Athletes and Innovators: Analyzing NIL’s Impact on Entrepreneurial Collegiate Athletes (U.S. House Committee on Small Business)

Hearing	Athletes and Innovators: Analyzing NIL’s Impact on Entrepreneurial Collegiate Athletes
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Small Business
Date	September 20, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• The Current State of College Student Athlete Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Compensation Rights: The hearing focused on how college student athletes, schools, college athletic conferences, and policymakers are responding to new policies permitting student athletes to monetize their NIL rights. These policies stem from a 2021 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rule change following a series of court cases, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision. While Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed general support for these newly available student athlete NIL compensation opportunities, they also expressed some concerns over how these deals can be unregulated.
  • Inconsistency in State Student Athlete NIL Compensation Policies: Committee Members, Mr. Donati, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Torretta noted that there do not exist uniform federal regulations governing student athlete NIL compensation, which has caused states to adopt their own student athlete NIL compensation rules. They expressed concerns that this lack of uniformity has resulted in conflicting rules and laws that fosters confusion among NCAA members, respective donor bases, and college student athletes. They further expressed concerns that states are adopting student athlete NIL compensation policies to advantage their schools, which is undermining the competitiveness of college sports.
  • Bad Actors with the Student Athlete NIL Compensation Policies: Committee Members, Mr. Donati, and Mr. Smith expressed concerns that some bad actors are using NIL compensation deals to exploit high school and college student athletes. They highlighted how these bad actors have gotten these student athletes to enter into NIL compensation deals with predatory terms, including high commissions, complex fee schedules, and the ability to use a student athlete’s NIL rights in perpetuity.
  • NIL Collectives: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in the rise of NIL collectives, which are organizations that solicit funds from a school’s sports fans and develop NIL compensation deals for the student athletes of that school. Committee Members, Mr. Donati, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Salamone stated that these collectives can be beneficial in terms of connecting student athletes with NIL compensation deals and highlighted how many of these deals can involve local small businesses and charitable organizations. They expressed concerns however that many NIL collectives operate without oversight and may divert donations away from college athletic departments (which can harm the viability of women’s and Olympic sports). Mr. Torretta remarked however that the current NIL collective system still provides schools with free labor. He elaborated that these NIL collectives provide payments to student athletes and that schools still do not face labor costs regarding their student athletes.
  • The NCAA Transfer Portal: Committee Members and Mr. Torretta expressed concerns that the coupling of the NCAA Transfer Portal (which allows college student athletes to transfer schools and to start immediately at their new schools) with student athlete NIL compensation deals is allowing for schools to induce college student athletes to transfer schools. Mr. Smith and Mr. Torretta stated however that the NCAA Transfer Portal is not bad per se and Mr. Smith remarked that policymakers must understand why student athletes are deciding to transfer schools.
  • College Athletic Conference Realignment: Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY), Mr. Torretta, and Ms. Salamone raised concerns over the trend of college athletic conference realignment and noted how this realignment will force many college student athletes to travel far distances for their athletic events. Ms. Salamone commented that this travel can be physically exhausting for student athletes and impede the ability of athletes to complete their schoolwork. Mr. Smith suggested however that many schools are looking to join the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and the Big Ten Conference because of their strong cultures.
  • Educational Benefits: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in how student athlete NIL compensation rights can provide college student athletes with opportunities to learn valuable business lessons that can extend beyond their collegiate sports careers. These business lessons include negotiating contracts, navigating regulations, marketing, branding, and paying taxes. Mr. Donati and Mr. Smith testified that their schools, Texas Christian University (TCU) and the Ohio State University respectively, maintain NIL compensation educational programs to support their student athletes. Mr. Smith noted however that third parties often handle NIL compensation deals on behalf of student athletes, which can limit the effectiveness of these educational programs.
  • Impact on Underprivileged and Olympic Sport College Student Athletes: Committee Democrats, Mr. Donati, and Mr. Torretta highlighted how NIL compensation deals often enable college student athletes from underserved communities to cover their expenses, build savings, and support their families, as well as alleviate financial stress. Mr. Smith also noted that many Olympic sport college student athletes do not receive full scholarships and stated that student athlete NIL compensation opportunities can help these student athletes to afford college educations.
  • Impact on Title IX and Women’s Sports: Committee Members, Mr. Donati, and Ms. Salamone expressed interest in assessing whether student athlete NIL compensation deals are impacting women’s sports through diverting available funding away from these sports. Mr. Donati expressed encouragement with how other sports (especially women’s sports) have participated in student athlete NIL compensation deals at a much higher level than had been anticipated. Committee Democrats and Ms. Salamone raised concerns however that NIL collectives may steer NIL compensation deals toward male college student athletes and commented that that this steering of deals can enable schools to bypass Title IX requirements (which require schools to provide equal funding for men’s and women’s sports).
  • Impact on Smaller Schools: Committee Republicans and Mr. Torretta expressed concerns that student athlete NIL compensation deals may render smaller schools athletically uncompetitive with larger schools because smaller schools are less able to offer such deals to prospective student athletes. Mr. Donati and Mr. Smith remarked however that competitive inequities are already present within college sports and stated that smaller schools have found ways to respond to these inequities. Mr. Smith further stated that if schools were responsible for directly allocating NIL compensation deals to their student athletes, then smaller schools would face difficult decisions regarding the future of their athletic programs.
  • Potential for College Student Athletes to Make More Money Than Their Coaches: Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) raised concerns that student athlete NIL compensation deals could result in a situation where college student athletes make more than their coaches (which can make student athletes more difficult to coach). Mr. Donati and Mr. Torretta expressed doubts that this situation would occur (especially at larger schools). Ms. Salamone argued that good coaches should be willing to accept the prospect of their student athletes making more money than them.
  • Pressures on Female College Student Athletes to Post Suggestive Items: Full Committee Ranking Member Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) and Ms. Salamone expressed concerns that female college student athletes may feel pressure to post suggestive content on social media as part of NIL compensation deals. Ms. Salamone recommended that there be greater conversations with college student athletes (particularly female student athletes) around the need to be authentic and resisting pressure to post suggestive content on social media platforms.
• Potential Federal Student Athlete NIL Compensation Legislation: Committee Members, Mr. Donati, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Torretta expressed interest in having Congress enact federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation to address the aforementioned challenges. They asserted that federal legislation is necessary to bring uniformity, transparency, and fairness to the student athlete NIL compensation deal space through enacting legislation. Ms. Salamone argued however that the current focus on student athlete NIL compensation is a distraction and that Congress should instead focus on improving college student athlete health and safety. 
  • The Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act: Rep. Mike Carey (R-OH) and Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) highlighted how they had introduced the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act. This bill would prohibit the use of student athlete NIL compensation deals as recruiting inducements, create a registration requirement for agents, provide Congressional oversight of this space, and establish a clearinghouse for student athlete NIL compensation deals. Mr. Donati and Mr. Smith expressed support for this legislation. Rep. Landsman predicted that the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act will ultimately be combined with other bills to address student athlete NIL compensation.
  • Role of the NCAA: Committee Members, Mr. Donati, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Torretta expressed interest in determining the appropriate role for the NCAA in terms of overseeing the student athlete NIL compensation space moving forward. They stated that the NCAA is likely better-suited than Congress to police this space and that federal legislation will likely be needed to empower the NCAA to adequately oversee this space. Ms. Salamone argued however that the NCAA has focused more on obtaining an antitrust exemption from Congress than on using their existing authorities to police the student athlete NIL compensation space.
  • Regulation of Sports Agents and Student Athlete NIL Compensation Contracts: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed support for establishing a federal registration system for agents within the college sports space and standardized contracts for student athlete NIL compensation deals. Mr. Torretta cautioned however that a registration system for sports agents would not be a panacea. He noted how there remain unscrupulous NFL agents, despite the league’s registration system. He added that many athletes will ignore the advice of their agents and financial advisors (even if the advice is sound).
  • Inducement Payments and Oversight of NIL Collectives: Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD) and Mr. Torretta remarked that federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation should address the use of inducement payments by schools to recruit high school student athletes and transfer student athletes. Mr. Donati and Mr. Torretta also called for federal oversight of NIL collectives.
  • Enforcement of Student Athlete NIL Compensation Rules: Committee Members, Mr. Donati, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Torretta expressed interest in specifying rule enforcement mechanisms as part of any federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
• Other Policy Topics Impacting College Sports: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses further expressed interest in topics impacting college sports beyond student athlete NIL compensation. 
  • Health and Safety Protections for College Student Athletes: Committee Members and Ms. Salamone expressed interest in supporting the mental and physical health and well-being of college student athletes. Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD) mentioned how he had recently introduced the Jordan McNair Student Athlete Heat Fatality Prevention Act, which would require college sports teams to maintain external defibrillators and cold water immersion equipment. Mr. Smith also called it important for schools to maintain cultures that prioritize the health and safety of student athletes and to direct student athletes to health care services when problems arise.
  • Independent and Third-Party Oversight of College Sports: Rep. Mfume, Mr. Smith, Mr. Torretta, and Ms. Salamone remarked that there should be external and independent oversight of college sports to ensure that college student athletes are being sufficiently protected. They expressed concerns that school administrators often have incentives to prioritize the interests of their schools over the interests of their student athletes, which can result in problems going unreported and unresolved.
  • Collective Bargaining for College Student Athletes: Ms. Salamone further argued that the U.S. should allow for college student athletes to collectively bargain. She stated that collective bargaining for college student athletes would address antitrust concerns and would enable the NCAA to better identify and address problems within college sports. 

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Jeremiah Donati, Director of Intercollegiate Athletics, Texas Christian University
2. Mr. Gene Smith, Senior Vice President & Wolfe Endowed Athletic Director, The Ohio State University
3. Mr. Gino Torretta, Heisman Trophy Winner & 2-Time Men’s College Football National Champion, College Football Hall of Fame Inductee
4. Ms. Madeline “Maddie” Salamone, Vice President, College Football Players’ Association (CFBPA)

Member Opening Statements:

Full Committee Chairman Roger Williams (R-TX):

• He noted how college student athletes had gained the right to monetize their NIL rights in 2021 following a series of court cases.
  • He indicated that college student athletes can now pursue NIL compensation deals without impacting their playing eligibility or incurring sanctions against their university.
• He called the fact that college student athletes can now profit during their collegiate athletic careers a positive development.
  • He highlighted how less than 2 percent of college student athletes go on to play professional sports post-graduation.
• He noted how nearly $1 billion in student athlete NIL compensation deals had been made during the first year that such deals were permitted.
• He remarked that NIL rights have created “fantastic” opportunities for entrepreneurial college student athletes to earn money and learn valuable business lessons that can extend beyond their collegiate sports careers.
  • He indicated that these business lessons include negotiating contracts, navigating regulations, and paying taxes.
• He also mentioned how small businesses have been able to partner with college student athletes to market their businesses.
  • He highlighted how many student athlete NIL compensation deals involve small businesses and lower profile college student athletes.
• He noted however that there do not exist uniform federal regulations governing the student athlete NIL compensation issue, which has caused states to adopt their own student athlete NIL compensation rules.
  • He asserted that this “patchwork” approach is forcing schools and college student athletes to choose between complying with state laws, NCAA guidelines, or conference regulations that might in conflict.
• He also expressed concerns that bad actors are using NIL compensation deals to take advantage of high school and college student athletes.
  • He mentioned how an NBC News investigation had found that many NIL compensation deals being offered to high school student athletes are exploitative with commissions as high as 40 percent and complex fee structures.
• He stated that the absence of transparency surrounding student athlete NIL compensation deals makes it difficult to determine which parties are acting in the best interests of student athletes.
• He then remarked that the U.S. must ensure that future generations of athletes have opportunities to participate in college sports and stated that the hearing would address several topics.
  • He first expressed interest in working to inspire college student athletes to apply the lessons learned from NIL compensation deals to start new small businesses.
  • He secondly expressed interest in identifying best practices from schools on educating student athletes to take full advantage of their NIL compensation opportunities.
  • He thirdly expressed interest in determining the appropriate role for the NCAA in terms of overseeing the student athlete NIL compensation space moving forward.
  • He fourthly expressed interest in exploring how NIL collectives are helping college student athletes.
  • He fifthly expressed interest in determining how non-revenue generating sports can remain viable if all money moves toward revenue generating sports.
  • He sixthly expressed interest in exploring whether the potential implementation of revenue sharing models for college sports would harm Olympic and women’s sports.
  • He seventhly expressed interest in determining whether student athlete NIL compensation opportunities are impacting graduation rates for college student athletes.
  • He eighthly expressed interest in exploring how student athlete NIL compensation policies will impact smaller market schools (which may have their student athletes lured away by NIL compensation deals).
  • He ninthly expressed interest in working to prevent predatory agents and bad actors from taking advantage of student athletes.
  • He lastly expressed interest in determining the role (if any) that the federal government should play in overseeing the student athlete NIL compensation space.

Full Committee Ranking Member Nydia Velázquez (D-NY):

• She applauded the NCAA’s 2021 decision to permit college student athletes to monetize their NIL rights.
  • She commented that this decision has enabled college student athletes from underserved communities to build savings and develop generational wealth.
  • She also commented that this decision has helped college students to cover their rents and living costs.
• She remarked however that the launch and growth of the student athlete NIL compensation market has raised concerns over the treatment of college student athletes.
  • She noted how these concerns relate to gender inequity, predatory agent practices, and the “patchwork” of confusing regulations.
• She expressed concerns over the growth of NIL collectives that steer the largest NIL compensation deals to the top student athletes in college football and men’s college basketball.
  • She stated that these collectives can undermine the gender equity progress made under Title IX.
• She remarked that the current rules governing student athlete NIL compensation are “hastily drafted and inconsistent” and called it critical for college student athletes to be provided with resources, knowledge, and a stable environment to build their brands.
  • She warned that the failure to provide these benefits to college student athletes could create distractions for student athletes and endanger their financial well-being.

Rep. Mike Carey (R-OH):

• He mentioned how he had introduced the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act with Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH).
• He discussed how student athlete NIL rights provide student athletes with opportunities to earn money and learn about personal finance, marketing, taxes, and business in general.
  • He commented that these lessons will supplement academic instruction and prepare student athletes for their post-collegiate athletic careers.
• He warned that college student athletes can be taken advantage of in NIL compensation deals if student athletes are not provided with proper education and guidance.
  • He commented that while predatory practices are not commonplace within the student athlete NIL environment, he asserted that it would be “disingenuous” to claim that such practices are non-existent.
• He also expressed concerns over how numerous states have implemented conflicting student athlete NIL compensation laws and commented that these conflicting laws make it difficult for both schools and student athletes to navigate the NIL landscape.
• He remarked that Congress must pass legislation to create a federal standard for addressing student athlete NIL compensation issues.
  • He commented that this legislation should be focused on protecting the recruitment process, increasing transparency in the NIL compensation marketplace, and providing enforcement mechanisms to police bad actors.
• He noted that the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act would prohibit the use of NIL compensation deals as recruiting inducements, create a registration requirement for agents, provide Congressional oversight for this space, and establish a clearinghouse for student athlete NIL compensation deals.
• He expressed interest in developing legislation to create a single federal standard for student athlete NIL compensation deals.
  • He expressed confidence in the U.S. House of Representatives’s ability to pass bipartisan legislation on this topic during the current Congress.
• Note: Rep. Carey is not a member of the U.S. House Committee on Small Business.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Jeremiah Donati (Texas Christian University):

• He expressed support for allowing college student athletes to receive compensation for the use of their NIL rights.
  • He noted how most college student athletes will not pursue professional sports careers post-graduation and asserted that these student athletes should be permitted to monetize their skills and talents while in school.
• He discussed how college athletes had quickly begun to engage in NIL compensation activities following the NCAA’s 2021 move to permit these opportunities.
  • He indicated that these activities have included endorsement deals, autograph signings, personal appearances, and community service work.
  • He highlighted how many college student athletes have used their NIL compensation deals to support their families.
• He remarked that the value of student athlete NIL compensation opportunities extends beyond the compensation itself and stated that these opportunities provide valuable educational lessons for student athletes.
• He discussed how many college athletics departments, including TCU’s athletics department, had launched educational programs focused on financial literacy, contract negotiation, business formation, entrepreneurship, brand management, social media promotion, and taxes.
  • He testified that TCU had created an endowed professorship to support NIL education, created NIL courses for credit, provided office hours with business school faculty, and dedicated a football suite in its stadium for the teaching and instruction of NIL entrepreneurship.
• He also testified that over half of TCU’s student athletes have reported receiving NIL compensation deals.
  • He noted that while football, basketball, and baseball student athlete NIL compensation deals have received the most media coverage, he expressed encouragement with how other sports (especially women’s sports) have participated in NIL compensation deals at a much higher level than had been anticipated.
• He remarked however that the recent permittance of student athlete NIL compensation deals has posed several challenges and commented that the lack of uniform rules governing these deals has caused confusion amongst NCAA members, donor bases, and college student athletes.
  • He asserted that these rules had been implemented without the necessary guardrails or mechanisms to effectively manage these changes.
• He further stated that the legal challenges facing the NCAA have impeded efforts to develop sustainable solutions for the issue of student athlete NIL compensation.
• He discussed how college sports now faces problems with bad actors exploiting college student athletes for personal gain and third parties engaging in “pay for play” arrangements through recruiting and transfer inducements.
  • He stated that the current college sports environment is completely unregulated and lacks accountability.
• He noted that while NIL collectives have provided universities with an efficient tool to fulfill NIL compensation opportunities with donor support, he lamented that the governance and oversight of these collectives has been inconsistent.
• He then expressed optimism regarding recent progress on federal student athlete NIL compensation legislative proposals.
  • He commented that Congress has the power to bring uniformity, transparency, and fairness to the student athlete NIL compensation space through enacting legislation.
• He remarked that federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation should provide agent oversight, standardized contracts, a national clearinghouse or registry for student athlete NIL compensation deals, an elimination of inducements or “pay for play” arrangements, and rule enforcement mechanisms.
• He asserted that the current student athlete NIL compensation model is not sustainable and that college student athletes should compete under the same fundamental and enforceable rules.
  • He called on Congress to support legislation that will make student athlete NIL compensation sustainable while preserving the opportunity for college student athletes to monetize their NIL rights during their college sports careers.

Mr. Gene Smith (The Ohio State University):

• He remarked that student athlete NIL compensation rights benefit the college student athlete experience.
  • He commented that new recognition of student athlete NIL compensation rights provide student athletes with the same rights and privileges that other student athletes have, including the ability to monetize their personal brands or business acumen.
• He stated that NIL serves as an excellent tool for educating college student athletes about entrepreneurial skills, including fiscal responsibility, income tax management, personal brand development, and marketing.
• He remarked that his school, the Ohio State University, seeks to use student athlete NIL compensation deals to inspire entrepreneurial and innovative thinking and to ensure that their student athletes have the necessary resources to create, leverage, and promote their personal brands.
  • He testified that over 420 of the Ohio State University’s student athletes have at least one NIL compensation deal.
  • He further noted how the Ohio State University’s student athletes have made over 2,000 NIL compensation deals across all sports and indicated that the school’s men’s football and women’s volleyball teams have attracted the most NIL compensation deals.
• He discussed how not all of the Ohio State University’s student athletes receive full scholarships and highlighted how most of the school’s Olympic sports student athletes receive partial scholarships.
  • He commented that NIL compensation opportunities can help these student athletes on partial scholarships to reduce their student debt obligations.
• He then noted how schools cannot manage NIL compensation deals on behalf of their student athletes and indicated that this situation has led to the formation of NIL collectives.
  • He explained that NIL collectives are mostly 501(c)(3) organizations that solicit funds from a school’s sports fans and develop NIL compensation deals for the school’s student athletes.
  • He noted however that many NIL collectives are converting into limited liability companies (LLCs) as a result of a recent U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interpretation.
• He remarked that the efforts of NIL collectives are often in direct competition with the efforts of college athletic departments.
  • He elaborated that college athletic departments are now making funding decisions based on declining income streams, which can in turn harm student athletes in the future.
• He discussed how many states have passed laws to support the NIL compensation activities of their schools and noted that these state laws are all different.
  • He emphasized that there does not exist a federal law governing the student athlete NIL compensation issue.
• He called on Congress to develop federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation that would establish a national NIL standard, NIL agent registration requirements, standardized NIL contracts for student athletes, a prohibition of inducements, a public registry for student athlete NIL contracts, and strong enforcement measures.

Mr. Gino Torretta (Heisman Trophy Winner & 2-Time Men’s College Football National Champion):

• He recounted how the NCAA had restricted the ability of college student athletes to transfer schools and had prohibited college student athletes from pursuing NIL compensation opportunities during his college sports career (which was during the late 1980s and early 1990s).
• He remarked that the subsequent creation of the NCAA Transfer Portal and adoption of student athlete NIL compensation rules have enabled college student athletes to capitalize on their athletic success.
  • He highlighted how these NIL compensation opportunities provide student athletes with the ability to accumulate savings before graduation.
• He then discussed how there does not exist a standard set of rules governing the student athlete NIL compensation system and stated that the NCAA lacks enforcement capabilities.
  • He also highlighted how schools are subject to state student athlete NIL compensation laws that are all different.
• He remarked that Congress must pass legislation to develop a uniform set of rules to govern student athlete NIL compensation.

Ms. Madeline “Maddie” Salamone (College Football Players’ Association):

• She remarked that the NCAA tends to only adopt significant changes in response to media coverage of its practices.
• She argued that the continued discussions regarding student NIL compensation rights, the NCAA’s antitrust exemption, and the employment status of athletes are all distractions.
  • She commented that the NCAA and its member schools have created these distractions and that media coverage has exacerbated these distractions.
• She contended that the most important issues that must be addressed in college sports relate to the abuse, mistreatment, and lack of attention to college student athlete health and safety by coaches and support staff.
  • She asserted that Congress will fail student athletes if it continues to ignore their health and well-being.
• She stated that the primary remedy for college student athlete mistreatment is to have external and independent oversight by individuals that are not employed by the schools.
• He asserted that schools have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to police themselves.
  • She noted how there have been “countless” stories of individuals that have reported problematic coaches and staff and were subsequently silenced, fired, or otherwise ignored and pushed out.
  • She also stated that there exist “countless” college sports scandals that remain open secrets.
• She remarked that the U.S. must provide independent oversight of college sports practices, team meetings, and medical care.
  • She commented that college student athletes need access to third-party individuals from whom they can receive confidential advice and help.
  • She added that these third-party individuals should act in the best interests of student athletes and not schools.
• She asserted that third-party oversight officials must possess independent authority to take action based on the information that they receive from college student athletes.
  • She commented that these officials must be trained to handle confidential information and to exercise discretion and tact in addressing matters.
• She then remarked that NIL compensation is not a new and complicated subject and stated that the only novel aspect of NIL law is its application to college student athletes.
  • She noted how the NIL rights of professional athletes, models, actors, and artists have long been used to promote and endorse products and services or to raise awareness about issues.
• She argued that previous NCAA rules were simply preventing college student athletes from exercising their NIL rights.
• She then discussed how the benefits of student athlete NIL rights are not just financial in nature and stated that NIL rights can provide “tremendous” educational value.
  • She noted how NIL compensation deals are enabling college student athletes to develop marketable skills, including content creation, direct sales, promotion, contract negotiation, brand development and management, and social media.
• She stated that modern college student athletes have unprecedented opportunities to gain “real world” experience and prepare for their futures as a result of new NIL compensation opportunities.
• She noted that her written testimony outlines areas where student athlete NIL compensation rights can be improved.
  • She indicated that these areas include education, assistance with the review of contracts, and agent regulation.
• She asserted however that student athlete NIL compensation rights issues are “relatively minor” concerns in the overall landscape of college sports reform.
• She remarked that schools must be required to direct spending toward supporting the mental and physical health of their student athletes.
• Note: Ms. Salamone’s time for an opening statement expired here.

Congressional Question Period:

Full Committee Chairman Roger Williams (R-TX):

• Chairman Williams expressed concerns over the “patchwork” regulatory framework that college student athletes must navigate to comply with student athlete NIL compensation rules. He noted how college student athletes pursuing NIL compensation opportunities must comply with NCAA rules, state laws, conference rules, and school rules. He commented that federal student athlete NIL compensation rules could simplify the compliance process for these student athletes. He asked Mr. Donati and Mr. Smith to indicate the role (if any) that the federal government should play in the student athlete NIL compensation space.
  • Mr. Donati remarked that the federal government should work with the NCAA to address the issue of student athlete NIL compensation. He expressed doubts that the federal government would supplant the NCAA in overseeing this issue. He stated that the federal government could create rules for agents, establish a national clearinghouse for student athlete NIL compensation deals, and support the enforcement of student athlete NIL compensation rules.
  • Mr. Smith expressed agreement with Mr. Donati’s response. He remarked that the main challenge that the U.S. faces regarding this topic relates to the inconsistency across state student athlete NIL compensation laws. He asserted that the current variations in state laws make it difficult for the NCAA to unilaterally address this topic. He also discussed how many unscrupulous agents are taking advantage of student athletes (particularly student athletes from disadvantaged environments). He stated that the federal government could help to address the problems associated with agents.
• Chairman Williams noted how there had been nearly $1 billion in student athlete NIL compensation deals in the first year that the deals had been permitted. He commented that these deals would likely increase in future years. He stated that the growth in interest for student athlete NIL compensation deals coupled with the absence of rules to govern these deals has led some bad actors to exploit student athletes. He mentioned how there have been instances where NIL contracts have provided a sponsor with the right to use a student athlete’s NIL rights in perpetuity and where NIL contracts have the attributes of predatory loans. He asked Mr. Smith to recommend guardrails for student athlete NIL compensation deals that would protect college student athletes from bad actors.
  • Mr. Smith remarked that Congress must pass federal legislation to protect student athletes from bad actors. He asserted that the NCAA cannot police this space on its own.
• Chairman Williams then asked Mr. Torretta to discuss how his college football experience may have been different had he been allowed to pursue NIL compensation opportunities as a student athlete.
  • Mr. Torretta mentioned how he had played a successful four game stint during his freshman year following an injury to his team’s starting quarterback. He noted how he had returned to his role as a backup quarterback following the starting quarterback’s recovery and knew that he would not be his team’s starting quarterback the following year. He stated that he would have likely transferred schools had the NCAA’s current transfer rules been in place at the time because he would have been able to immediately start at a new school upon transferring. He remarked that the existence of student athlete NIL compensation deals could have led other schools to recruit him as a transfer after his freshman year. He stated that while the NCAA’s current transfer and NIL compensation rules have benefits, he commented that there are also drawbacks to these rules. He asserted that either Congress or the NCAA must adopt protections for student athletes interested in pursuing NIL compensation deals. He also stated that Congress or the NCAA must establish a mechanism for enforcing these protections.

Full Committee Ranking Member Nydia Velázquez (D-NY):

• Ranking Member Velázquez noted how many NIL collectives tend to primarily steer NIL compensation deals to male college student athletes. She asked Ms. Salamone to indicate whether the distribution of NIL compensation deals is proportionate among male and female college student athletes.
  • Ms. Salamone remarked that NIL collectives are primarily steering NIL compensation deals to college men’s football players, which is leading male college student athletes to receive a disproportionate share of these deals. She described NIL collectives as fan clubs that operate at the behest of coaches to direct funds to their identified student athletes.
• Ranking Member Velázquez asked Ms. Salamone to indicate whether NIL collectives can disproportionately steer NIL compensation deals to male college student athletes because the collectives are not regulated under Title IX.
  • Ms. Salamone remarked that NIL collectives had largely been formed in response to an aversion from schools to allocate NIL compensation deals. She indicated that schools are afraid that the allocation of these deals could violate Title IX. She described NIL collectives as a “workaround” arrangement so that schools do not need to comply with Title IX. She stated however that schools and NIL collectives work closely together and asserted that Title IX should be applied to NIL collectives.
• Ranking Member Velázquez asked Ms. Salamone to indicate whether NIL collectives that coordinate their activities closely with schools should be considered extensions of the schools (and should therefore be subject to Title IX regulations).
  • Ms. Salamone answered affirmatively and stated that NIL collectives have effectively become extensions of schools.
• Ranking Member Velázquez then noted how there are concerns that social media’s predominance in the women’s student athlete NIL compensation market is influencing these female student athletes to post suggestive content.
  • Ms. Salamone remarked that pressures for female student athletes to post suggestive content on their social media accounts may be a larger societal issue. She stated that many female student athletes feel pressure to make social media posts that gain greater attention. She recommended that there be greater conversations with college student athletes (particularly female student athletes) around the need to be authentic and resisting pressure to post suggestive content on social media platforms. She noted how there are social media branding specialists that are encouraging student athletes to engage in certain types of social media activities. She suggested that schools intervene and remind their student athletes that they should not feel added pressure to engage in certain types of social media activities. She stated however that women in general feel added pressure to engage in these types of social media activities and commented that these pressures are not unique to female student athletes.
• Ranking Member Velázquez then stated that race and sexual orientation can strongly influence the allocation of college student athlete NIL compensation deals. She asked Ms. Salamone to comment on the impact of these factors on NIL compensation opportunities for female student athletes.
  • Ms. Salamone reiterated her recommendation that schools remind their student athletes to resist pressures when making NIL compensation deals. She stated that younger generations have very different attitudes toward social media as compared to older generations and that policymakers must recognize this dynamic.
• Ranking Member Velázquez then asked Ms. Salamone to explain why the prioritization of the health, safety, and well-being of college student athletes is key to the success of student athlete NIL compensation opportunities.
  • Ms. Salamone remarked that college student athletes experiencing abuse and mental health struggles will have their business ventures suffer.
• Ranking Member Velázquez asked Ms. Salamone to indicate whether schools are providing support to their student athletes.
  • Ms. Salamone remarked that while many schools are providing support to their student athletes, she asserted that there exists a “tremendous gap” in the education being provided to these student athletes. She stated that the U.S. can address some of the contractual and agent issues within the student athlete NIL compensation space through providing education to student athletes about contracts (including education regarding bad contractual provisions).

Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA):

• Rep. Meuser remarked that there exists broad consensus regarding the need for Congress to pass legislation to address the student athlete NIL compensation legislation. He commented that he had always questioned the rationale behind prohibiting college student athletes from pursuing NIL compensation deals. He expressed concerns however over the growth of NIL collectives and how these collectives are often unregulated. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the funding spent on NIL collectives would be going elsewhere (such as directly to schools) if NIL collectives did not exist.
  • Mr. Donati remarked that school donors are currently deciding between funding their schools directly and funding their school’s NIL collectives. He testified that college athletic directors are being forced to adjust their athletic budgets as a result of the funding going toward NIL collectives.
  • Mr. Smith expressed agreement with Mr. Donati’s response. He highlighted how the U.S. has over 350 NCAA Division I schools and commented that these schools have very diverse financing structures. He mentioned how many student athletics departments are funded through university general funds or student fees. He testified however that the Ohio State University’s sports programs generate $250 million from external sources and contribute funding back to the school. He lamented how many school athletic departments do not prioritize the interests of their student athletes and stated that the Ohio State University provides robust education for its student athletes. He remarked that policymakers must acknowledge this heterogeneity in college athletic department financing structures and practices. He expressed support for the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act and commented that policymakers should permit schools to develop approaches that better account for their unique needs.
  • Mr. Torretta remarked that the current NIL collective system still provides schools with free labor. He elaborated that these NIL collectives provide payments to student athletes and that schools still do not face additional costs for their student athletes.
• Rep. Meuser acknowledged that his question period time had expired. He expressed interest in determining whether the current NIL collective system creates additional problems and unintended consequences.

Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY):

• Rep. McGarvey mentioned how he had introduced and helped pass Kentucky’s student athlete NIL compensation law during his tenure in the Kentucky Senate. He commented however that this law had become obsolete within six months of its passage. He stated that Kentucky’s student athlete NIL compensation law contained beneficial provisions, including a registration system for agents, student athlete protections, and an option for student athletes to void their NIL contracts when they turned professional. He remarked that the NCAA would be the optimal institution to oversee the student athlete NIL compensation issue and that Congress would be the second-best institution to oversee the issue. He asserted that state legislatures are the worst institutions for overseeing the student athlete NIL compensation issue. He commented that having state legislatures address the issue has led states to pass laws that advantage their schools and has resulted in inconsistent policies throughout the U.S. He then expressed concerns that Congress may be ill-suited to address the student athlete NIL compensation issue because Congress may be slow to fix problems when they arise. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the NCAA is so inept that Congress must act to address this issue.
  • Mr. Torretta remarked that some body must take action to establish a “level playing field” for student athlete NIL compensation. He asserted that a common set of rules is essential for protecting the integrity of college sports. He stated that the NCAA’s failure to address the student athlete NIL compensation issue necessitates Congressional action on the issue. He also suggested that Congress could direct the NCAA to address the issue.
• Rep. McGarvey remarked that Congress must take action to protect college student athletes and create a national standard for student athlete NIL compensation. He then asked Ms. Salamone to indicate how Congress can use a federal student athlete NIL compensation bill to improve student athlete health and safety standards (including for their post-college sports careers).
  • Ms. Salamone remarked that the U.S. provide for the independent oversight of college sports and allow for college student athletes to collectively bargain. She stated that collective bargaining for college student athletes would address antitrust concerns and would enable the NCAA to better identify and address problems within college sports.
• Rep. McGarvey also described the NCAA Transfer Portal as an “extortion market” and expressed interest in fixing this mechanism. He further raised concerns over the trend of college athletic conference realignment and noted how this realignment will force many college student athletes to travel far distances for their athletic events. He asked Ms. Salamone to address the impact of conference realignment on student athletes.
  • Ms. Salamone recounted how she did not go on a recruiting visit to Stanford University when she was considering where to play college lacrosse. She explained that playing lacrosse at Stanford University would have required extensive travel. She noted how college student athletes playing on teams without chartered flights often must take flights in the middle of the night. She commented that this travel can be physically exhausting and impede the ability of athletes to complete their schoolwork. She also stated that conference realignment harms fan bases because fan bases are less able to watch their favorite teams. She criticized the rise of college athletic conferences with broad geographies.
• Rep. McGarvey indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX):

• Rep. Van Duyne asked the witnesses to address how smaller schools could remain athletically competitive in an environment where larger schools can afford to pay their student athletes more.
  • Mr. Donati remarked that competitive inequities are already present within college sports and stated that smaller schools have found ways to respond to these inequities. He asserted however that the advent of student athlete NIL compensation has meant that money is now flowing to college sports without oversight or regulation. He remarked that the establishment of uniform rules for governing student athlete NIL compensation will allow for schools to compete for student athlete recruits more fairly. He commented that the current “patchwork” of state student athlete NIL compensation laws is providing some schools with unfair recruiting advantages. He stated however that the existence of resource disparities across schools is not a new phenomenon.
• Rep. Van Duyne interjected to ask Mr. Smith to respond to her question.
  • Mr. Smith expressed agreement with Mr. Donati’s response that competitive inequalities are not new to college sports and that student athlete NIL compensation is another tool for student athlete recruiting. He remarked that if schools were responsible for directly allocating NIL compensation deals to their student athletes, then smaller schools would face difficult decisions regarding the future of their athletic programs. He elaborated that smaller schools tend to fund their athletic programs through their general funds and commented that students might become less willing to pay fees to support their college sports programs. He stated that policymakers should be cognizant of this dynamic.
• Rep. Van Duyne then asked the witnesses to comment on the coaching challenges associated with having student athletes make more money than their coaches.
  • Mr. Torretta commented that larger schools (including TCU and the Ohio State University) are unlikely to have their student athletes make more money than their coaches. He then remarked that smaller schools cannot effectively compete with larger schools. He commented however that there are some schools with large endowments (such as Harvard University) that could theoretically compete with the current leading college football programs if they chose to do so.
  • Mr. Donati remarked that TCU’s coaches recognize the changes in the college sports landscape. He indicated that TCU has not yet experienced challenges with their student athletes making more money than their coaches.
  • Ms. Salamone remarked that college coaches should acknowledge the possibility that their student athletes could potentially make more money than them and focus on preparing their student athletes for future success. She emphasized that colleges are educational institutions and stated that money-focused coaches should pursue coaching careers in professional sports.
• Rep. Van Duyne asked Ms. Salamone to indicate whether student athletes may become more difficult to coach if they earn more money than their coaches.
  • Ms. Salamone stated that while student athletes may become more difficult to coach if they earn more money than their coaches, she asserted that good coaches would acknowledge that the respect of their team matters more than the amount of money that their student athletes earn. She lamented how many coaches do not acknowledge this.
• Rep. Van Duyne asked Mr. Smith to explain NIL collectives and to discuss the impact that these collectives have had on college sports. She also asked Mr. Smith to indicate whether he agrees with Ms. Salamone’s description of NIL collectives being “fan clubs.”
  • Mr. Smith expressed agreement with Ms. Salamone’s description of NIL collectives being “fan clubs.” He noted how NIL collectives had originally emerged as 501(c)(3) organizations and how many collectives are now converting into LLCs. He discussed how NIL collectives are creating activities, events, and podcasts. He also stated that these collectives are often helping connect student athletes with local businesses to pursue NIL compensation deals.

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH):

• Rep. Landsman mentioned how he had introduced the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act with Rep. Mike Carey (R-OH). He indicated that this legislation would provide national oversight for the student athlete NIL compensation space, create a national clearinghouse for student athlete NIL compensation deals, a registration process for student athlete agents, and provide disclosures for student athlete NIL compensation deals. He asked the witnesses to provide their thoughts on the legislation.
  • Mr. Donati expressed support for the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act and commented that the legislation contains many critical provisions.
  • Mr. Smith expressed agreement with Mr. Donati’s comments on the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act and expressed support for the legislation.
  • Mr. Torretta remarked that transparency for student athlete NIL compensation deals and registration for student athlete agents are important features. He asserted however that there must exist an enforcement mechanism for student athlete NIL compensation rules. He stated that either the NCAA or Congress will need to provide an enforcement mechanism for these rules.
  • Ms. Salamone expressed concerns that many legislative proposals for student athlete NIL compensation are vague in terms of how they would accomplish their stated goals. She commented however that the stated goals of these proposals are not necessarily bad. She suggested that collective bargaining may constitute a superior means for accomplishing these goals. She elaborated that many of the legislative proposals are overly prescriptive and may not address the actual challenges facing student athletes.
• Rep. Landsman asked Ms. Salamone to indicate whether Congress should consider proposals to ensure the safety, health, and well-being of college student athletes separately from student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • Ms. Salamone remarked that Congress should consider proposals to ensure the safety, health, and well-being of college student athletes separately from student athlete NIL compensation. She expressed concerns that bills that seek to address both sets of issues are too ambitious, ineffective, and unlikely to be passed into law.
• Rep. Landsman asked Ms. Salamone to indicate whether there should be national oversight to ensure the health and safety of college student athletes.
  • Ms. Salamone remarked that the issue of college student health and safety requires more consideration. She expressed concerns that many of the current legislative proposals meant to address this issue have not been carefully developed.
• Rep. Landsman then predicted that the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act will be combined with other bills. He indicated that his goal is that Congress pass legislation to address the student athlete NIL compensation issue. He stated that the most important aspects of any federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation should be national oversight, transparency, and an enforcement mechanism. He asked the witnesses to comment on his assessment of the issue.
  • Mr. Donati expressed agreement with Rep. Landsman’s assessment of federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation. He added that federal legislation should also provide student athlete agent oversight.
  • Mr. Smith expressed agreement with Rep. Landsman’s assessment of federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • Mr. Torretta remarked that federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation should address the use of inducement payments by schools to recruit high school and transfer student athletes.
  • Ms. Salamone stated that the NCAA has focused more on obtaining an antitrust exemption from Congress than on using their existing authorities to police the student athlete NIL compensation space.
• Rep. Landsman indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Jake Ellzey (R-TX):

• Rep. Ellzey expressed concerns that many college student athletes may be ill-prepared to handle NIL compensation deals. He asked Mr. Donati to provide recommendations for how schools should guide their student athletes that are pursuing NIL compensation deals.
  • Mr. Donati remarked that schools should focus on providing NIL education to their student athletes and testified that TCU provides such education to its student athletes. He mentioned how TCU focuses on ensuring that its student athletes engaged in NIL compensation deals are meeting their tax filing obligations. He then mentioned how he had previously worked as a professional football agent and noted how professional football agents must adhere to certain rules. He stated that a federal uniform standard for agents representing college student athletes would be beneficial.
• Rep. Ellzey asked Mr. Smith to indicate whether the Ohio State University is also providing NIL education to its student athletes.
  • Mr. Smith answered affirmatively. He noted however that third parties will often handle NIL compensation deals on behalf of student athletes. He commented that schools cannot influence these third parties.
• Rep. Ellzey asked Mr. Torretta to indicate whether he would have benefited from NIL education during his college football career.
  • Mr. Torretta noted how many professional athletes have historically experienced challenges managing their earnings. He commented that while NIL education may be beneficial for college student athletes, he expressed concerns that there may be third parties handling NIL compensation deals on behalf of these student athletes that are not prioritizing the best interests of the athletes. He also stated that the establishment of a registration system for student athlete agents would not fully eliminate the bad actors in the space. He noted while the NFL maintains a registration system for player agents and financial advisors, he commented that bad actors remain in this space. He added that many athletes will ignore the advice of their agents and financial advisors (even if the advice is sound).
• Rep. Ellzey indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD):

• Rep. Mfume mentioned how he had served on the board of trustees for Johns Hopkins University and on the board of regents at Morgan State University. He stated that colleges and universities desire guidance and fear litigation. He acknowledged that while there may exist apprehension over having Congress set the rules for student athlete NIL compensation, he warned that Congress’s failure to act on this issue will result in current problems going unresolved. He stated that there exists general consensus regarding the need to establish a system for sports agent registration. He also stated that there exists agreement regarding the need for standardized contracts for student athlete NIL compensation deals. He further called on Congress to adopt a prohibition on the use of inducements for student athletes. He also remarked that the U.S. must establish strong enforcement measures for its student athlete NIL compensation policies. He further highlighted how NIL collectives operate outside of Title IX and often induce student athletes to attend certain schools. He then expressed support for efforts to protect the health and well-being of college student athletes and to adopt independent oversight systems for schools. He recounted how a University of Maryland football player had died five years ago after a practice from a heat-related illness. He noted how a subsequent investigation had found that a poor culture at the school’s football program had led to the player’s death. He stated that these types of incidents occur outside of the University of Maryland and asserted that policymakers must address these issues. He mentioned how he had recently introduced the Jordan McNair Student Athlete Heat Fatality Prevention Act (which is named after the deceased University of Maryland football player). He explained that this legislation would require college sports teams to maintain external defibrillators and cold water immersion equipment. He stated that while addressing the issue of student athlete NIL compensation is important, he asserted that Congress must also work to improve the health of student athletes.

Rep. Aaron Bean (R-FL):

• Rep. Bean asked Mr. Torretta to indicate whether the recent creation of the NCAA Transfer Portal or the advent of student athlete NIL compensation laws is having a greater impact on college sports.
  • Mr. Torretta explained that the NCAA Transfer Portal allows for student athletes to transfer schools and immediately start at their new school without needing to sit out for one year. He noted how student athlete NIL compensation deals are being used to induce student athletes to transfer schools. He stated that the combination of the NCAA Transfer Portal with student athlete NIL compensation deals has not been a positive development. He commented however that the NCAA Transfer Portal itself could be positive for college student athletes.
• Rep. Bean then recounted how then-University of Florida men’s football coach Dan Mullen had lobbied him advocating for a state student athlete NIL compensation law when he had served in the Florida Legislature. He noted how coach Mullen had argued that Florida’s failure to pass a state student athlete NIL compensation law would impede the ability of Florida schools to recruit student athletes. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether states currently maintain similar student athlete NIL compensation laws.
  • Mr. Torretta remarked that there currently exist significant disparities across college athletic conferences and commented that these disparities are driving schools to change their athletic conferences. He highlighted how many West Coast schools are joining East Coast conferences in response to these disparities.
  • Mr. Smith expressed agreement with Mr. Torretta’s comments. He expressed support for the NCAA Transfer Portal. He stated however that schools and policymakers must understand why student athletes are deciding to transfer schools. He further remarked that many schools are looking to join the SEC and the Big Ten Conference because of their strong cultures.
• Rep. Bean asked the witnesses to rate the NCAA’s ability to unilaterally handle the current challenges in college sports on a scale of zero to ten. He explained that a score of zero would indicate no confidence in the NCAA’s ability to handle these challenges while a score of ten would indicate full confidence in the NCAA’s ability to handle these challenges.
  • Mr. Donati expressed confidence in new NCAA President Charlie Baker’s abilities. He stated however that the NCAA still requires help from Congress. He commented that he would rate the NCAA’s ability to handle the current challenges in college sports without Congressional support at a score of 4.
  • Mr. Smith stated that he would also rate the NCAA’s ability to handle the current challenges in college sports without Congressional support at a score of 4.
  • Mr. Torretta commented that “hope is eternal.”
  • Ms. Salamone remarked that the NCAA’s ability to respond to challenges varies based on the specific challenge.

Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI):

• Rep. Scholten lamented how female college student athletes often experience psychological abuse and noted how this abuse can have detrimental effects on mental health. She asked Ms. Salamone to discuss the systemic changes that are needed so that student athletes receive sufficient mental health support and resources. She also highlighted how social media has a significant impact on the mental health of young people. She asked Ms. Salamone to recommend mechanisms that could enable the reporting and monitoring of these mental health challenges.
  • Ms. Salamone called for independent oversight of college sports. She commented that schools are often reluctant to address problems in their athletic programs out of fear that their action could expose them to public scandal. She also discussed how college student athletes face significant pressures and stated that social media can compound these pressures. She remarked that student athletes require independent mental health resources that will not report interactions to coaches. She further stated that college student athletes should be able to talk with people that have experience being student athletes and commented that these people would be better equipped to relate to and counsel student athletes. She also discussed how injured student athletes may experience additional pressures. She elaborated that coaches often pressure their injured student athletes to leave their teams and that injured student athletes may feel more socially isolated as they become unable to participate in their sports. She commented that these added pressures underscore the importance of access to counseling.
• Rep. Scholten then asked Mr. Donati to indicate whether student athlete NIL compensation has alleviated some of the broader stressors that student athletes have to navigate, such low graduation rates and poor mental health.
  • Mr. Donati discussed how many college student athletes come from underprivileged backgrounds and are expected to support their families when they get to school. He noted how the money that student athletes generate from their NIL compensation deals is often remitted to the families of the student athletes. He stated that the ability of student athletes to monetize their NIL rights has been beneficial because these deals can alleviate financial stress for the student athletes and their families.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN):

• Rep. Stauber recounted how he had played hockey both at the college and professional levels. He expressed interest in how schools are working to educate their student athletes. He noted how athletic careers can be limited in nature and how student athletes will eventually exhaust their NIL earnings. He asked the witnesses to address how schools are working to prepare their student athletes for their lives beyond athletics.
  • Mr. Donati discussed how student athletes vary in their receptiveness toward receiving education. He noted how some student athletes do not take advantage of educational opportunities while in school. He mentioned how TCU maintains programs that allow for student athletes to return to the school to complete their degrees after their athletic careers end. He stated that the NCAA limits the amount of time that schools and their student athletes can interact, which necessitates that schools optimize their allotted interactions with their student athletes. He noted how schools can provide their student athletes up to $5,980 per year under NCAA rules. He indicated that this money is commonly known as Alston money. He testified that TCU conditions the receipt of Alston money on the completion of financial literacy education. He acknowledged however that this system is not perfect and reiterated that many student athletes are not receptive to this education.
• Rep. Stauber asked Mr. Smith to respond to his previous question and to project what would happen if the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing were to become law. He expressed his preference for having the NCAA (rather than the federal government) address the student athlete NIL compensation issue.
  • Mr. Smith remarked that while he would also prefer not to have the federal government address the student athlete NIL compensation issue, he asserted that interest groups, lawyers, and politicians have made it very difficult for the NCAA to address the issue on its own. He also expressed doubts over the NCAA’s ability to unilaterally address the issue based on its structure. He concluded that Congress must therefore address the student athlete NIL compensation issue. He specifically called on Congress to adopt rules for sport agents.
• Rep. Stauber lastly expressed appreciation for Ms. Salamone’s comments regarding the need to prioritize the mental and physical health needs of college student athletes.

Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI):

• Rep. Thanedar recounted his experience working as a chemist and wanting to start his own businesses. He mentioned how he had lacked an understanding of basic business concepts, including management, branding, financing, and investments. He commented that many college student athletes likely also lack an understanding of these same business skills. He asked the witnesses to discuss how schools can educate their student athletes on basic business concepts so that the student athletes can make sound financial decisions and avoid exploitation.
  • Mr. Smith remarked that all of the witnesses are supportive of efforts to educate student athletes. He mentioned how the Ohio State University requires its sophomore student athletes to write resumes, which often spurs these student athletes to pursue internship opportunities. He also remarked that the lessons learned from athletic competition and practice are directly transferable to the work environment. He stated that the Ohio State University maintains a robust program for educating its student athletes and preparing them for their careers beyond college.
  • Mr. Donati remarked that the passage of student athlete NIL compensation laws had turned student athletes into entrepreneurs. He highlighted how TCU had established an endowed professorship to support entrepreneurship training for its student athletes. He noted that other schools have launched similar educational programs for their student athletes.

Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD):

• Rep. Mfume asked Ms. Salamone to provide recommendations for how schools can support the non-athletic development of their student athletes.
  • Ms. Salamone lamented how college coaches often fail to protect the well-being of their student athletes in their pursuit of winning. She stated that the U.S. should work to ensure that college coaches protect and respect their student athletes.
  • Mr. Torretta recommended the establishment of independent oversight mechanisms for college sports. He stated that mental abuse is prevalent throughout all levels of athletics and commented that student athletes are limited in their ability to report this abuse. He elaborated that many school administrators have an incentive to prioritize the interests of their schools over the interests of their student athletes, which can weaken their responses to abuse allegations. He recounted how he had once broadcasted a college football game where a football player was put back into a game shortly after experiencing a significant tackle. He stated that the coach in this instance had failed to adequately protect the college football player. He highlighted how the NFL provides their football players with independent sideline doctors to ensure that teams do not put injured players at further risk.
• Rep. Mfume highlighted how Pennsylvania State University had experienced a sexual abuse scandal involving a college football coach. He commented that the coach’s influence at the school had prevented the school from taking earlier action to address the abuse. He also stated that there are many scrupulous coaches that do not know where to report instances of abuse when they occur. He remarked that Congress must develop a system to empower people to report instances of abuse in college sports without fear of repercussion.
  • Mr. Torretta stated that people must have the courage to report instances of abuse when they observe them.
  • Mr. Smith expressed agreement with the previous comments. He stated that Ohio State University could have probably won the 2022 College Football Playoff (CFP) championship if it had permitted one of its injured players to continue playing. He noted that this decision to not permit the injured football player to keep playing was the result of independent oversight. He remarked that independent experts should be empowered to make health and safety decisions for student athletes. He called it important for schools to maintain cultures that prioritize the health and safety of student athletes and to direct student athletes to health care services when problems arise.

Full Committee Chairman Roger Williams (R-TX):

• Chairman Williams mentioned how there have been many criticisms of NIL collectives during the hearing. He noted however that these collectives can help to connect small businesses with student athletes on NIL partnerships and brand deals. He asked the witnesses to discuss NIL collectives and how they help teams to compete.
  • Mr. Donati remarked that NIL collectives exist because they are permitted under law. He stated that many NIL collectives (including TCU’s NIL collective) are very scrupulous. He testified that TCU’s athletic department works with TCU’s NIL collective on efforts to support the school’s student athletes. He mentioned how TCU’s NIL collective is very involved with community service projects and noted how the student athletes involved with the collective are participating in these projects. He acknowledged however that not all NIL collectives function the same as TCU’s NIL collective. He called on Congress to provide more rules and oversight for NIL collectives. He concluded that NIL collectives have been largely beneficial.
  • Mr. Smith expressed agreement with Mr. Donati’s response and remarked that many NIL collectives are engaged in very positive work. He also highlighted how many NIL collectives are assisting Olympic sport student athletes and female student athletes.
  • Mr. Torretta remarked that NIL collective contributors likely want to support their schools and their student athletes. He stated that while NIL collectives can be beneficial, he asserted that NIL collectives must be policed to guard against bad behavior.
  • Ms. Salamone remarked that there exist NIL collectives that are engaging in positive work. She discussed how some NIL collectives are connecting student athletes with charitable organizations for social workers. She stated that college student athletes often require support beyond money and that better engagement with student athletes will enable schools to better satisfy the needs of these athletes.