He commented that there are already factors impacting competitiveness, including different sized stadiums. He remarked that states are passing increasingly generous student athlete NIL compensation laws to gain advantages for their schools in college sports.
• Sen. Klobuchar asked Ms. Thomas to indicate whether the U.S.’s lack of a national student athlete NIL compensation standard creates challenges for student athletes.
  • Ms. Thomas remarked that the U.S.’s lack of a national student athlete NIL compensation standard creates difficulty and confusion for student athletes.
• Sen. Klobuchar then mentioned how the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation had worked to pass the Equal Pay for Team USA Act to address gender pay and resource disparities for Team USA. She asked Ms. Bodensteiner to address how Congress can ensure that these disparities do not persist within the student athlete NIL compensation space.
  • Ms. Bodensteiner remarked that Congress can ensure that gender pay and resource disparities do not persist within the student athlete NIL compensation space through providing transparency for NIL compensation deals and ensuring that NIL compensation deals actually involve the use of NIL rights. She lamented how NIL compensation deals are often used as a way to surreptitiously pay student athletes to attend schools.
• Sen. Klobuchar then recounted how the Committee held a 2021 hearing in which several members of the U.S. women’s gymnastics team had testified that they had experienced sexual abuse while on the team. She asked Mr. Petitti to discuss the measures that the Big Ten Conference and its member schools are implementing to ensure that these types of abuses do not reoccur.
  • Mr. Petitti remarked that the Big Ten Conference’s top priority is to provide a safe environment for student athletes, coaches, and the students that work in athletic departments. He mentioned how the Big Ten Conference had been the first athletic conference to install a chief medical officer. He noted how this chief medical officer works to ensure that its member schools can provide safe environments for their student athletes.
• Sen. Klobuchar indicated that she would submit additional questions for the hearing’s record to Mr. Huma regarding long-term health and disability benefits for student athletes.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO):

• Sen. Hawley discussed how several student groups at NCAA member schools have made statements supporting Hamas’s recent attacks against Israel. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether he would condemn recent antisemitic rhetoric and violence at NCAA member schools.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that support for violence should always be condemned and asserted that unprovoked attacks on innocent people are never excusable. He stated that the U.S. has a cultural problem with violence and called on all policymakers to condemn violence whenever it occurs.
• Sen. Hawley expressed agreement with Mr. Baker’s response and commended the NCAA for its condemnation of violence against Israel and American Jews. He noted that while the First Amendment protects the ability of college students and faculty to say whatever they want peacefully, he asserted that Congress and school leaders do not need to condone these statements and treat the statements as morally acceptable. He then recounted how a female college swimmer had told the Committee that the NCAA had forced her and other female swimmers to share a locker room with a biological male in 2022. He also mentioned how the female college swimmer had told the Committee that the NCAA had not provided her or other female swimmers with notice regarding this decision or an opportunity to consent to the decision. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether the NCAA still maintains this policy of forcing female swimmers to share locker rooms with biological males.
  • Mr. Baker first stated that he would not defend the NCAA’s 2022 actions and mentioned how he had been serving as Governor of Massachusetts when this incident had occurred. He testified that the NCAA maintains “very specific” rules and standards regarding the safety and security of its student athletes. He indicated that any venue hosting an NCAA national championship must affirm that they understand these rules and standards and abide by these rules and standards.
• Sen. Hawley asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether the NCAA’s rules and standards require female student athletes to share locker rooms with biological male student athletes without being provided with advanced warning and the ability to provide consent.
  • Mr. Baker testified that he did not believe that the NCAA would require female student athletes to share locker rooms with biological male student athletes without being provided with advanced warning and the ability to provide consent.
• Sen. Hawley then asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether he would support the right of student athletes to unionize so that they could better negotiate with the NCAA. He commented that schools and the NCAA currently possess significant power over college student athletes.
  • Mr. Baker noted how the NCAA is currently engaged in litigation related to student athlete unionization, which limits his ability to discuss the topic. He raised concerns over proposals to classify all student athletes as employees, regardless of sport and school. He warned that the application of employee status to student athletes would cause many college programs to be eliminated because such a policy change would fundamentally redefine college sports.
• Sen. Hawley remarked that the U.S. must find some way to empower student athletes to provide input into college sports topics, including safety and NIL compensation. He commented that there exists a large power imbalance between the NCAA and student athletes.
  • Mr. Baker highlighted how the NCAA maintains three student athlete advisory councils and indicated that the student athlete members of these councils are elected by their peers. He testified that these advisory councils had expressed “deep concerns” about proposals to classify student athletes as employees. He further stated that he had not spoken to a single student athlete since he joined the NCAA that wants to be an employee.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

• Sen. Blackburn expressed interest in addressing student athlete NIL compensation and the presence of men in women’s sports. She raised concerns over the “patchwork” of state student athlete NIL compensation laws and commented that these differences can impact student athlete recruiting and NIL collective oversight. She asked Mr. Baker to indicate how the NCAA plans to address this “patchwork” of different state laws and to provide the NCAA’s timeline for accomplishing its objectives.
  • Mr. Baker testified that the NCAA is currently developing NIL compensation transparency and consumer protection policies for student athletes and indicated that he expects these policies to be ratified before the end of the calendar year.
• Sen. Blackburn interjected to ask Mr. Baker to indicate when these transparency and consumer protection policies under development will be implemented.
  • Mr. Baker indicated that these policies would become effective at the beginning of the 2024 scholastic year, which would be August 2024. He also stated that NCAA would likely complete its student athlete NIL compensation institutional involvement and recruitment policies by March 2024 and indicated that these reforms would be effective in August 2024. He noted that while these policies will become official NCAA rules, he stated that many stakeholders may not comply with these rules under the current legal and regulatory environment.
• Sen. Blackburn interjected to ask Mr. Baker to indicate when the NCAA expects to issue guidance on the involvement of biological men in women’s sports.
  • Mr. Baker first remarked that the NCAA’s rules governing transgender athletes are more restrictive today than they had been in 2022. He also stated that no student athlete would be forced into an “uncomfortable” situation. He commented that the NCAA guards against this type of situation in the guidance that it provides to its championship venues.
• Sen. Blackburn then noted how 98 percent of college student athletes do not go on to play professional sports post-graduation. She stated that this fact underscores the importance of providing student athletes with financial literacy education. She also highlighted how 78 percent of professional athletes end up filing for bankruptcy, which further underscores the need for financial literacy education. She asked Mr. Jones to discuss how his NIL collective helps student athletes to navigate their finances.
  • Mr. Jones remarked that much of the discussion at the hearing regarding NIL collectives is based on outdated perceptions. He stated that these perceptions had been formed when NIL collectives had first been established and commented that NIL collectives had previously lacked sufficient staff and guidance. He remarked however that NIL collectives have evolved over the previous year to become more functional and well-staffed organizations. He noted how NIL collectives are now run by business professionals. He acknowledged that while NIL collectives had originally focused on providing payments to student athletes, he stated that NIL collectives now provide development services to student athletes. He commented that this new structure better protects the well-being of student athletes and supports student athletes in becoming more functional members of society. He testified that TCA members share their student athlete NIL compensation deals with their schools and maintain agent registries. He also expressed support for the development of standardized student athlete NIL compensation contracts. He reiterated his assertion that NIL collectives have evolved since their inception and stated that NIL collectives are providing their student athletes with financial literacy education, tax advisory services, networking and business opportunities, and social media guidance.
• Sen. Blackburn expressed interest in soliciting written statements from other NIL collectives on how they engage with their student athletes.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):

• Sen. Cruz discussed how college sports serve as a unifying force within American culture and provide an avenue for millions of Americans to receive an education. He highlighted how most college student athletes will never play professional sports and commented that college sports can teach student athletes many valuable lessons, including discipline, teamwork, and sportsmanship. He raised concerns however over the current state of U.S. athletics and warned that Congress’s failure to pass federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation could result in “enormous damage” to college sports. He mentioned how he had proposed draft legislation that would protect student athlete NIL compensation rights. He stated that the U.S. should work to ensure that a small number of schools do not come to dominate college sports. He also stated that Congress should work to protect student athletes across all sports and NCAA Division levels (rather than focus on high profile sports, such as college football and basketball). He asked the witnesses to indicate whether Congress must provide a uniform national student athlete NIL compensation standard (rather than rely upon each state to regulate the issue).
  • Mr. Baker answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Petitti answered affirmatively.
  • Ms. Thomas answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Huma answered no.
  • Mr. Jones answered affirmatively.
  • Ms. Bodensteiner answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Swarbrick answered affirmatively.
• Sen. Cruz then discussed how his draft legislation would empower the NCAA to work with college athletic conferences and schools to set rules for student athlete NIL compensation. He contended that this approach is superior to having the federal government set these rules through either an existing government agency or a newly established government agency. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the NCAA or the federal government should set the rules for student athlete NIL compensation.
  • Mr. Baker stated that the NCAA should set the rules for student athlete NIL compensation.
  • Mr. Petitti stated that the NCAA should set the rules for student athlete NIL compensation.
  • Ms. Thomas indicated that she did not have an opinion regarding whether the NCAA or the federal government should set the rules for student athlete NIL compensation.
  • Mr. Huma stated that the federal government should establish a third-party to set the rules for student athlete NIL compensation.
  • Mr. Jones expressed his preference for having the NCAA set the rules for student athlete NIL compensation. He commented however that his support for the NCAA is conditional on the substance of the NCAA’s proposed approach to the issue.
  • Ms. Bodensteiner stated that the NCAA should set the rules for student athlete NIL compensation. She added that the NCAA should set these rules in compliance with existing federal laws.
  • Mr. Swarbrick stated that the NCAA should set the rules for student athlete NIL compensation.
• Sen. Cruz then expressed opposition to proposals that would classify student athletes as employees of their schools. He commented that this classification would subject athletic scholarships to taxation and student athletes to federal labor regulations. He also expressed concerns that this classification would put athletes at jeopardy of losing educational access if they exhibit poor athletic performance. He warned that this classification could lead smaller athletic programs to close as they cannot afford the costs associated with keeping student athletes as employees. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether student athletes should be treated as employees of their schools.
  • Mr. Baker answered no.
  • Mr. Petitti answered no.
  • Ms. Thomas answered no.
  • Mr. Huma stated that Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football and Division I men’s and women’s college basketball players should be treated as employees of their schools.
  • Mr. Jones answered no.
  • Ms. Bodensteiner answered no.
  • Mr. Swarbrick answered no.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA):

• Sen. Padilla stated that there would ideally exist a national standard governing student athlete NIL compensation. He asserted however that such a national standard cannot undermine or compromise the protections or gains that have been made for student athletes in different states. He mentioned how he had worked to pass California’s Student Athlete Bill of Rights when he had served in the state’s legislature. He explained that this state policy had required universities to increase protections, health care, and resources to support student athletes. He added that this policy sought to provide academic support to student athletes and to increase the graduation rates of these athletes. He noted that while the NCAA has reported in 2022 that 90 percent of Division I athletes had graduated within six years, he emphasized that this statistic does not include student athlete transfers who do not re-enroll in school. He stated that there exist other concerns regarding the NCAA’s methodology and called the NCAA’s statistics “inaccurate and misleading.” He noted how the standard federal graduation rate would indicate that just 69 percent of NCAA Division I athletes had graduated within six years. He remarked that the profits generated off of the efforts of college student athletes should be used to support student athletes in their pursuit of a college degree. He asserted that the U.S. must prioritize academics over athletics for student athletes. He asked Mr. Huma to discuss the protections that currently exist for college student athletes that are meant to support their ability to graduate. He also asked Mr. Huma to recommend additional protections for college student athletes to further support student athlete graduation rates.
  • Mr. Huma first thanked Sen. Padilla for his work on California’s Student Athlete Bill of Rights and called this policy a “great example” for the rest of the U.S. He then mentioned how the Pacific-12 (Pac-12) Conference had found that their student athletes had reported spending 50 hours per week on sports-related activities. He emphasized that this 50-hour commitment was in addition to the student athlete’s academic activities. He also acknowledged that television and game schedules largely dictate these athletic commitments. He asserted that these significant athletic commitments therefore necessitate that college student athletes possess sufficient time to graduate. He noted that while the NCAA has stated that it would enact policies to provide student athletes with more time to graduate, he warned that these policies would be ineffective without sufficient enforcement.
• Sen. Padilla interjected to recommend that the federal government set a graduation threshold for student athletes. He stated that schools whose graduation rates fall below this proposed graduation threshold should be required to provide additional investments and support (e.g., tutoring services) for their student athletes. He then expressed interest in ensuring that the mental health needs of college student athletes are being met. He raised concerns that the recent college athletic conference realignments will compound mental health pressures for student athletes. He elaborated that these new conferences will force student athletes to travel more and increase the financial stakes of athletic performance. He asked Mr. Huma to provide recommendations for better supporting the mental health of college student athletes.
  • Mr. Huma first remarked that providing basic health and safety protections for student athletes would alleviate mental health stressors for student athletes. He indicated that these protections should include injury coverage and standards for how coaches treat injured players. He also stated that there must exist a third-party overseeing college sports programs. He mentioned how 59 percent of college athletic trainers have indicated that coaches are forcing their student athletes back into competition before they have sufficiently recovered from injuries. He also mentioned how 20 percent of college athletic trainers have reported that college student athletes are returning to play post-injury without medical clearance. He further raised concerns that college athletic conference realignment will force student athletes to travel further for athletic competitions, which will have adverse impacts on the academics, health, and rest for student athletes. He lastly remarked that many schools need to prioritize the delivery of mental health services to their student athletes.
• Sen. Padilla then discussed how college student athletes are no longer forced to choose between their eligibility to participate in college sports and NIL compensation contracts. He mentioned how Los Angeles will be hosting the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. He noted how college sports programs have served as a “significant pipeline” for Team USA. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether student athlete NIL compensation rules (at either the state or federal level) can impact student athletes that are also Olympic athletes.
  • Mr. Baker stated that he would submit a written answer to Sen. Padilla’s question.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT):

• Sen. Lee mentioned how a female college swimmer had previously told the Committee that the NCAA had forced her to compete against a biological male and share changing facilities with the biological male. He noted how Mr. Baker had told Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) that this incident had occurred before he had joined the NCAA. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether he or the NCAA had apologized to female athletes for having forced them to share changing facilities with a biological male.
  • Mr. Baker stated that he would not defend the NCAA’s actions in 2022.
• Sen. Lee interjected to comment that Mr. Baker is not answering his question. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether he or the NCAA had apologized for the incident.
  • Mr. Baker stated that he did not know whether the NCAA had apologized to the female swimmers for having forced them to share changing facilities with a biological male. He indicated that he would follow up with Sen. Lee on his question.
• Sen. Lee asked Mr. Baker to discuss the rules, regulations, restrictions, and policies that the NCAA has adopted to prevent these types of incidents from occurring.
  • Mr. Baker testified that the NCAA has adjusted its standards that govern the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. He stated that the NCAA is continuing to adjust these standards based on its conversations with other governing bodies. He expressed the NCAA’s willingness to elaborate on these changes in writing.
• Sen. Lee expressed interest in receiving a written description of the NCAA’s adjusted standards related to the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. He also asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether the NCAA has adopted policies that address the sharing of changing facilities between female and biologically male student athletes. He specifically asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether female student athletes now receive notice if they will be required to share changing facilities with biologically male student athletes and can make alternative arrangements for changing.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the NCAA’s policies governing the safety and security of student athletes competing in championships asserts that student athletes should not be forced into “uncomfortable situations.” He stated that he would need to confirm that these policies would extend to the changing room situation raised by Sen. Lee. He indicated that he would provide a more definitive response to Sen. Lee in writing.
• Sen. Lee then discussed how student athletes can now profit from their NIL rights and stated that this new ability can provide significant benefits to both student athletes and college sports. He stated that the ability of student athletes to pursue NIL compensation deals may lead some students to stay in school longer to pursue their college degrees. He asked Mr. Jones to discuss the role that NIL collectives play in college sports and to project the role of NIL collectives moving forward.
  • Mr. Jones remarked that the role of NIL collectives has evolved overtime and described this evolution as beneficial. He noted that while NIL collectives may have originally focused on making payments to student athletes, he stated that NIL collectives now serve as a resource for student athletes. He emphasized that student athletes and their families are new to navigating the NIL compensation space and commented that these student athletes must be vigilant against taking actions that would inhibit athletic eligibility. He remarked that his NIL collective and other TCA members have worked to prioritize student athlete development. He elaborated that this entails educating student athletes about financial literacy, taxes, and contractual obligations. He stated that NIL collectives welcome government oversight and regulation. He acknowledged that while there exist problems in the student athlete NIL compensation space that need to be addressed, he asserted that the overall impact of student athlete NIL compensation has been “overwhelmingly positive.” He concluded that NIL collectives put the same emphasis on student athlete development as they place on student athlete compensation.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Sen. Manchin remarked that the NCAA’s current rules that allow college student athletes to seamlessly transfer schools reduce the likelihood that student athletes will graduate. He mentioned how he had proposed the bipartisan PASS Act of 2023 with Sen. Tommy Tubberville (R-AL). He discussed how this legislation would establish “guardrails” for college boosters and NIL collectives to ensure that their activities are associated with their schools. He stated that this legislation would not prevent student athletes from pursuing NIL compensation deals and would instead prevent student athletes from creating an auction for their recruitment among schools. He also discussed how this legislation would require student athletes to remain at their school for three years before they can transfer to another school. He stated that this requirement would promote the responsible development of student athletes. He indicated however that this legislation contains a waiver provision that would permit student athletes to transfer schools early under certain circumstances. He further noted how the legislation would provide transparency into student athlete NIL compensation activities, clarity regarding what constitutes appropriate NIL compensation activities for student athletes, and additional protections for student athletes. He highlighted how fewer than 2 percent of student athletes pursue professional sports careers post-graduation. He then discussed how most student athletes are Pell grant recipients and contended that schools should be required to cover educational costs for their student athletes. He called this situation unfair and noted how many non-student athletes require access to Pell grants to afford their college educations. He stated that Congress must address this situation. He then mentioned how his legislation would require schools to provide health care coverage for their student athletes for eight years post-graduation. He indicated that this health care coverage would be limited to sports-related injuries. He remarked that the U.S.’s current student athlete NIL compensation system has “destroyed” amateurism in college sports and has transformed the system into a money-centered system. He asserted that student athletes that want to get paid for playing should skip college and pursue professional sports out of high school. He then criticized proposals that would have college student athletes unionize and warned that this approach would harm schools and undermine Title IX protections. He also criticized policymakers for myopically focusing on a small number of popular sports in their consideration of student athlete NIL compensation policies. He raised concerns that the U.S.’s current student athlete NIL compensation system impedes the personal and academic development of student athletes. He lastly raised concerns that the current student athlete NIL compensation system would threaten the continued viability of college sports. He expressed interest in working with the witnesses on developing legislation to reform the U.S.’s student athlete NIL compensation system.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):

• Sen. Blumenthal discussed how foreign student athletes attending U.S. schools are treated differently than U.S. student athletes. He noted how these foreign student athletes are put at risk of losing their legal status under the U.S.’s current visa system if they earn NIL compensation. He described this situation as discriminatory, unfair., and outdated. He asserted that foreign student athletes attending U.S. schools are equally deserving of monetary rewards for their athletic efforts. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the U.S. should permit foreign student athletes that attend U.S. schools to pursue NIL compensation deals without losing their visas.
  • Mr. Baker answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Petitti answered affirmatively.
  • Ms. Thomas answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Huma answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Jones answered affirmatively. He also testified that his NIL collective does contract with foreign student athletes that attend U.S. schools.
  • Ms. Bodensteiner answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Swarbrick answered affirmatively.
• Sen. Blumenthal emphasized that foreign student athletes attending U.S. schools can lose their visas if they accept payment for the use of their NIL rights. He commented that while it is laudable that Mr. Jones’s NIL collective helps these foreign student athletes, he stated that these foreign student athletes remain at risk of losing their visas.
  • Mr. Jones expressed agreement with Sen. Blumenthal’s description of the situation.
• Sen. Blumenthal then remarked that any enacted federal student athlete NIL compensation reforms will be meaningless if they are not enforced. He mentioned how the College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act would establish a federally-chartered college athletics corporation and empower state attorneys general to enforce student athlete NIL compensation rules. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether there should exist an independent body to enforce the rules for the student athlete NIL compensation space. He also asked the witnesses to provide recommendations regarding who should be conducting this enforcement.
  • Mr. Baker expressed interest in continuing conversations with Sen. Blumenthal on his proposal to establish an independent body to enforce student athlete NIL compensation rules. He also expressed some concerns about empowering state attorneys general to enforce student athlete NIL compensation rules. He testified that he has had “interesting” experiences with state attorneys general since he became the President of the NCAA.
• Sen. Blumenthal expressed interest in continuing conversations with Mr. Baker on the College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act.
  • Mr. Petitti remarked that he would need a better understanding of the College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act’s proposed structure for its independent body before he could provide an opinion on the body. He commented that he would tend to support having the NCAA oversee the student athlete NIL compensation space. He expressed his openness to engaging in further conversations with Sen. Blumenthal regarding this legislation.
  • Ms. Thomas also stated that she would need more information about the College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act’s independent body proposal before she could provide an opinion on it.
  • Mr. Huma called it important for an independent entity to enforce student athlete NIL compensation rules. He elaborated that this entity should be independent of the schools, college athletic conferences, and the NCAA. He also stated that the independent entity that polices student athlete NIL compensation can also police the health and safety of student athletes.
  • Mr. Jones expressed agreement with Mr. Petitti’s response and commented that he would need more details on the College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act’s proposed structure for its independent body before he could provide an opinion on the body. He expressed the openness of NIL collectives to oversight and governance.
  • Ms. Bodensteiner remarked that more discussion is warranted regarding an independent body to oversee the student athlete NIL compensation space. She expressed concerns regarding the lack of enforcement of current state student athlete NIL compensation policies.
  • Mr. Swarbrick remarked that the U.S. must increase the effectiveness of its student athlete NIL compensation enforcement efforts. He stated however that he would need more details on the College Athletes Protection and Compensation Act’s proposed structure for its independent body before he could provide an opinion on the body.
• Sen. Blumenthal emphasized that the effectiveness of any student athlete NIL compensation regulatory regime will ultimately depend on the enforcement of its rules. He expressed receptiveness to receiving witness feedback on how such enforcement should be conducted. He remarked that independent, effective, well-resourced, and intentional enforcement is key to the functioning of student athlete NIL compensation, health, safety, scholarships, and medical trust funds. He stated that student athletes often lack sufficient resources to legally challenge wrongdoings on their own and face pressures to not report wrongdoings. He described state enforcement of college sports rules as “lacking” thus far and stated that he would not rely exclusively upon a federal agency to enforce these rules. He commented that while student athletes should be permitted to pursue legal avenues when they experience wrongdoings, he asserted that there must exist some enforcing agency or entity to police college sports. He then remarked that college sports require greater transparency, which includes prompt and accurate disclosures. He also noted how all of the witnesses except for Mr. Huma have expressed opposition to proposals to classify student athletes as employees of their schools. He asked Mr. Huma to elaborate on the exception that he would make to barring employee status for student athletes.
  • Mr. Huma remarked that the student athletes at top NCAA Division I football and basketball programs should be made employees of their schools. He noted how these student athletes generate more revenues for their schools than all other types of student athletes and lack workplace protections. He also stated that granting this group of student athletes employment status would enable these student athletes to eventually unionize. He remarked however that Congress should not prioritize this employee status issue in its current consideration of college sports reform legislation because it is not politically viable. He stated that Congress should focus in the near-term on addressing college sports policy topics where consensus is more viable.
• Sen. Blumenthal asked Mr. Huma to address how he would deal with student athletes that do not wish to become employees of their schools.
  • Mr. Huma mentioned how some student athletes have expressed concerns with permitting student athlete NIL compensation deals because these deals could divert funds from schools (which could in turn lead schools to eliminate certain sports from their athletic programs). He acknowledged that while some student athletes might not wish to become employees of their schools, he asserted that these views should not negate the labor rights of student athletes. He stated that proposals to create a special status for student athletes would result in student athletes being treated as “second class citizens.”
• Sen. Blumenthal indicated that he is “sympathetic” to the concept of collective bargaining for student athletes. He commented that unions play a “vital” role in employment settings and expressed interest in further discussing the possibility of collective bargaining in college sports with Mr. Huma. He remarked that his goal is to guarantee protection and fairness for student athletes at all schools and in all sports. He commented that a limited employment exception for certain schools and certain sports may be sensible. He then stated that the current college sports system is broken. He commented that while corrective actions for this area thus far are commendable, he asserted that these corrective actions are ultimately inadequate. He concluded that Congress must protect student athletes.