NIL Playbook: Proposal to Protect Student Athletes’ Dealmaking Rights (U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce)

Hearings	NIL Playbook: Proposal to Protect Student Athletes’ Dealmaking Rights
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce
Date	January 18, 2024

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Student Athlete Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Compensation: The hearing focused on the emergence of state student athlete NIL compensation laws, which enable student athletes to capitalize on their NIL rights. Mr. Griffin mentioned how a poll of student athletes conducted by the Athlete’s Bureau and the Generation Lab had found that most college student athletes use their NIL earnings for saving, investing, and “building a solid financial foundation.” While Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed support for allowing student athletes to capitalize on their NIL rights, they expressed concerns that several problems remain within the college sports NIL compensation landscape. 
  • Inconsistent State Student Athlete NIL Compensation Laws: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Baker, and Ms. Page raised concerns over how states have enacted their own student athlete NIL compensation laws, which has resulted in a lack of uniformity in the rules governing the issue. They alleged that states are often passing these laws to provide their schools with advantages in recruiting and commented that this situation creates compliance challenges for recruiters, schools, and student athletes. Mr. Griffin stated that however there currently exists sufficient harmony in state student athlete NIL compensation laws for student athletes to seamlessly operate across the U.S.
  • Concerns about Inducements from College Boosters, NIL Collectives, and Corporate Entities: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Baker, Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference), Ms. Page, and Ms. Tholl raised concerns over how college boosters, NIL collectives, and corporate entities have used NIL compensation deals to induce student athletes to attend and transfer certain schools. NIL collectives are organizations that are separate from schools that facilitate NIL compensation opportunities for a given school’s student athletes with sponsors and charities. These members and hearing witnesses stated that this use of NIL compensation deals has resulted in a “pay for play” system in college sports, which can threaten the viability of college athletic programs at smaller schools. They expressed concerns that college boosters, NIL collectives, and corporate entities can renege on their NIL compensation deal promises without penalty and that this situation can harm student athletes. They further stated that the NCAA’s Transfer Portal can exacerbate these problems through allowing student athletes to transfer schools and to start playing college sports immediately at their new schools. Mr. Griffin disputed the assertion that student athlete NIL compensation constitutes a “pay for play” system and stated that schools already provide payments to students based on completed work for their schools (e.g., research). He also noted how 80 percent of student athlete NIL compensation deals are between student athletes and brands (and do not involve NIL collectives).
  • Impact on College Women’s Sports, Non-Revenue Generating, and Olympic Sports: Subcommittee Members, Ms. Page, and Ms. Tholl expressed concerns that the growth of NIL compensation deals could threaten the viability of college women’s sports, non-revenue generating sports, and Olympic sports through diverting resources primarily to revenue generating sports (such as college football and basketball). They further stated that this diversion of resources could impact the ability of schools to comply with Title IX gender equity protections. Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) mentioned how she has proposed the College Athlete Economic Freedom Act, which would require that NIL collectives offer equal opportunities to all student athletes at a school.
  • Predatory Student Athlete NIL Compensation Deals: Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) raised concerns that many student athlete NIL compensation deals contain predatory provisions, including structures that resemble loans. 
  • Gambling Concerns: Mr. Baker remarked that permitting student athletes to enter into NIL compensation deals with sports betting companies could pose risks. He noted how the NCAA has worked to educate student athletes about sports betting. He also indicated that the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) would soon experiment with technology that tracks social media attacks against student athletes, officials, and coaches. He noted how bettors are often behind these attacks.
• Policy Proposals to Address Student NIL Compensation: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in developing federal legislation to address the aforementioned challenges in college sports. While Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed hope that such legislation could be bipartisan, there existed disagreement surrounding the policy proposals under consideration at the hearing.
  • The Fairness, Accountability, and Integrity in Representation of (FAIR) College Sports Act: Subcommittee Republicans highlighted how they had proposed the FAIR College Sports Act to provide federal oversight and standards for student athlete NIL compensation. This discussion draft bill would establish registration and disclosure requirements for student athlete NIL compensation agreements, prohibit the use of NIL compensation deals as a tool for inducement, and establish a non-governmental entity to administer these requirements. Subcommittee Democrats, Mr. Griffin, and Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) criticized the discussion draft bill and argued that it would impose burdensome requirements on student athletes pursuing NIL compensation deals. They also criticized the discussion draft bill for its narrow focus on student athlete NIL compensation and for not addressing other important college sports issues, such as student athlete health and safety standards, student athlete health insurance coverage, and Title IX gender equity issues. Of note, Mr. Baker indicated that the NCAA will launch an injury insurance fund and degree completion program for student athletes in August 2024 to support the health and academic needs of student athletes post-graduation.  Subcommittee Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) emphasized that the bill remains in discussion draft bill form and expressed his interest in working with Subcommittee Democrats to ensure that any final legislation is bipartisan.
  • Establishment of the U.S. Intercollegiate Athletics Commission (USIAC): One key element of the FAIR College Sports Act is its establishment of the USIAC to oversee student athlete NIL compensation. This non-governmental entity would have a board of directors would be appointed by Congress. Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Griffin stated that this proposed entity would be disproportionately composed of representatives from athletic associations, college athletic conferences, and institutions of higher education and expressed concerns that it would fail to account for the interests of student athletes. They also expressed concerns that this organization would unfairly restrict the ability of student athletes to enter into NIL compensation deals and would provide student athletes with limited opportunities to appeal decisions.
  • Reporting Requirements for Student Athlete NIL Compensation Deals: Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL) and Mr. Griffin raised concerns over how the Fair College Sports Act would require student athletes and advertisers to disclosure their NIL compensation deals to a proposed USIAC database. They argued that these disclosures would be burdensome and unique to student athlete NIL compensation (which could discourage advertisers from engaging in such NIL compensation deals with student athletes). Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) argued however that these disclosures would ensure that student athlete NIL compensation deals are not being used as inducements. Mr. Baker and Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) emphasized that the disclosures made into the proposed USIAC database would be anonymized. They stated that this information would enable college athletic conferences, schools, and student athletes to understand the true value of NIL compensation deals. Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) and Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) further noted how the discussion draft bill provides a de minimis reporting threshold to reduce reporting burdens for student athletes engaged in NIL compensation deals. They added that this de minimis reporting threshold would better enable student athletes to receive in-kind gifts.
  • Antitrust Exemptions: Another key element of the FAIR College Sports Act would be its provision of an antitrust exemption to the NCAA, NCAA member schools, and college athletic conferences so that they can set rules for student athlete NIL compensation. Mr. Baker and Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) called this antitrust exemption important so that these bodies do not face the prospect of litigation when setting rules for student athlete NIL compensation. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) expressed concerns however that this antitrust exemption would enable these bodies to work together to artificially limit how student athletes can brand themselves and their abilities to receive NIL compensation.
  • Classification of Student Athletes as Employees of their Schools: The FAIR College Sports Act would further provide protections against classifying student athletes as employees of their schools. Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Baker, Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference), Ms. Page, and Ms. Tholl raised concerns that classifying student athletes as employees of their schools could jeopardize the financial viability of many college sports programs (including women’s sports, non-revenue generating sports, and Olympic sports). They also stated that such classification would raise questions regarding whether student athletes are at will employees, the rules for removing athletic scholarships, appropriate wages for student athletes, taxation rules for student athletes, and how college athletic departments will contribute to the retirement plans of their student athletes. Mr. Griffin and Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) argued however that many student athletes (particularly college football players) effectively operate as employees of their schools and that there should exist a revenue sharing model for these student athletes.
  • Restrictions on the Ability of Student Athletes to Pursue NIL Compensation Activities on Campus: Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) and Mr. Griffin expressed concerns with the FAIR College Sports Act’s provisions that would allow for schools to regulate and potentially bar student athletes from engaging in NIL compensation activities while on their campuses. They noted how student athletes currently must spent large amounts of time on their campuses due to their athletic and academic obligations and argued that this restriction would be very burdensome.
  • The NCAA’s Project DI Proposal:  Mr. Baker highlighted how the NCAA had proposed “Project DI,” which would create a new subdivision to allow for the largest college athletic departments to provide enhanced educational benefits and to enter directly into NIL licensing agreements with student athletes. He indicated that this initial proposal is currently being further developed by the NCAA’s Division I Council. He also stated that the NCAA’s proposed approach would enhance school compliance with Title IX rules. Mr. Griffin called this proposal “a good starting out point and a show of good faith.” Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) expressed concerns however that these direct payments may turn into inducements.
  • NIL Compensation Education for Student Athletes: Mr. Baker, Ms. Page, and Ms. Tholl called on schools to provide their student athletes with more education on NIL compensation. They stated that this education should involve contract reviews and tax advice related to NIL compensation deals. Ms. Page testified that her school does not provide her or its other student athletes with any tax advice regarding NIL compensation deals. Ms. Tholl testified that her school does support student athletes in reviewing prospective NIL compensation deals. She also noted that while her school provides workshops on taxation issues, she asserted that these workshops are not as effective as one-on-one counseling sessions.
  • Uniform Standard Contracts for Student Athlete NIL Compensation Deals: Mr. Baker called for the establishment of a uniform standard contract for student athlete NIL compensation deals. He stated that such a contract would provide both student athletes and agents with greater certainty regarding the terms and conditions of student athlete NIL compensation deals. He also stated that agents should be required to obtain permission from student athletes if they seek to deviate from a standard uniform contract. He further asserted that this standard uniform contract should explicitly state that the agent works for the student athlete. Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) suggested that the NCAA could avoid litigation around their uniform standard contract for student athlete NIL compensation deals through permitting student athletes to opt out of this contract.
  • NIL Compensation Opportunities for International Student Athletes: Several Subcommittee Members, Mr. Baker, and Ms. Page expressed interest in ensuring that international student athletes can pursue NIL compensation deals (which they are currently barred from pursuing under current law).
  • Special Treatment for College Football: Dr. Jackson (Arizona State Univeristy) argued that federal policy ought to recognize the unique nature of college football within the U.S. college sports system in that the revenue generated from college football often subsidizes athletic opportunities for other student athletes. She stated that the U.S. should reform its college sports system so that it is not entirely dependent on the efforts of college football players.
• Other Policy Issues: The hearing also considered several other policy topics related to college sports that do not directly involve student athlete NIL compensation.
  • Collective Bargaining for College Student Athletes: Some Subcommittee Democrats, Mr. Griffin, and Mr. Griffin suggested that Congress should consider whether permitting student athletes to unionize would result in improved health, safety, and compensation standards for these athletes. Subcommittee Republicans and Ms. Tholl expressed concerns however that unionization could threaten the viability of certain college sports programs (particularly women’s sports, non-revenue generating sports, and Olympic sports). Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) further expressed concerns over how such unionization would interact with existing state right to work laws.
  • Title IX Compliance: Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) and Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) expressed concerns that schools are currently allowed to double count or triple count women athletes, count roster numbers at tryouts, and count male practice players as female athletes under Title IX. They stated that these policies can reduce college sports opportunities for female student athletes.
  • Participation of Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports: Several Subcommittee Republicans expressed concerns that NCAA policies can permit transgender student athletes to participate in women’s sports and use women’s locker rooms. Mr. Baker noted how current NCAA rules require the host community, the host institution, and host organization of every single NCAA championship event to provide safe and secure accommodations for all athletes. He remarked however that there must exist some standard for transgender athletes to qualify for competition “in very individualized circumstances” if the transgender athletes can meet certain conditions.
  • College Athletic Conference Realignment: Subcommittee Members expressed concerns over impending college athletic conference realignment that will expand the geographical footprints of many college athletic conferences. They warned that this realignment will impose increased travel obligations on student athletes, which may force the student athletes to miss classes so that they can travel to their athletic events. Mr. Baker mentioned how the NCAA has held many conversations with schools, coaches, and college athletic conferences on scheduling reforms to address the travel challenges associated with college athletic conference realignment. He stated that addressing the scheduling challenges associated with college athletic conference realignment should be a top priority.
  • Presence of International Student Athletes in American College Sports: Subcommittee Vice Chair Tim Walberg (R-MI) expressed concerns over the growth of international student athletes in U.S. college sports. He noted how many Americans struggle to afford college and stated that this growth in international student athlete participation could reduce athletic scholarship opportunities for these Americans. Mr. Baker noted however that the U.S.’s population of 18-year-olds has been declining since 2010 and is expected to continue declining for the foreseeable future. He remarked that the presence of more international student athletes (and international students generally) at U.S. schools therefore does not mean that these international athletes are competing with American athletes for slots on college sports teams. He stated that the growth in international students has enabled many schools to remain financially viable.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. The Hon. Charlie Baker, President, National Collegiate Athletic Association
2. Mr. Jeff Jackson, Commissioner, The Missouri Valley Conference
3. Ms. Meredith Page, Student Athlete, Radford University Volleyball
4. Mr. Chase Griffin, Student Athlete, UCLA Football
5. Ms. Kaitlin “Keke” Tholl, Student Athlete, University of Michigan Softball
6. Dr. Victoria Jackson, Associate Clinical Professor of History, Arizona State University

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

• He recounted how the Subcommittee had held an educational hearing focused on student athlete NIL compensation rights in 2023.
  • He indicated that this Subcommittee hearing had involved testimony from student athletes, university presidents, athletic directors, and other college sports stakeholders.
• He remarked that NIL compensation rights have benefited college student athletes and asserted that the adoption of these rights was “long overdue.”
• He stated however that the sudden transition to student athlete NIL compensation rights has enabled a “wild west environment” in college sports where pay-for-play is rampant.
  • He warned that the purchasing of players has set college sports on an unsustainable path and commented that the U.S. must provide safe guardrails and a “level playing field” for college sports.
• He criticized the NCAA for creating many of the problems within the student athlete NIL compensation landscape and stated that the NCAA has struggled to address these problems.
  • He acknowledged however that NCAA President Charlie Baker (who is a witness at the hearing) had just recently joined the NCAA and expressed appreciation for Mr. Baker’s work with Congress thus far to address student athlete NIL compensation.
• He then discussed how college boosters, NIL collectives, and corporate entities have spent money to purchase players for their favorite college sports teams and stated that small schools and non-revenue generating sports are often forgotten.
  • He expressed concerns that the U.S. is failing to sufficiently prioritize the educational opportunities and values that should define the college student athlete experience.
• He also expressed concerns with proposals that would classify student athletes as employers of their schools and that would involve “forced revenue sharing schemes” between schools and student athletes.
• He warned that these proposals could jeopardize the viability of many women’s college sports programs and significantly reduce the U.S. Olympic Team’s pipeline of potential athletes.
  • He highlighted how almost 82 percent of U.S. medalists in the 2020 Summer Olympics had direct ties to a collegiate athletic program.
• He stated that while U.S. courts have broadly settled the debate surrounding student athlete NIL compensation, he asserted that Congress must now intervene and provide “common sense rules of the road” for governing the issue.
• He indicated that the hearing would consider his discussion draft bill, the FAIR Sports Act.
  • He commented that this legislation would establish a clear set of rules for college sports, promote athletic opportunities for student athletes, and preserve amateur sports.
  • He added that this discussion draft bill would accomplish the aforementioned objectives without expanding the size of government.
• He expressed his hope to formally introduce the FAIR College Sports Act as soon as possible and mentioned how he had worked with Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) on developing this legislative proposal.
  • He acknowledged however that Rep. Dingell has not yet committed to supporting the bill.
• He also stated that the FAIR College Sports Act has been subject to an open and robust stakeholder feedback process over the previous eight months.
• He expressed optimism that Congress can reach bipartisan consensus on student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • He thanked Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) for his efforts to develop bipartisan student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • He also thanked Rep. Dingell for working with him on the FAIR College Sports Act.
  • He further expressed interest in working with Subcommittee Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) to find consensus on the FAIR College Sports Act.
• He expressed confidence that Congress can provide stability to college sports while protecting student athletes, promoting fair play, and preserving college sports.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):

• She discussed how college sports have become a billion dollar industry and highlighted how this industry generates revenue from student athletes who do not receive compensation from their schools.
• She highlighted how the FAIR College Sports Act is currently in discussion draft form and called on the Subcommittee to work on a bipartisan basis to develop federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • She asserted that the Subcommittee must make the rights, privileges, and protections of student athletes the top priority of such legislation.
• She noted how college student athletes can currently only derive NIL compensation from third-party companies.
• She recounted how she had worked with student athletes at Northwestern University in 2015 as they had sought to form a union.
  • She noted how these student athletes had expressed concerns over health care and compensation issues.
• She indicated that while this 2015 unionization effort had ultimately been unsuccessful, she asserted that the Subcommittee should listen to the concerns raised by student athletes as it works to develop federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • She specifically stated that the Subcommittee should consider medical coverage, health and safety standards, collective bargaining rights, and Title IX enforcement for student athletes.
• She lastly commented that while she was interested in developing federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation, she expressed some uncertainty as to why Congress (as opposed to courts) is best equipped to protect student athletes.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• She remarked that the current “patchwork” of state laws governing student athlete NIL compensation is confusing for student athletes, schools, and college athletic conferences.
  • She called it unreasonable to expect student athletes to balance their studies while navigating this “maze” of complex and conflicting laws.
• She warned that some current NIL compensation agreements can prove detrimental to the educational experiences, savings, and future careers of student athletes.
  • She mentioned how she had recently heard of a student athlete NIL compensation deal with an NIL collective that included a provision allowing for the NIL collective to request that the student athlete repay the deal’s money with interest.
  • She added that this particular deal’s repayment provisions would remain in effect, even if the deal were to be terminated.
• She remarked that federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation should seek to prevent such abhorrent and predatory behavior.
  • She stated that the establishment of a national standard for student athlete NIL compensation would shield student athletes from bad actors, provide transparency into the evolving NIL compensation marketplace, and better enable student athletes to focus on their athletic and academic endeavors.
• She also noted that while some college sports are profitable, she indicated that most student athletes compete in non-revenue generating sports.
• She discussed how many college sports programs provide opportunities for athletes to pursue college educations and represent the U.S. in international competitions.
  • She highlighted how over 80 percent of the U.S. medalists in the 2020 Summer Olympics had ties to a collegiate sports program.
• She expressed concerns that many of the student athlete NIL compensation legislative proposals under consideration (as well as the current “patchwork” of state laws governing the topic) would jeopardize college sports opportunities for many young people and could prevent these young people from pursuing college educations.
  • She also warned that these policies could force many small schools, including some historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), to eliminate their sports programs all together.
• She remarked however that the FAIR College Sports Act would ensure that college sports opportunities are preserved for student athletes across the U.S.
  • She asserted that student athletes deserve clear guidelines and transparency surrounding their NIL compensation deals and commented that NIL rights constitute a “long overdue” means of compensation for U.S. student athletes.
• He also noted that there are many other policy conversations surrounding college sports beyond the student athlete NIL compensation issue (such as conversations regarding Title IX protections).
• She welcomed all members of Congress and stakeholders to work with the Subcommittee on its efforts to develop federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• He remarked that Congress should prioritize the interests of student athletes as it develops federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • He lamented how college student athletes have historically been limited by the NCAA from capitalizing off of their NIL rights and commented that these limitations had been unique to student athletes.
• He expressed support for student athlete NIL compensation rights and asserted that Congress should not erode these rights.
  • He expressed concerns that the legislative proposals under consideration at the hearing would significantly restrict the NIL compensation rights of student athletes and cement the NCAA’s monopolistic control over student athletes.
• He remarked that the Subcommittee should work to preserve the NIL compensation rights of student athletes and to establish health and safety protections for student athletes (including guaranteed health insurance coverage for athletic-related medical expenses).
  • He added that the Subcommittee should work to provide baseline health and safety standards for college sports.
• He also stated that the Subcommittee should strengthen Title IX protections for student athletes and uphold the First Amendment rights of student athletes to organize.
• He asserted that Committee Republicans are pursuing student athlete NIL compensation legislation that would do more harm than good.
• He then yielded his remaining time to Rep. Lori Trhan (D-MA) and Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI).

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA):

• She first thanked Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Subcommittee Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) for ensuring that the hearing contains student athlete witnesses with a range of experiences.
  • She asserted that student athlete perspectives are the most important perspectives for informing the Subcommittee’s development of student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
• She lamented how the perspectives of student athletes have historically been ignored during policy discussions regarding college sports.
  • She asserted that the U.S.’s current system governing student athletics had historically benefited everyone except for student athletes and commented that student athletes make college sports valuable.
• She noted however that student athletes now have unprecedented power and called this increased power a positive development.
• She highlighted how many student athletes are using their NIL compensation to financially support their families and to cover their own living expenses.
  • She stated that the Subcommittee should not consider legislation that would limit NIL compensation opportunities for student athletes.
• She remarked that the Subcommittee should instead work to address the many problems present within the current NIL compensation system.
  • She indicated that these problems include the inability of international student athletes to pursue NIL compensation deals, Title IX “loopholes” that unfairly reduce athletic roster spots for female student athletes, and “outdated” health and safety standards for student athletes.
• She expressed her disappointment that the FAIR College Sports Act would not address the aforementioned problems.
  • She also expressed her disappointment that the Subcommittee is not considering her bill, the College Athlete Economic Freedom Act.
• She called on the Subcommittee to work together to develop compromise student athlete NIL compensation legislation.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI):

• She discussed how college sports serve as the “lifeblood” of many communities throughout the U.S. and noted how her Congressional District includes both large and small schools.
  • She expressed interest in ensuring the continued viability of all college sports programs.
• She stated the FAIR College Sports Act should serve as a starting point for the development of federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • She indicated that this discussion draft bill includes provisions that she supports and provisions that she has concerns about.
• She raised concerns regarding the FAIR College Sports Act’s employment and antitrust provisions and stated that the Subcommittee will need to refine these provisions.
  • She also stated that the Subcommittee will need to improve the legislation through adding new protections, supporting female student athletes, and maintaining the integrity of college sports.
• She commended the Subcommittee for its pursuit of federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation and expressed her interest in working with all Subcommittee Members on this legislation.
• She asserted that federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation must prioritize gender equity, health and safety, and the well-being of student athletes.

Witness Opening Statements:

The Hon. Charlie Baker (National Collegiate Athletic Association):

• He remarked that while college sports represent one of the world’s greatest human development programs, he stated that college sports has been too slow to modernize and too resistant to change.
  • He warned that these failures to adapt imperil the future of college sports.
• He testified that the NCAA is exhausting every option available to make long overdue reforms to college sports.
• He mentioned how the NCAA has launched an injury insurance fund that will provide all student athletes with access to health insurance for athletically-related injuries for up to two years post-graduation.
  • He indicated that this insurance fund will start in August 2024.
• He also mentioned how the NCAA now requires all NCAA Division I member institutions to offer degree completion funds for up to ten years following the conclusion of a student athlete’s eligibility, scholarship guarantees, and mandatory health and well-being services.
• He further stated that the NCAA has made “great strides” in establishing needed protections for student athlete NIL compensation agreements.
  • He indicated that the NCAA’s Division I Council had passed new rules on this topic the previous week.
• He also mentioned how the NCAA had proposed “Project DI,” which would create a new subdivision to allow for the largest college athletic departments to provide enhanced educational benefits to student athletes and to enter directly into NIL licensing agreements with student athletes.
  • He indicated that this initial proposal is being further developed by the NCAA’s Division I Council.
• He then remarked that the NCAA has developed the aforementioned reforms with the needs of student athletes in mind, as well as their support.
  • He commented that the NCAA had chosen each of these reforms based on the priorities of student athlete advisory groups and testified that student athletes are championing these reforms.
• He remarked that while these reforms are popular and will prove transformative on their own, he asserted that these reforms are inadequate to assure safeguards for the future of college sports.
  • He commented that there remain threats to college sports and that the NCAA lacks the legal authority to address these threats.
• He stated that Congress should give legal backing to the NCAA’s regulations that provide consumer protections for student athletes, such as some form of uniform standard contract.
  • He noted how uniform standard contracts exist in every other financial market within the U.S.
• He also stated that Congress should work to help student athletes to capitalize on their NIL rights, protect student athletes from exploitation, and ensure compliance with Title IX.
  • He emphasized the NCAA’s commitment to ensuring compliance with Title IX and commented that the NCAA’s proposed Project DI would support the application of Title IX to the student athlete NIL compensation landscape.
• He further remarked that Congress should affirm that student athletes are not employees of their schools.
  • He commented that this affirmation would expand benefits for student athletes and safeguard opportunities in women’s sports, Olympic sports, Divisions II and III sports, and HBCUs.
• He then thanked Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) for his introduction of the FAIR College Sports Act and commented that this discussion draft bill contains many important components.
  • He indicated that these components include the federal preemption of state student athlete NIL compensation laws and clarity surrounding the employment status of student athletes.
• He expressed the NCAA’s interest in continuing to engage with the Subcommittee as it works to refine the discussion draft bill and expressed optimism that the Subcommittee can successfully develop bipartisan student athlete NIL compensation legislation.

Mr. Jeff Jackson (The Missouri Valley Conference):

• He discussed how his athletic conference, the Missouri Valley Conference, is composed of 12 public and private educational institutions that serve over 4,000 student athletes.
  • He also highlighted how the athletic conference includes both student athletes that will pursue professional athletic careers and will not.
• He applauded the FAIR College Sports Act for its acknowledgement of the need to tether academics to college sports.
  • He testified that 92 percent of the Missouri Valley Conference’s student athletes will graduate within six years.
• He then remarked that the Missouri Valley Conference had quickly embraced student athlete NIL compensation policies upon their enactment and commended the “entrepreneurial spirit” of the conference’s student athletes.
  • He commented that student athlete NIL compensation has provided valuable business educational opportunities for student athletes.
• He expressed concerns however that NIL compensation has evolved into a means for inducing student athletes to attend and transfer schools.
  • He lamented how bad actors have used NIL compensation deals to take advantage of student athletes.
• He criticized the current absence of regulations for student athlete NIL compensation deals and stated that it remains difficult to discern between legitimate and illegitimate agents.
  • He further expressed concerns over the absence of transparency within the student athlete NIL compensation space and commented that this absence of transparency prevents student athletes from understanding their true market value.
• He remarked that the Subcommittee should create an environment that enables student athletes to capitalize on their NIL rights in a safe manner.

Ms. Meredith Page (Radford University Volleyball):

• She remarked that her experience playing college sports has proven “life changing” and highlighted her positive experience as a member of Radford University’s student athlete advisory committee (SAAC).
  • She indicated that she has also joined the SAAC of her athletic conference and is a representative to the NCAA’s Division I SAAC.
• She remarked that the NCAA’s Division I SAAC is dedicated to enhancing the college student athlete experience and noted how this body includes student athlete representatives from each of the NCAA’s 32 Division I athletic conferences.
  • She stated that the NCAA is dedicated to integrating SAACs into their governance structure and all leadership committees in order to ensure that the perspective of student athletes is being considered.
• She then thanked Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) for including protections against athlete employment status in the FAIR College Sports Act and testified that the NCAA’s Division I SAAC is supportive of these protections.
• She warned that an employment model for college sports would create many uncertainties in college sports.
  • She commented that policymakers must consider whether an employment model for college sports may lead schools to cut athletic programs to fund their revenue generating sports.
  • She also commented that policymakers would need to consider the impact of such a model on Title IX protections, athletic scholarships, and the status of international student athletes.
• She remarked that Congress will need to resolve the aforementioned policy questions before it implements a new model governing student athlete NIL compensation.
  • She asserted that the top priority of college sports should be academics (rather than finances).
• She warned that classifying student athletes as employees would prove detrimental to the framework of college sports and the dreams of youth athletes.
• She stated that Congress should not overlook the interests of non-revenue generating college sports.
  • She emphasized how these sports support the development of many Americans that pursue non-athletic professional careers.
• She then remarked that while the NCAA has taken important actions to protect student athletes, she asserted that the effectiveness of these actions has been limited due to the current “patchwork” of state student athlete NIL compensation laws.
  • She stated that uniformity in the rules governing student athlete NIL compensation is necessary.

Mr. Chase Griffin (UCLA Football):

• He testified that he had personally entered into over 40 NIL compensation deals with companies based across a dozen states.
  • He stated that there currently exists sufficient harmony in state student athlete NIL compensation laws for student athletes to “seamlessly” operate across the U.S.
• He also mentioned how he had started the Athlete’s Bureau newsletter to help other student athletes maximize their NIL compensation opportunities and amplify college athlete perspectives.
• He testified that a poll of student athletes conducted by the Athlete’s Bureau and the Generation Lab had found that most college student athletes use their NIL earnings for saving, investing, and “building a solid financial foundation.”
  • He commented that NIL compensation will not enable most student athletes to live lavish lifestyles, but could support the achievement of more traditional financial goals (such as making a down payment on a first home).
• He expressed his opposition to the FAIR College Sports Act and asserted that the discussion draft bill would create “regulatory obstacles” for college athletics.
• He stated that the FAIR College Sports Act has over 200 negative references to student athlete NIL compensation.
  • He indicated that these negative references include the words “regulate,” “prohibit,” “sanction,” “restrict,” and “inducement.”
  • He commented however that the discussion draft bill does not mention “freedom,” “growth,” “innovation,” or Title IX.
• He disputed the assertions that student athlete NIL compensation constitutes a “nefarious pay-for-play scheme” and discussed how colleges and universities already compete for talented computer science and engineering students through scholarships, stipends, state of the art laboratories, and research grants.
  • He highlighted how Congress annually appropriates nearly $100 million to colleges and universities to fund this research.
• He noted how student researchers share in the royalties when their intellectual property (IP) is developed and commercialized.
  • He commented that this system is never referred to as a “pay-for-research” scheme and that college student athletes should be permitted to share in the revenue that they generate so long as they adhere to the rules.
• He then stated that the FAIR College Sports Act would impose “onerous” regulations on third party advertisers and small businesses for working with college student athletes.
  • He highlighted how the discussion draft bill includes registration fees, monthly reporting requirements, and the threat of U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sanctions for advertisers that maintain NIL compensation deals with student athletes.
  • He indicated that his testimony identifies both small and large businesses located in the Congressional Districts of the Subcommittee Members that would be harmed by this discussion draft bill’s provisions.
• He also asserted that the FAIR College Sports Act would be especially harmful to female student athletes and highlighted how 91 percent of female student athlete compensation comes from brands and small businesses.
  • He noted how current women’s college basketball players Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese are using their NIL compensation deals to grow the popularity of women’s college basketball.
• He remarked that no other industry’s brand endorsers are subjected to the same types of regulations being contemplated under the FAIR College Sports Act.
• He contended that the FAIR College Sports Act would codify an “outdated” NCAA business model.
  • He noted how U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh had asserted that this business model would be “flatly illegal” in almost any other U.S. industry.
• He warned that the enactment of the FAIR College Sports Act would deprive another generation of student athletes of a “proven and growing pathway to the American dream.”

Ms. Kaitlin “Keke” Tholl (University of Michigan Softball):

• She recounted how the NCAA had begun to permit student athletes to derive NIL compensation during the start of her second year in college.
• She stated that the initial rules governing student athlete NIL compensation had been vague and unclear and commented that there had existed uncertainties surrounding how student athletes should comply with these rules.
  • She specifically indicated that there were uncertainties regarding the taxation, reporting, and legitimacy of NIL compensation deals.
• She mentioned how she had initially entered into a single NIL compensation deal during her sophomore year with a merchandise company called Blue By Ninety.
  • She described this deal as low maintenance and commented that the company had made her feel valued.
• She stated however that she had been hesitant to pursue additional NIL compensation deals because of her existing academic, athletic, social, and NIL obligations.
• She mentioned how her school, the University of Michigan, has since hired staff to support and educate student athletes about NIL compensation.
• She also highlighted how her school has identified institutional resources and a framework for student athletes to feel more confident pursuing NIL compensation deals.
  • She noted how she can work with the University of Michigan Law School’s Entrepreneurship Clinic to have contracts reviewed and renegotiated (if necessary) prior to signing student athlete NIL deals.
• She stated that student athletes are not equipped to navigate legal battles with companies over NIL compensation deals and added that student athletes often lack the necessary financial resources to engage in such battles.
  • She asserted that student athlete NIL education is therefore critically important for student athletes that may lack the financial means to hire an agent.
• She then remarked that the current laws governing student athlete NIL compensation remain vague and unclear and expressed concerns over how NIL compensation deals are being used to influence student athletes during their recruitment processes.
• She also noted that while classifying student athletes as employees of their schools could enable student athletes to share in revenue with their schools, she stated that such classification would pose various complications.
  • She indicated that these complications would involve insurance, health care, retirement, minimum wage, unionization, pensions, salary bands, and human resources.
  • She further commented that such classification would raise questions regarding whether student athletes are at will employees, the rules for removing athletic scholarships, appropriate wages for student athletes, taxation rules for student athletes, and how college athletic departments will contribute to the retirement plans of their student athletes.
• She then remarked that there exists uncertainty surrounding how schools and NIL collectives ought to comply with Title IX rules, which is resulting in a lack of enforcement of Title IX rules.
  • She raised concerns that this uncertainty could undermine recent progress in women’s college sports.
• She stated that Congress should work to provide uniform rules governing student athlete NIL compensation for all schools and student athletes and protect the mental, physical, and financial well-being of student athletes.

Dr. Victoria Jackson (Arizona State University):

• She remarked that NIL compensation restores economic rights to student athletes that are already enjoyed by all other students.
• She noted how there exist two primary forms of compensation for college student athletes: subsidization and the market for talent.
  • She explained that subsidization involves a payment for a student athlete’s grant-in-aid and expenses to attend a particular school.
  • She explained that the market for talent involves payment for student athletes to play for and remain with a particular sports team.
• She noted that while the U.S. has partially lifted its restrictions on student athletes earning money from third parties, she stated that the U.S. continues to treat college sports teams and student athletes differently from other educational programs and the students that participate in these programs.
  • She highlighted how a private person would be permitted to provide tuition payments and stipends for all musicians attending a given school and would be prohibited from providing similar tuition payments and stipends for all athletes attending a given school.
• She remarked that the U.S.’s policies and actions have undervalued and undermined the exceptional talent of top college football players.
  • She commented that the U.S.’s current treatment of college sports conveys a view that some forms of talent are more respectable and noble than others, that the derivement of compensation from athletic talent is wrongful or unsavory, and that student athletes should not desire money because this desire would undermine their academic pursuits.
• She asserted that the U.S. tends to treat sports-related college programs differently than other college programs (such as college music programs).
• She then remarked that the U.S. must tease out and optimize each of the varied sports industries operating under the umbrella of college sports.
  • She commented that some of these varied sports industries have been more than only education programs for a very long time and serve different business ends and athlete goals, as well as have different missions.
• She stated that uniform policies that treat all college sports the same and all student athletes as deserving of the same benefits mean that these various sports industries contain design flaws that lead to suboptimal student athlete experiences.
  • She added that these policies encourage the development of bizarre and harmful business practices because incentives are improperly aligned.
• She noted how uniform policies at “top of pyramid” football schools make their football players pay for the athletic and academic experiences of other student athletes.
  • She asserted that the U.S. must correct this dynamic.
• She then applauded Congress and the NCAA for embracing a “much needed” national policy conversation surrounding the redesign of the U.S.’s college sports system.
• She stated that reforms to “top of pyramid” football programs will enable football players to receive their owed compensation and will strengthen women’s sports and Olympic sports programs.
  • She mentioned how the Commission on the Status of the U.S. Olympics and Paralympics has worked diligently to develop a college sports redesign proposal and encouraged college sports leaders to work with the Commission on this effort.
•  She concluded that the U.S. has a “great” opportunity to build a new college sports model that is less dependent on football revenue and that provides more sports participation opportunities.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

• Chairman Bilirakis noted how Mr. Baker had stated that the U.S. should recognize the unique status of student athletes and affirm that student athletes should not be considered employees of their schools. He commented that classifying student athletes as employees of their schools would harm the U.S.’s Olympic Sports pipeline and opportunities available for under-resourced schools. He asked Mr. Baker to elaborate on the need for the U.S. to preserve amateur status for college athletics at smaller schools (such as HBCUs, NCAA Division II schools, and NCAA Division III schools).
  • Mr. Baker discussed how there are 1,100 schools that provide sports to their students and highlighted how less than 100 of these schools spend over $50 million on sports. He also noted that most schools spend less than $25 million on sports and that a “really significant portion” of schools spend less than $15 million on sports. He remarked that NCAA Division I schools should possess the capacity and ability to do more to support their student athletes. He added that NCAA Division II and Division III schools should also be able to support their student athletes. He warned however that converting all of college sports into an employment model will result in a loss of student athlete opportunities across all three NCAA Divisions. He noted how most schools (including Division I schools) lose money on their sports programs. He stated that schools offer sports programs to benefit student athletes, alumni, and their communities. He remarked that only the top schools can generate significant television revenues and ticket sales from their sports programs. He commented that these schools are unique and different. He mentioned how the NCAA’s Project DI proposal had contemplated a special subdivision for these top schools that would have a different regulatory and management structure. He stated that converting student athletes (who already receive scholarships and other benefits) into employees would drastically change college sports. He remarked that any federal college sports legislation must be feasible for all of college sports. He asserted that an employment model would not be feasible for all of college sports given the costs associated with employment.
• Chairman Bilirakis then noted how the Missouri Valley Conference is mainly composed of smaller schools that tend to generate less revenue from their college sports programs relative to Power Five Conference schools. He asked Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) to explain the economics underlying the Missouri Valley Conference’s athletics programs. He specifically asked Mr. Jackson to address how Missouri Valley Conference schools use their football-generated revenues and tuition funds to support college sports teams. He further asked Mr. Jackson to discuss how the FAIR College Sports Act would protect the Missouri Valley Conference’s current model.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) testified that the average athletic budget of a Missouri Valley Conference member school is between $20 million and $30 million. He indicated that most of these budgets are derived from student fees. He also stated that the Missouri Valley Conference cannot command the same broadcast fees as larger college athletic conferences. He testified that the Missouri Valley Conference’s member schools do not generate any significant revenue except for one sport and indicated that this revenue is dispersed to subsidize other sports. He remarked that the Missouri Valley Conference could not continue to exist in its current form if student athletes were classified as employees of their schools or if there are no safeguards surrounding student athlete NIL compensation.
• Chairman Bilirakis interjected to indicate that his question period time had expired.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):

• Subcommittee Ranking Member Schakowsky asked Mr. Griffin to discuss how NIL compensation has been an important feature of his life. She also asked Mr. Griffin to address how the FAIR College Sports Act would restrict student athlete NIL compensation opportunities.
  • Mr. Griffin remarked that NIL compensation has afforded him with the opportunity to have a cumulative education while in college. He noted how non-student athletes can develop work experience through internships and capitalize on their NIL rights. He stated that extending NIL compensation opportunities to student athletes would put student athletes on a “level playing field.” He testified that the changes in student athlete NIL compensation policies have enabled him to build out a consulting business and marketing service to Fortune 500 companies. He added that these policy changes have enabled him to pursue investing and music opportunities. He remarked that student athletes have interests beyond their sports and commented that NIL compensation provides student athletes with an opportunity to capitalize on these interests while in school.
• Subcommittee Ranking Member Schakowsky asked Mr. Griffin to address how the FAIR College Sports Act would be harmful.
  • Mr. Griffin remarked that the FAIR College Sports Act could result in overregulation of student athlete NIL compensation deals. He expressed concerns that such overregulation would discourage companies from pursuing NIL compensation deals with student athletes. He elaborated that the discussion draft bill would require prospective sponsors to subject themselves to registration and monitoring requirements. He noted how these sponsors are not subject to such requirements when partnering with other influencers on NIL compensation deals.
• Subcommittee Ranking Member Schakowsky then asked Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) to indicate whether the FAIR College Sports Act sufficiently supports college student athletes. She also asked Dr. Jackson to provide recommendations for improving the discussion draft bill.
  • Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) remarked that college sports (and particularly “top tier” college sports) has had an unsustainable business model for a very long time. She commented that unsustainable practices within the college sports model had ultimately led to the lifting of NIL compensation restrictions on college student athletes. She stated that her opposition to elements of the FAIR College Sports Act stems from the discussion draft bill’s narrow focus, imposition of unnecessary restrictions on student athletes, inclusion of elements that would be impossible to execute, prevention of potential reforms to the college sports model, and failure to address systemic issues. She further stated that this discussion draft bill would perpetuate the monitoring and policing of student athletes and asserted that this monitoring and policing ought to be halted.
• Subcommittee Ranking Member Schakowsky expressed interest in taking the witness’s concerns into consideration as the Subcommittee moves forward in its consideration of federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Ms. Page to define the phrase “pay for play.”
  • Ms. Page remarked that “pay for play” refers to a situation where an educational institution can directly compensate a student athlete for their participation in a college sport. She expressed support for student athlete NIL compensation and described such compensation as a “perk” of the student athlete experience. She stated however that “pay for play” systems and employment models for college sports would harm mid-major universities.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Ms. Page to discuss the level of athletic competition at mid-major schools and to indicate how a “pay for play” college sports system would impact her school’s ability to compete with larger universities.
  • Ms. Page remarked that a “pay for play” system in college sports would further “widen the gap” between mid-major universities and larger universities. She stated that mid-major universities currently possess excellent competition and student athletes and noted how larger universities will often poach student athletes from mid-major universities. She mentioned how her volleyball team (which plays in a mid-major athletic conference) had beaten Rutgers University (which plays in a Power Five athletic conference) during her sophomore year. She called it important for mid-major universities to be able to compete with larger universities and asserted that this ability is key to the integrity of college sports.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then expressed appreciation for Mr. Baker’s efforts to enhance the safety and welfare of student athletes. She commended the NCAA for its adoption of registration and disclosure requirements for student athlete NIL compensation deals. She stated however that the NCAA’s recent proposals to permit schools to directly sign NIL compensation agreements with their student athletes and to permit schools to make increased payments of enhanced educational benefits (known as Alston payments) to student athletes raise questions. She asked Mr. Baker to explain how these proposed changes would not incentivize “pay for play.”
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the NCAA had proposed these changes for Title IX reasons. He discussed how the current NIL collective space remains opaque and highlighted how over 90 percent of NIL collective expenditures are going to male student athletes. He noted how these NIL collectives have indirect relationships with the schools that they support. He stated that permitting schools to directly engage in NIL compensation deals with their student athletes would better ensure that schools are sufficiently investing in their female student athletes. He remarked that the U.S. has made “tremendous progress” over the previous 50 years in growing a vibrant women’s college athletics environment. He expressed concerns that a failure to directly account for Title IX in student athlete NIL compensation policies could undermine gender equity in college sports. He stated that one way to ensure such gender equity is to have schools more involved in their student athlete NIL compensation deals. 
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers expressed agreement with Mr. Baker’s objective of protecting women’s college sports. She asked Mr. Baker to address how the NCAA’s reforms would impact smaller schools that might not be able to afford greater Alston payments for their student athletes.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the NCAA is proposing to lift its current constraints on payments to student athletes and to empower schools to decide how they can best support their student athletes within the Title IX framework.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) to respond to Mr. Baker’s comments.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) expressed agreement with Mr. Baker’s comments. He discussed how the athletic facilities at larger universities already tend to be different from the facilities at mid-major universities. He remarked that the Missouri Valley Conference is focused on ensuring that their schools can fairly compete for championships with larger schools. He stated that such competition can still occur, even if there exist different rules for certain schools. He commented that these different rules are unlikely to completely prevent smaller schools from competing with larger schools. He stated that the U.S. must ensure that there exists clarity surrounding the rules governing college sports and that the rules do not enable inducements of student athletes and opaqueness in the college sports system.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL):

• Rep. Castor discussed how recruiting has been a longstanding feature of college sports. She noted how Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) has asserted that inducements have long been the “heart” of college athletic recruiting. She mentioned how universities had spent approximately $325 million on student athlete recruiting during the 2021-2022 school year. She also noted how NCAA Division I schools spend more on student athlete recruiting than on medical care for student athletes. She further highlighted how many of the top college sports programs maintain “lavish” facilities and commented that smaller schools cannot afford these same facilities. She remarked that the advent of student athlete NIL compensation has changed the dynamic underlying college sports recruiting. She stated that student athletes can now use NIL compensation opportunities as a factor in choosing their schools. She remarked however that NIL collectives have had a distortionary impact on the college sports system. She noted how the FAIR College Sports Act would ban student athlete NIL compensation deals that could be construed as an inducement to attend a given school. She asked Dr. Jackson to project the impact that this prohibition would have on the newfound NIL compensation rights of college student athletes. She also asked Dr. Jackson to address how Congress could balance the need to provide robust NIL compensation rights to student athletes with the need to prevent fraud and misplaced incentives within the student athlete NIL compensation space.
  • Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) remarked that the total amount of inducements that a school provides to student athletes is difficult to measure. She stated that NIL compensation is one of many factors that student athletes are considering when deciding where to attend college. She then discussed how most schools have historically spent four or five times more on recruiting male student athletes than on recruiting female student athletes. She attributed this spending disparity to football recruiting expenditures. She remarked that it will be difficult to impose a new set of rules on the college recruiting system and suggested that student athletes collective bargaining may provide a more feasible system for protecting student athletes.
• Rep. Castor interjected to ask Ms. Tholl to address how Congress could balance the need to ensure that student athletes can capitalize on NIL compensation opportunities with the need to impose “guardrails” on NIL collectives.
  • Ms. Tholl raised concerns over how NIL collectives are disproportionately spending their money on male student athletes. She noted how her school (the University of Michigan) has an NIL collective and that the operations of this NIL collective are opaque. She indicated that while the University of Michigan does not use its NIL collective for recruiting purposes, she alleged that other schools are using their NIL collectives for recruiting purposes. She raised concerns that NIL collectives are promising NIL compensation deals to induce student athletes to schools and that the NIL collectives may later renege on these promises due to insufficient funding. She remarked that NIL collectives should provide their schools access to their financial information. She stated that this information will ensure that false promises are not being made to student athlete recruits. She warned that broken NIL compensation deal promises from NIL collectives may force student athletes to take out loans to cover their educational and living expenses.
• Rep. Castor also asked Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) to address how Congress could balance the need to ensure that student athletes can capitalize on NIL compensation opportunities with the need to impose “guardrails” on NIL collectives.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) remarked that inducements and NIL compensation are different things. He expressed support for expanding access to NIL compensation opportunities for student athletes and stated that these opportunities would enable student athletes to take advantage of their work. He remarked however that the use of inducement payments to recruit student athletes would fundamentally change how schools interact with their student athletes. He stated that the NCAA serves as a vehicle that offers student athletes with opportunities for success. He warned that an absence of clear and consistent rules for college sports would jeopardize the viability of the NCAA. He expressed concerns that many student athlete NIL compensation reform proposals would benefit a small number of student athletes at the expense of most student athletes.

Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN):

• Rep. Buchson expressed support for student athlete NIL compensation and stated that the NCAA has historically been slow to provide student athletes with appropriate rights and protections. He commented that the NCAA’s slow response had ultimately led to litigation that created the current “wild west” student athlete NIL compensation and NCAA transfer portal atmosphere. He mentioned how his region of Indiana is home to many NCAA Division I and Division III schools (including members of the Missouri Valley Athletic Conference). He expressed interest in how student athlete NIL compensation impacts mid-sized schools and non-revenue generating athletic programs. He remarked that the FAIR College Sports Act contains many positive provisions that will protect the current college sports model. He indicated that one such provision is the stipulation that student athletes are not employees of their schools. He mentioned how he had participated in a U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing one decade prior that had considered the Northwestern University football team’s attempt to unionize. He remarked that this hearing had made clear that making student athletes employees of their schools would not be tenable and would “severely” damage the future of college sports. He noted how many schools had stated they would eliminate their athletic programs if student athletes were to be classified as employees. He stated that classifying student athletes as employees of their schools would have significant tax and financial implications for student athletes. He elaborated that such classification could force the creation of a national worker’s compensation program for student athletes (which he commented would be challenging to establish). He asked Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) to indicate whether there are any changes or additional information that should be included in the proposed USIAC public database that would help student athletes have a clearer understanding of their NIL compensation value.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) called it important for a USIAC database to provide anonymized data. He commented that disclosing the names of student athletes involved in NIL compensation deals could discourage student athletes from pursuing such deals. He remarked that while increased transparency surrounding student athlete NIL compensation deals could enable more nuanced policy conversations, he stated that the key purpose of this public database would be to enable college athletic conferences, schools, and student athletes to understand the true value of NIL compensation deals. He commented that this information will enable college athletic conferences and schools to better protect their student athletes.
• Rep. Bucshon also mentioned how Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) had suggested that federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation provide a de minimis reporting threshold for student athlete NIL compensation deals. He noted how Mr. Jackson had asserted that this de minimis reporting threshold would help protect and reduce compliance burdens for student athletes. He asked Mr. Jackson to indicate whether the FAIR College Sports Act’s current de minimis reporting threshold would accomplish these objectives. He also asked Mr. Jackson to indicate whether there exist other forms of in-kind compensation exemptions that the Subcommittee should be considering to protect student athletes.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) remarked that Congress must determine the FAIR College Sports Act’s precise de minimis reporting threshold for student athlete NIL compensation deals. He commented however that this de minimis reporting threshold remains important. He mentioned how many of his conference’s student athlete NIL compensation deals involve in-kind gifts. He asserted that a de minimis reporting threshold would enable student athletes to take advantage of these in-kind gifts without being subjected to burdensome reporting requirements. He commented that these small in-kind gifts do not undermine fair competition in college sports.
• Rep. Bucshon provided Mr. Baker with an opportunity to comment on proposals to establish a de minimis reporting threshold for student athlete NIL compensation deals.
  • Mr. Baker expressed support for the establishment of a de minimis reporting threshold for student athlete NIL compensation deals. He expressed agreement with Mr. Jackson’s (Missouri Valley Conference) arguments in favor of establishing such a threshold.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI):

• Rep. Dingell remarked that the Subcommittee must engage in more work on student athlete NIL compensation issues before she can support any legislative proposal on the topic. She highlighted how college sports is very important to many U.S. communities and commented that college sports plays a key role in the development of many young Americans. She expressed concerns that the FAIR College Sports Act would shut down the debate surrounding student athlete employment status and revenue sharing. She indicated however that Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) has expressed a willingness to further consider this aspect of the discussion draft bill. She also noted how the FAIR College Sports Act would provide an antitrust exemption for the NCAA, NCAA member schools, and college athletic conferences. She commented that this exemption would enable these bodies to work together to artificially limit how student athletes can brand themselves and their ability to receive NIL compensation. She remarked that the Subcommittee must ensure that any federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation protects student athletes. She stated that the Subcommittee should include health, wellness, and safety guarantees, strengthen Title IX protections, and ensure that schools and college athletic conferences distribute their revenues generated from college sports as part of any federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation. She further stated that any governing body that oversees student athlete NIL compensation must have student athlete representatives. She then asked Ms. Tholl to discuss her experiences as a college athlete in the current NIL compensation landscape. She also asked Ms. Tholl to address how the student athlete NIL compensation landscape has changed since she started college. She further asked Ms. Tholl to elaborate on the successes of and challenges within the student athlete NIL compensation landscape.
  • Ms. Tholl testified that her experience with NIL compensation has been positive and commented that her NIL compensation deals have been low maintenance. She mentioned how she had initially been hesitant to pursue NIL compensation deals because the rules governing these deals were vague and unclear. She further noted how schools had been barred by law from providing their student athletes with significant help for NIL compensation deals. She stated however that she has since become more confident in her ability to pursue NIL compensation deals. She also commended the University of Michigan Athletic Department for setting up information sessions, workshops, and consultations to support the school’s student athletes in navigating NIL compensation deals. She mentioned how these resources had helped her to renegotiate a bad NIL compensation deal. She acknowledged however that some schools do not offer these NIL compensation resources to their student athletes and asserted that all schools should be providing these resources to their student athletes. She commented that the absence of these resources can cause student athletes to enter into bad NIL compensation deals that cannot be exited. She called on Congress to require that schools educate their student athletes on NIL compensation and the tax implications of NIL compensation. She further lamented how some schools are using NIL compensation deals to induce student athletes to attend their schools (despite prohibitions on such inducements). She warned that schools may induce student athlete recruits to their schools through the promise of NIL compensation deals and then fail to provide the promised NIL compensation deals once the student athletes matriculate at the school. She expressed concerns that NIL collectives could professionalize college sports, which could threaten the viability of Olympic and women’s sports. She asserted that Congress must be vigilant regarding the continued viability of these sports.
• Rep. Dingell indicated that her question period time had expired. She indicated that she would submit additional questions for the hearing’s record.

Subcommittee Vice Chair Tim Walberg (R-MI):

• Vice Chair Walberg discussed how the NCAA’s annual reporting indicates that the number of international student athletes competing in college sports in the U.S. has increased by 35 percent since 2015. He noted how many of his constituents have raised concerns that the cost of a college education has continued to grow and highlighted how an increasing number of American students are struggling to afford college. He commented that the growth in international student athletes can make it more difficult for American student athletes to obtain college athletic scholarships. He asked Mr. Baker to explain why more international athletes are being recruited to play for U.S. college sports teams. He also asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether this growth in international student athletes is harming the U.S.’s competitiveness at the Olympics.
  • Mr. Baker first attributed NIL compensation’s importance to student athletes to the rise of social media and the increased ability of people to access information. He then remarked that college sports is “uniquely American” and one of the most powerful human potential development programs in the world. He attributed the increase in the number of international athletes to the growing awareness of American college sports internationally and the unique value proposition of American college sports. He noted how most foreign countries do not provide athletes with an opportunity to obtain a college degree and master their athletic talents simultaneously.
• Vice Chair Walberg interjected to acknowledge the value proposition and unique nature of American college sports. He stated however that many American athletes are facing challenges obtaining Olympic-level training due to the increase in the number of international college student athletes. He commented that this growth in international college student athletes has broader consequences.
  • Mr. Baker noted how the U.S.’s population of 18-year-olds has been declining since 2010 and is expected to continue declining for the foreseeable future. He remarked that the presence of more international student athletes (and international students generally) at U.S. schools therefore does not mean that these international athletes are competing with American athletes for slots on college sports teams. He stated that the growth in international student athletes has enabled many schools to remain financially viable. He then discussed how U.S. schools provide $4 billion in athletic scholarships and commented that these scholarships from U.S. schools benefit student athletes. He noted how Congress supports these scholarships through making the scholarships tax exempt. He stated that these scholarships support Americans.
• Vice Chair Walberg interjected to assert that the U.S. must ensure that college athletic scholarships continue to serve Americans. He acknowledged that his question period time had expired and expressed interest in continuing to discuss this issue with Mr. Baker.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that international students are key to enabling schools to remain financially viable given the decline in the U.S.’s domestic population.

Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL):

• Rep. Kelly recounted how many of the student athletes that she had known during her college years had needed to drop out of school following an injury. She emphasized that these injuries would cause the student athletes to lose their athletic scholarships (which meant that the student athletes could thus no longer afford their tuition payments). She remarked that the U.S. appears to have made progress on this issue. She then discussed how the NCAA’s Division I manual is 465 pages and noted how college student athletes must comply with the manual to retain their athletic eligibility and retain their athletically-related aid. She highlighted how student athletes must also comply with an extensive list of rules from their own college athletic conferences. She stated however that the NCAA and college athletic conferences imposing these complex and cumbersome requirements on student athletes are claiming that new student athlete NIL compensation rights are a source of confusion for student athletes. She asked Mr. Griffin to indicate whether state student athlete NIL compensation laws and new student athlete NIL compensation freedoms have been a source of confusion for him and his teammates.
  • Mr. Griffin remarked that state student athlete NIL compensation laws and new student athlete NIL compensation freedoms are a source of “enlightenment” (and not confusion). He stated that student athletes now have an opportunity to capitalize on their innate value. He remarked that NIL compensation deals provide student athletes with educational opportunities related to taxes and how to create value for brands. He commented that these lessons can only be learned through experience. He warned that the overregulation of student athlete NIL compensation could jeopardize these educational opportunities for student athletes. He asserted that free markets have historically proven effective at addressing bad actors without the need for additional interventions.
• Rep. Kelly then expressed concerns that the FAIR College Sports Act would create a NCAA-like institution to oversee student athlete NIL compensation whose board of directors would be appointed by Congress. She asserted that this proposed institution would be disproportionately composed of representatives from athletic associations, college athletic conferences, and institutions of higher education. She also stated that this proposed institution would be empowered to suppress the rights of college student athletes to enter into agreements, earn compensation, and obtain representation for their use of their NIL rights. She asked Mr. Griffin to indicate whether he supports the creation of this proposed institution and to project the impact that this institution could have on the ability for student athletes to capitalize on their NIL rights.
  • Mr. Griffin indicated that he does not support the FAIR College Sports Act’s proposed institution to oversee student athlete NIL compensation. He noted how this proposed institution would be composed of 21 political appointees and that many of these appointees do not need to have an athletic background. He stated that major advertisers and small businesses would not engage in NIL compensation deals with student athletes if a politically appointed entity must clear these deals. He remarked that many stakeholders and members of Congress are proposing overregulation to address bad actors within the student athlete NIL compensation space. He stated however that a free market could effectively address these bad actors and sufficiently reward student athletes for their value.
• Rep. Kelly then expressed concerns that college student athletes that fail to make burdensome and unnecessary disclosures regarding their NIL compensation deals (as mandated by the FAIR College Sports Act) may lose their athletic eligibility. She also noted how the discussion draft bill could subject advertisers and other third parties to criminal penalties and jail time if their student athlete NIL compensation deals could be construed as inducements. She asked Mr. Griffin to indicate whether he supports these provisions of the discussion draft bill. She also asked Mr. Griffin to project the impact of these provisions on the ability of student athletes to capitalize on their NIL rights.
  • Mr. Griffin remarked that the annual growth of legitimate student athlete NIL compensation deals suggests that these deals are mutually beneficial for both brands and student athletes. He warned that additional federal oversight of the student athlete NIL compensation space would result in overregulation that would ultimately harm access to opportunities for student athletes.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Rep. Duncan discussed how individual states have enacted their own student athlete NIL compensation laws. He remarked that the current “hodgepodge” of state student athlete NIL compensation laws creates compliance challenges for recruiters, schools, and student athletes. He expressed concerns that the current student athlete NIL compensation landscape could lead school boosters to pay student athletes to attend certain schools. He also expressed concerns that student athlete NIL compensation and the NCAA’s current transfer portal could damage amateurism in college sports, harm non-revenue sports, and make student athletes vulnerable to exploitation. He contended that Congress must work to enact federal legislation to create national rules for governing student athlete NIL compensation. He asked Mr. Baker to discuss the NCAA’s current jurisdiction over college boosters, NIL collectives, agents, and other third parties within the student athlete NIL compensation ecosystem.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the NCAA currently has “limited” jurisdiction over college boosters, NIL collectives, agents, and other third parties within the student athlete NIL compensation ecosystem. He noted that the NCAA can investigate the use of recruiting inducements as a violation of its rules. He indicated however that there do not currently exist either any rules governing agents or any penalties for agents that misrepresent NIL compensation opportunities to student athletes. He asserted that there exists “virtually no transparency” within the student athlete NIL compensation space. He stated that while free markets can be self-regulating, he remarked that the federal government is responsible for providing accountability, transparency, and consequences for bad actors so that free markets do not exploit people and do not misrepresent price and quality. He commented that Congress has an opportunity to improve the student athlete NIL compensation space. He further stated that student athlete NIL compensation laws would not impact legitimate NIL compensation deals (such as Mr. Griffin’s NIL compensation deals). He noted however that many state student athlete NIL compensation laws are designed to provide the schools within their states with a recruiting advantage. He thanked Congress for considering this issue.
• Rep. Duncan interjected to comment that free markets do not work for markets that are subject to varying state regulatory systems. He stated that the FAIR College Sports Act would establish a new non-governmental entity to provide order to the student athlete NIL compensation space. He then asked Ms. Page, Mr. Griffin, and Ms. Tholl to indicate whether they receive tax advice regarding their NIL compensation deals and the tax implications triggered by these deals.
  • Ms. Page testified that her school does not provide her or its other student athletes with any tax advice regarding NIL compensation deals. She stated that she receives much less counseling from her school regarding NIL compensation relative to student athletes at other schools.
• Rep. Duncan interjected to emphasize that the revenue from student athlete NIL compensation deals have tax implications.
  • Mr. Griffin remarked that his experience entering into NIL compensation deals has provided him with experience paying taxes and commented that he would not have this experience absent NIL compensation.
  • Ms. Tholl remarked that most schools likely do not provide tax counseling to their student athletes for their NIL compensation deals. She noted that while the University of Michigan does provide workshops on taxation issues for its student athletes engaged in NIL compensation deals, she commented that these workshops are not the same as one-on-one tax counseling. She stated that all schools should provide their student athletes with education regarding the tax implications of NIL compensation.
• Rep. Duncan concluded that Congress must prioritize the interests of student athletes as part of any federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation. He elaborated that schools, college athletic conferences, and the NCAA should be the second, third, and fourth priorities (respectively) in any such federal legislation.

Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

• Chairman Bilirakis expressed agreement with Rep. Jeff Duncan’s (R-SC) assertion that Congress should prioritize student athletes as part of any federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL):

• Rep. Soto discussed how college sports are beloved across the U.S. and lauded the attributes of student athletes. He remarked that student athletes help to create one of the most popular parts of the American college experience and that college sports teams play key roles in many smaller communities. He noted however that many student athletes face economic hardships. He mentioned how many states (including his state of Florida) have passed student athlete NIL compensation laws to provide economic opportunities for these student athletes. He called these laws “long overdue.” He cautioned however that student athlete NIL compensation could provide wealthier regions and schools with wealthier alumni networks with advantages in college sports. He contended that Congress must therefore enact federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation to provide minimum national standards for college sports. He mentioned how the U.S. Supreme Court had recognized the need for education-related benefits for student athletes in their NCAA v. Alston decision. He asked Mr. Baker to discuss the current rights of student athletes based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision.
  • Mr. Baker noted how the NCAA’s Project DI proposal seeks to eliminate the current restrictions under the NCAA bylaws so that schools can offer enhanced educational benefits to their student athletes and also directly participate in NIL compensation conversations with their student athletes. He remarked that schools could better support their student athletes with the correct legal framework. He also stated that the NCAA’s proposed approach would enhance school compliance with Title IX rules.
• Rep. Soto asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether the NCAA’s bylaws remain enforceable following the U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision.
  • Mr. Baker stated that the enhanced educational benefits that he had referenced are “significantly different” from the NCAA’s rules and structure impacted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision.
• Rep. Soto asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether there exist any limits on products or services that student athletes can lend their NIL rights to.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that permitting student athletes to enter into NIL compensation deals with sports betting companies could pose risks. He noted how a large amount of money is currently being wagered on college sports. He cautioned that student athlete involvement with sports betting companies could harm student athletes. He noted how the NCAA has worked to educate student athletes about sports betting. He also indicated that he would soon experiment with technology that tracks social media attacks against student athletes, officials, and coaches. He noted how bettors are often behind these attacks.
• Rep. Soto interjected to asked Mr. Griffin to recommend essential elements for federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • Mr. Griffin remarked that Congress should not create additional rules for student athlete NIL compensation. He stated that recent court decisions and public opinion polling indicate growing support for student athletes and student athlete compensation. He recommended that Congress conduct more research into the true state of the U.S. student athlete NIL compensation landscape. He asserted that Congress, the NCAA, and the media have pushed a narrative that NIL collectives are acting in an abusive fashion. He noted however that 80 percent of student athlete NIL compensation deals are between student athletes and brands (and do not involve NIL collectives). He also discussed how there are many for-profit NIL collectives that are generating money for student athletes and commented that these for-profit NIL collectives will continue to add value moving forward. He stated that the NIL collectives that merely distribute (or promise to distribute) donor funds to student athletes are causing problems.
• Rep. Soto interjected to note that his question period time is limited. He commented that student athletes will be involved in Congress’s work to develop federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.

Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL):

• Rep. Dunn remarked that the current “fragmented” student athlete NIL compensation landscape is “wholly inadequate” for protecting student athletes and schools from bad actors. He stated that the “patchwork” of state student athlete NIL compensation laws has caused uncertainty within this landscape. He discussed how college sports provides valuable opportunities for athletes and commenced that college sports fosters life skills that extend beyond the sports themselves. He contended that the U.S. requires a federal framework for student athlete NIL compensation to protect the integrity of college sports and to ensure the continuation of current student athlete opportunities. He raised concerns over proposals to classify student athletes as employees of their schools and thanked Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) for working to prohibit such a classification. He asserted that classifying student athletes as employees of their schools would “seriously hurt” the student athlete experience, particularly at HBCUs. He discussed how HBCUs often lack the same depth of resources as larger schools and noted how these schools rely upon institutional support to fund their sports programs. He warned that classifying student athletes as employees of their schools would impose further strains on HBCU resources (which will in turn impact their ability to offer robust college sports experiences). He then asked Ms. Tholl to discuss her early NIL compensation deals and how these early deals compare to her subsequent NIL compensation deals.
  • Ms. Tholl described her early NIL compensation deals as very low maintenance. She stated that these deals involved easy-to-understand contracts and did not detract from her academic and athletic pursuits. She stated that she now devotes more attention to her NIL compensation deals. She mentioned how she has an NIL compensation deal with the United Dairy Industry of Michigan that has involved photography shoots and work with dairy farmers throughout the state.
• Rep. Dunn interjected to ask Ms. Tholl to indicate whether she had ever been concerned that the lack of certainty in student athlete NIL compensation regulations would cause her eligibility problems.
  • Ms. Tholl answered affirmatively. She mentioned how she had been offered an NIL compensation deal that would have jeopardized her eligibility to play college sports.
• Rep. Dunn interjected to ask Ms. Tholl to indicate whether Congress should provide clear rules for student athlete NIL compensation and create certainty for student athletes pursuing NIL compensation deals.
  • Ms. Tholl remarked that the U.S. needs to adopt student athlete NIL compensation regulations. She warned that the absence of such regulations would threaten the viability of women’s sports and Olympic sports.
• Rep. Dunn applauded the work of the Subcommittee and the NCAA to address student athlete NIL compensation. He expressed interest in continuing to work to develop federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA):

• Rep. Trahan noted how Mr. Griffin had recently helped lead a survey of college student athletes. She asked Mr. Griffin to identify the group of people that college student athletes trust the least according to his recent survey.
  • Mr. Griffin indicated that his survey had found that college student athletes trust Congress the least.
• Rep. Trahan remarked that this finding from Mr. Griffin’s survey should concern Subcommittee Members. She also stated that the FAIR College Sports Act as drafted will change this negative perception of Congress. She then discussed how the FAIR College Sports Act would create a new governing body to oversee student athlete NIL compensation. She stated that political appointees would control this new governing body and noted that these appointees would not need to be current student athletes. She also noted how this body would minimize the options of athletes to appeal a punishment and provide legal immunity to the punishers. She asked Mr. Griffin to indicate whether this governance structure is concerning.
  • Mr. Griffin answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Trahan also expressed concerns with the FAIR College Sports Act’s provisions that would allow for schools to regulate and potentially bar student athletes from engaging in NIL compensation activities while on their campuses. She asked Mr. Griffin to indicate whether it would be detrimental to force student athletes to leave their campuses to engage in NIL compensation activities given how much of a student athlete’s time is already controlled by their academic and athletic obligations.
  • Mr. Griffin answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Trahan remarked that she has “serious reservations” about advancing the FAIR College Sports Act given the restrictions it would impose on student athlete NIL compensation rights. She also stated that the discussion draft bill would fail to address challenges faced by international student athletes. She noted how there are currently over 25,000 international student athletes competing in college sports and indicated that these international student athletes cannot pursue NIL compensation deals under current law. She asked Ms. Page to indicate whether federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation ought to allow for international student athletes to pursue NIL compensation deals.
  • Ms. Page remarked that international student athletes should have the same access to NIL compensation opportunities as American student athletes.
• Rep. Trahan raised concerns that Subcommittee Republicans are advancing federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation that fails to address certain issues facing student athletes (particularly regarding international student athletes). She then expressed concerns that NIL collectives are promoting gender inequities in college sports and commented that the FAIR College Sports Act would not address this issue. She mentioned how she has proposed the College Athlete Economic Freedom Act with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) to address this issue. She noted how this legislation would require that NIL collectives offer equal opportunities to all student athletes at a school. She asked Ms. Tholl to discuss why Congress should ensure that schools and NIL collectives support all student athletes and adhere to gender equity standards.
  • Ms. Tholl stated that while women’s sports have made significant progress on gender equity, she asserted that there remains progress to be made on this issue. She also highlighted how there exists a significant gap in support between revenue generating sports and Olympic sports. She warned that Congress’s failure to protect college women’s sports and Olympic sports in legislation will lead to a loss of athletic opportunities. She elaborated that many children may be discouraged from playing certain sports if they do not believe that they will have opportunities to continue playing the sports in college.
• Rep. Trahan remarked that Title IX has enabled tens of thousands of women to continue their athletic careers in college, obtain a college education, and succeed in their professional careers. She stated that Title IX had personally benefited her. She asked Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) to indicate whether it is fair that schools are currently allowed to double count or triple count women athletes, count roster numbers at tryouts, and count male practice players as female athletes under Title IX. She also asked Dr. Jackson to indicate whether the Subcommittee should be discussing these “loopholes.”
  • Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) expressed support for having the Subcommittee address these Title IX issues.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ):

• Rep. Lesko mentioned how former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines had recently hand delivered a petition to the NCAA with over 70,000 signatures to the NCAA. She noted that the petition had demanded that the NCAA meet with female student athletes that had been harmed by the NCAA’s practice of allowing male student athletes on women’s college sports teams. She highlighted how this petition had asserted that there could not exist equal athletic opportunities without single sex competition. She further noted how this petition had called on the NCAA to repeal its policies and rules that allow for male student athletes to take roster spots on women’s college sports teams and to compete in women’s sporting events, as well as to require its member institutions to provide single sex locker rooms for female student athletes. She stated that the NCAA has not acted on any of this petition’s demands and asserted that this inaction has caused women’s rights to be further eroded. She asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether he would commit to meet with female student athletes as requested in Ms. Gaines’s petition.
  • Mr. Baker indicated his commitment to meet with the female student athletes that had petitioned the NCAA.
• Rep. Lesko asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether the NCAA would make the changes requested in Ms. Gaines’s petition.
  • Mr. Baker noted how the host community, the host institution, and host organization of every single NCAA championship event is required (under current NCAA rules) to provide safe and secure accommodations for all athletes. He stated that student athletes will receive specific solutions to address their specific concerns at these events. He asserted that no student athlete should be put in a position where they do not feel safe at an NCAA championship event. He stated that he could not speak to the NCAA’s actions prior to his joining of the organization.
• Rep. Lesko also mentioned how Riley Gaines had reportedly sent a letter to Mr. Baker in January 2023 and noted that Ms. Gaines has reportedly not received a response to this letter.
  • Mr. Baker stated that his primary objective during his first year as NCAA president had been to meet with all 97 college athletic conferences so that he could identify the top issues and opportunities for college sports. He also testified that he had spent “dozens” of hours meeting with current college student athletes. He reiterated his commitment to meet with female student athletes to discuss the issues facing women’s college sports.
• Rep. Lesko indicated that she would call the student athletes behind the aforementioned petition following the hearing to relay Mr. Baker’s commitment to meet with them. She then noted how Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) had advocated for increased transparency regarding student athlete NIL compensation activities. She noted how some Subcommittee Democrats have warned that bad actors would exploit this transparency to set student athlete NIL compensation levels. She noted however that Sec. 102 of the FAIR College Sports Act would require that the USIAC not fix student athlete compensation. She asked Mr. Baker to discuss how these warnings from Subcommittee Democrats conflict with the USIAC’s duties and to address the importance of transparency within the student athlete NIL compensation space.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) remarked that he does not want to use the FAIR College Sports Act’s transparency provisions to obtain specific information about student athletes. He stated that these provisions would collect general data so that student athletes could better determine their market value. He asserted that these provisions would not be “overly invasive.” He mentioned how schools already collect information on their student athletes and that the discussion draft bill would collect this information to protect student athletes.

Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-ID):

• Rep. Fulcher asked Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) to address how agent registration requirements would impact NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) schools.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) remarked that agent registration requirement would protect student athletes through ensuring that student athlete NIL compensation deal contracts adhere to certain standards. He also called it important for agents to follow legal standards in their representation of student athletes. He stated that agent registration requirements and contract retention policies will be key to protecting student athletes.
• Rep. Fulcher then noted how Mr. Baker had testified that he had met with 97 college athletic conferences. He asked Mr. Baker to discuss his greatest concerns within the college sports space.
  • Mr. Baker testified that his top concern is that student athletes are being lied to. He discussed how third parties are encouraging many student athletes to leave their schools (which entails forfeiting their athletic scholarships at their current schools) to enter the NCAA’s transfer portal. He indicated that “thousands” of the student athletes that enter the NCAA’s transfer portal ultimately do not receive offers to play sports at other schools. He remarked that this problem would likely continue until there exists greater transparency within college sports and consequences for this type of improper inducements. He then called for the U.S. to establish a uniform standard contract for student athlete NIL compensation deals. He noted how uniform standard contracts exist for all other types of financial transactions. He stated that such a contract would provide student athletes and agents with greater certainty regarding the terms and conditions of student athlete NIL compensation deals. He also stated that agents should be required to obtain permission from student athletes if they seek to deviate from a standard uniform contract. He further recommended that this standard uniform contract should explicitly state that the agent works for the student athlete. He noted how this fiduciary responsibility is present in financial services contracts.
• Rep. Fulcher asked Ms. Page to discuss the fraudulent and deceitful trends that she is observing within the student athlete NIL compensation space.
  • Ms. Page expressed agreement with Mr. Baker’s comments. She noted how student athletes that enter the NCAA’s transfer portal often do not receive scholarship offers from other schools, learn that their promised NIL compensation deals are no longer possible, or cannot transfer their educational credits to their new schools. She mentioned how she had a friend who had transferred schools based on a NIL compensation opportunity and indicated that her friend had to revert to being a sophomore (rather than becoming a senior).

Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA):

• Rep. Allen mentioned how he serves on the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce and noted how that Committee is currently working to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He stated that the U.S. must return college football to “normalcy” and commented that this would entail preserving the sport’s amateur status. He noted how the United States Golf Association (USGA) limits the amount of money that golfers can make if they wish to preserve their amateur status. He expressed interest in how the USGA’s amateurism rules account for student athlete NIL compensation. He remarked that Congress should pass legislation to provide oversight of the student athlete NIL compensation marketplace. He commented that this legislation must provide a governance mechanism that does not require routine Congressional intervention. He also mentioned how the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce has jurisdiction over labor issues and the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). He asserted that proposals to classify college student athletes as employees of their schools are intended to lead student athletes to ultimately form a labor union. He asked Ms. Tholl to discuss how a labor union would function in college sports.
  • Ms. Tholl expressed opposition to the unionization of college student athletes. She stated that revenue generating sports would likely pursue unionization and negotiate financially generous arrangements for themselves. She predicted that this unionization would come at the expense of non-revenue generating sports. She stated that this situation would threaten the continued financial viability of non-revenue generating sports and force schools to eliminate their non-revenue generating sports programs.
• Rep. Allen also discussed how states maintain different labor laws, including right-to-work laws. He elaborated that Georgia’s right-to-work law would not require college football players to join a labor union as a condition for playing college football. He commented that the variations in these state labor laws would create complications for college sports. He asked Ms. Tholl to project how the unionization of college student athletes would disrupt the coexistence of women’s and men’s college sports and their status as revenue generating.
  • Ms. Tholl remarked that the unionization of college student athletes would lead revenue generating sports to become even wealthier at the expense of non-revenue generating sports. She stated that this will result in the shrinkage of Olympic and women’s college sports programs. She also raised concerns over how this trend will impact university Title IX compliance.
• Rep. Allen asked Mr. Griffin to indicate whether revenue generating college sports should support non-revenue generating college sports.
  • Mr. Griffin remarked that college football players take pride in the fact that their efforts support opportunities for other sports programs at their schools. He then stated that the NLRB ought to decide whether college student athletes should be classified as employees. He commented that student athletes effectively operate as employees of their schools based on the amount of time and effort that they devote to their sports.

Rep. Greg Pence (R-IN):

• Rep. Pence discussed how his state of Indiana has schools of all sizes and remarked that college sports plays a key role in the rural parts of his state. He highlighted how the student athletes at these schools will compete both within the state and across state lines. He remarked that NIL compensation provides opportunities for large schools and national brands, as well as smaller community endorsements, to assist lower profile student athletes. He discussed how the NIL collective Hoosiers for Good partners with student athletes and facilitates a minimum of a one-year commitment for a student athlete to partner with a charity of their choice. He highlighted how many Hoosiers for Good student athlete partners use their earnings to support scholarships for first generation college students. He remarked that any federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation should seek to preserve the tradition of competition in college sports. He noted how Mr. Baker had stated that the NCAA is making changes to improve the outcomes for student athletes across all three NCAA divisions and is acting to clarify and improve the student athlete NIL compensation environment. He commented however that there exist significant issues outside of the NCAA’s control. He mentioned how many sports experts have described the current student athlete NIL compensation environment as the “wild west.” He noted how the NCAA had announced in December 2023 that it would create a new subdivision for its Division I schools. He stated that this change could lead powerful college athletic conferences, such as the Southeastern Conference (SEC), to leave the NCAA and create a “super conference.” He then mentioned how Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) had expressed uncertainty that the establishment of an investment entity is necessary to enforce the rules outlined the FAIR College Sports Act. He asked Mr. Baker and Mr. Jackson to address how the NCAA will remain viable and relevant if professionalism enters college sports.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the NCAA has engaged in a lot of work over the previous year to enhance the support that it provides to student athletes. He noted how scholarships for student athletes will be guaranteed starting in August 2024, regardless of whether a student athlete chooses to play their sport. He also noted how student athletes will have ten years of access to their athletic scholarships to complete their degrees, as well as access to health and well-being services. He further noted how student athletes across all three NCAA divisions will have access to a two-year injury insurance protection program.
• Rep. Pence interjected to comment that the NCAA’s new protections will benefit student athletes. He asked Mr. Baker to project what will happen to the NCAA if “super conferences” emerge.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that a subdivision or a “super conference” could be operated within the NCAA’s framework. He stated that the U.S. must work to preserve the ability of smaller college athletic conferences to compete for national championships.
• Rep. Pence interjected to ask Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) to respond to his previous question.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) expressed agreement with Mr. Baker’s comments and remarked that the Missouri Valley Conference’s top priority is the ability to compete for championships. He acknowledged that while schools in different conferences may have varying levels of amenities, he asserted that rules and policies must enable smaller schools to legitimately compete for championships.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN):

• Rep. Harshbarger first stated that she wished that the hearing included a witness representing NIL collectives. She commented that NIL collective stakeholder input will be key if Congress is to advance federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation that imposes guardrails on NIL collectives. She then mentioned how the NCAA had issued its interim student athlete NIL compensation rule in July 2021. She noted that the NCAA has issued numerous guidance documents on this topic during the ensuing years. She asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether the changes in the NCAA’s guidance during this period have fostered inconsistency and a lack of clarity within the student athlete NIL compensation space. She also asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether this situation has fostered uncertainty surrounding the rules for schools, student athletes, and NIL collectives.
  • Mr. Baker answered affirmatively and stated that the NCAA is working to develop student athlete NIL compensation bylaws to address this uncertainty.
• Rep. Harshbarger asked Mr. Baker to discuss how the NCAA plans to provide clarity for schools, student athletes, and NIL collectives regarding student athlete NIL compensation.
  • Mr. Baker discussed how the NCAA has worked to provide consumer protections for college sports stakeholders through establishing a uniform standard contract, providing student athletes with a NIL compensation database (with de-identified data), and providing student athletes with better access to information to improve my decision making. He also stated that the NCAA would like schools to provide more guidance and advice to their student athletes on NIL compensation. He mentioned how the student athlete witnesses had testified that their schools were not providing sufficient guidance and advice on these issues. He further stated that the NCAA is working to provide student athletes with greater opportunities to recommend high performing and responsible agents. He noted however that the student athlete NIL compensation landscape can be very contentious and litigious. He stated that Congress should therefore provide the NCAA with a backstop (in the form of a federal antitrust exemption) to implement these policies.
• Rep. Harshbarger commented that the federal government is generally not the best body for resolving problems.
  • Mr. Baker interjected to remark that the NCAA is requesting support from the federal government to reduce its litigation risk.
• Rep. Harshbarger interjected to comment that she understands the NCAA’s concerns. She also reiterated her concerns over the NCAA’s guidance documents. She then expressed support for the fact that the FAIR College Sports Act’s focus is on preventing tampering in college student athlete recruiting. She stated that the cumulative effect of the NCAA’s transfer portal and current student athlete NIL compensation policies has been problematic (particularly during the college football bowl season). She raised concerns over how student athletes have repeatedly transferred schools in pursuit of NIL compensation deals promised by NIL collectives. She noted how some student athletes have forfeited their athletic scholarships to enter the NCAA’s transfer portal and ultimately did not receive any transfer offers. She asked Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) to provide recommendations for refining the FAIR College Sports Act to better address the incentives stemming from the NCAA’s transfer portal.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) described the FAIR College Sports Act as a “great start.” He stated that the discussion draft bill would provide transparency and minimize the ability of bad actors to exploit student athletes.
• Rep. Harshabarger then asked Mr. Baker to provide recommendations for strengthening the USIAC’s due process system.
  • Mr. Baker expressed interest in further discussing the USIAC’s due process system with the Subcommittee. He stated that actions could be taken to address inducement and misrepresentation problems.
• Rep. Harshbarger indicated that her question period time had expired.

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL):

• Rep. Cammack first expressed agreement with Rep. Debbie Lesko’s (R-AZ) comments regarding the importance of Title IX protections for women in college sports. She called on Mr. Baker to meet with female student athletes to address their concerns over the presence of men in women’s sports. She stated that while Mr. Baker had inherited some “disastrous” NCAA decisions when he joined the NCAA, she asserted that the NCAA must now be proactive in ensuring that men do not compete in women’s sports. She asked Mr. Baker to commit to protecting Title IX and to reversing the NCAA’s policy that permits biological men to compete in women’s sports.
  • Mr. Baker described the issue of transgender athletes in women’s sports as a “challenging” issue and stated that almost every sports governing body believes that there should exist separate competitions for men and women. He remarked however that there must exist some standard for transgender athletes to qualify for competition “in very individualized circumstances” if the transgender athletes can meet certain conditions.
• Rep. Cammack interjected to expressed disagreement with Mr. Baker’s assertion that the issue of transgender athletes in women’s sports is difficult. She stated that there exist physiological differences between men and women and contended that transgender individuals should not be permitted to compete in women’s sports. She then discussed how college coaches have raised concerns over their ability to manage their rosters given the existence of the NCAA’s transfer portal. She asked Mr. Baker to provide recommendations for addressing these roster management concerns. She also asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether there should exist restrictions on or consequences for student athletes that enter the NCAA’s transfer portal multiple times.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the “wild west” of the current landscape for student athlete NIL compensation is often driving student athletes to transfer schools. He stated that many of these transfers do not involve legitimate NIL compensation deals and instead involve inducements (often via misrepresentation). He remarked that the NCAA’s proposal to permit schools to provide additional enhanced educational support for their student athletes and to directly engage student athletes in NIL compensation deals could mitigate these transfer issues. He commented that this proposed approach would put the burden on the schools to support their student athletes and to sustain their relationships with their student athletes. He stated however that the absence of federal legislation would preclude the NCAA from pursuing its proposed approach without classifying student athletes as employees of their schools. He also commented that the absence of federal legislation would likely subject the NCAA to litigation over its actions to help student athletes.
• Rep. Cammack interjected to acknowledge that Congress must address antitrust concerns related to student athlete NIL compensation. She also stated that she wants student athletes to have the opportunity to make significant money from NIL compensation deals. She commented however that inducements (often disguised as NIL compensation deals) are currently creating “chaos” in college sports. She further expressed interest in ensuring that foreign student athletes at U.S. schools have access to NIL compensation opportunities. She lastly asked Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) to discuss how his athletic conference has needed to alter its recruiting efforts to address the challenges related to inducements and NIL compensation deals.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) mentioned how a coach had recently referred to NIL as “name, image, and lies.” He noted how his athletic conference’s high performing student athletes are often targeted by other schools and bad actors to transfer with false promises and financial inducements. He asserted that the use of false promises and financial inducements to influence student athletes to transfer schools should not be considered a form of NIL compensation. He expressed appreciation for the Subcommittee’s work to address student athlete NIL compensation. He stated that Congressional action is necessary to protect student athletes and ensure a fair competition landscape for college sports.

Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX):

• Rep. Veasey stated that the U.S. needs to establish guardrails for student athlete NIL compensation. He commented however that the FAIR College Sports Act likely has too many guardrails for student athlete NIL compensation. He asked Mr. Baker to explain why Congress should prioritize addressing student athlete NIL compensation. He expressed concerns over impending college athletic conference realignment that will expand the geographical footprints of many college athletic conferences. He noted how these broader geographical footprints for college athletic conferences will force many student athletes to travel further distances for sports, which will impose greater time commitments on student athletes. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether college athletic conference realignment is beneficial for student athletes and to explain why Congress should not first address this issue before it addresses student athlete NIL compensation.
  • Mr. Baker called the issue of college athletic conference realignment “legitimate.” He mentioned how the NCAA has held many conversations with schools, coaches, and college athletic conferences on scheduling reforms to address the travel challenges associated with college athletic conference realignment. He described the current efforts to address these challenges as a “work in progress.” He suggested that more sports hold their events over a two-day or three-day period that would involve multiple teams playing matches back-to-back. He noted that some sports (such as golf and tennis) already employ this model and commented that more sports could use this model to reduce travel for their student athletes. He stated that addressing the scheduling challenges associated with college athletic conference realignment should be a top priority.
• Rep. Veasey then recounted how local businesses had previously used pictures of high-profile student athletes for commercial purposes prior to the advent of student athlete NIL compensation laws. He noted how there had not been any regulations governing this commercial use of student athlete NIL rights. He expressed concerns that the FAIR College Sports Act would impose too many constraints on student athletes seeking to capitalize on their NIL rights.
  • Mr. Baker expressed support for student athlete NIL compensation and stated that many current student athlete NIL compensation deals are legitimate. He remarked however that Congress must address situations where entities make fraudulent NIL compensation commitments to student athletes. He noted how “thousands” of student athletes are entering the NCAA’s transfer portal in pursuit of NIL compensation deals and indicated that many of these student athletes ultimately do not find schools to transfer to.
• Rep. Veasey then questioned how college athletic conference realignment benefits college sports outside of college football. He raised concerns that Congress is overly focused on regulating college football and basketball and failing to address issues beyond these sports. He also highlighted how these sports are disproportionately composed of Black male student athletes.

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA):

• Rep. Miller-Meeks mentioned how she had discussed the issue of student athlete NIL compensation with both current and previous male and female University of Iowa student athletes, as well as a University of Iowa coach. She also expressed agreement Rep. Veasey’s concerns regarding the impact of college athletic conference realignment. She stated that while college football players can more easily travel to games given how their games are played on weekends, she commented that other college sports (such as basketball or Olympic sports) play their games during the week. She noted how these student athletes are more likely to miss classes due to travel and highlighted how these student athletes often must fly commercially. She applauded the NCAA for its proactive approach for addressing the current issues within college sports. She then noted how there are currently proposals to classify student athletes as employees of their schools. She asked Ms. Tholl and Ms. Page to indicate whether they want to become employees of their schools.
  • Ms. Tholl remarked that she would not want to be an employee of her school. She stated that employee status could enable college coaches to fire student athletes due to poor performance and would force student athletes to contribute to insurance and retirement plans. She added that employment status would subject student athletes to various tax and labor laws that would complicate their relationships with their schools.
  • Ms. Page remarked that she would also not want to be an employee of her school. She stated that classifying student athletes as employees of their schools might benefit 5 percent of student athletes and would harm the remaining 95 percent of student athletes. She described college sports as a privilege and noted how college sports is voluntary. She stated that classifying student athletes as employees of their schools would subject student athletes to greater work and time commitments. She also raised concerns that such classification could undermine the financial sustainability of schools.
• Rep. Miller-Meeks asked Mr. Griffin to indicate whether he would be willing to be subject to dismissal and termination as part of becoming an employee of his school.
  • Mr. Griffin remarked that employee status for athletes functions well in other revenue generating sports leagues.
• Rep. Miller-Meeks interjected to question whether classifying student athletes as employees of their schools would professionalize college sports. She stated that an employment model for college sports could allow for schools to terminate student athletes based on performance or at will. She also discussed how college sports have an academic component that could further complicate employment status (especially if athletic obligations cause a student athlete to miss their classes). She then noted how Ms. Tholl had detailed her experiences with negotiating NIL compensation deals. She asked Ms. Tholl to discuss the role that Congress should play in implementing transparency protections for student athlete NIL compensation deals.
  • Ms. Tholl remarked that Congress should work to ensure that schools provide their student athletes with education regarding NIL compensation so that student athletes can understand prospective NIL compensation deals.

Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA):

• Rep. Cárdenas remarked that the NCAA’s student athlete model is “collapsing” because it is built on the faulty premise that college student athletes are amateurs. He highlighted how college sports had generated $16.6 billion in tax-free revenue during the 2021-2022 academic year. He noted how the NCAA is the second highest revenue generating sports league in the world behind the National Football League (NFL). He asked Mr. Griffin and Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) to indicate whether student athletes competing at the highest levels of college sports are actually amateurs.
  • Mr. Griffin remarked that student athletes are technically amateurs based on their payment status. He stated however that student athletes effectively operate as employees of their schools considering the time, effort, and value creation that they give to their schools.
  • Dr. Jackson (Arizona State University) noted how many college sports in the U.S. are played globally and how the world had abandoned the amateur sports model during the 1980s. She stated that college football was the sole reason that the U.S. had not abandoned the amateur sports model. She remarked that college football has thus dictated the policies governing all other college sports in the U.S., which has had “deleterious” consequences. She contended that college football players should not be expected to subsidize other college student athletes and that college football effectively operates as a professional sport.
• Rep. Cárdenas then discussed how NCAA Division I schools in 2022 had spent 21 percent of their revenue from athletic activities on facilities and equipment, 20 percent of their revenue on compensation for coaches, 18 percent of their revenue on compensation for support and administrative staff, 11 percent of their revenue on game expenses and travel, and 14 percent of their revenue on other expenses. He highlighted how only 15 percent of all operating expenses in 2022 were allocated to athletically-related student aid and how schools had spent just 1 percent on medical expenses for college student athletes in 2022. He expressed frustration that the FAIR College Sports Act would require student athletes to report their NIL compensation while NCAA executives (who can make more than $1 million annually) are not required to disclose their incomes. He commented that NCAA executives are part of the same ecosystem as college student athletes. He asked Mr. Griffin to indicate whether the NCAA and its member schools are prioritizing their own revenues over the interests of student athletes.
  • Mr. Griffin called the NCAA’s proposed Project DI “a good starting out point and a show of good faith.” He commented that this proposal acknowledges that student athletes (especially in revenue generating sports) should be compensated in a manner that complies with Title IX. He also stated that schools should work to bolster their fundraising efforts to support their Olympic sports programs.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether NCAA executives should be required to disclose their incomes in a manner similar to how the FAIR College Sports Act would require student athletes to report their NIL compensation.
  • Mr. Baker noted how the FAIR College Sports Act’s NIL compensation reporting requirements would involve de-identified data. He stated that the rationale for this reporting requirement is to support the establishment of a mechanism that would provide all student athletes with access to NIL compensation information. He noted how the current student athlete NIL compensation market is opaque and commented that access to this information would be important. He then indicated that the NCAA is a 501(c)(3) organization and files an annual public report listing the salaries of its senior executives.

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA):

• Rep. Obernolte mentioned how he had previously considered state student athlete NIL compensation legislation as a member of the California State Assembly. He lamented how the U.S. has still not resolved this issue. He raised concerns over the current “patchwork” of state student athlete NIL compensation regulations. He stated that this inconsistent approach to student athlete NIL compensation can advantage schools in certain states with less onerous restrictions, which can impact the competitive landscape of college sports. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether he shares these concerns.
  • Mr. Baker expressed agreement with Rep. Obernolte’s concerns regarding the inconsistent policies governing student athlete NIL compensation across states. He further remarked that some states have passed student athlete NIL compensation policies to provide their schools with recruiting advantages. He commented that these policies do not advance the goal of providing student athletes with legitimate NIL compensation opportunities. He remarked that Congress can take action to provide consumer protections and transparency to student athletes within the NIL compensation space and commented that these actions would improve the competitive landscape of college sports. He noted how many college athletic conferences have members across numerous states and commented that these conferences will therefore face challenges related to differing state student athlete NIL compensation policies. He asserted that federal legislation will be necessary to prevent litigation related to NCAA student athlete NIL compensation policies. He commented that this litigation is not beneficial.
• Rep. Obernolte expressed agreement with Mr. Baker’s response. He remarked that Congress is responsible for addressing interstate commerce issues and asserted that college sports involve interstate commerce. He stated that Congress must therefore address student athlete NIL compensation. He then noted how Mr. Baker had asserted that a uniform standard contract for student athlete NIL compensation deals would be helpful to student athletes (particularly student athletes in non-revenue generating sports). He asked Mr. Baker to discuss the impediments to implementing a uniform standard contract for student athlete NIL compensation deals.
  • Mr. Baker testified that the NCAA is currently working to develop a uniform standard contract for student athlete NIL compensation deals. He expressed hope that the NCAA could finalize this contract design by the start of the 2024 school year. He stated that a potential impediment to this uniform standard contract would be litigation. He remarked that a uniform standard contract for student athlete NIL compensation deals is designed to provide transparency, accountability, and responsibility for agents and student athletes.
• Rep. Obernolte suggested that the NCAA may be able to avoid litigation around their uniform standard contract for student athlete NIL compensation deals through permitting student athletes to opt out of this contract.
  • Mr. Baker expressed receptiveness toward Rep. Obernolte’s suggestion.

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA):

• Rep. Griffith first expressed agreement with Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) and Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) regarding their concerns over the ability of transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports. He asserted that women should not be forced to compete against men in college sports. He mentioned how a local youth sports league in his Congressional District has a women’s division and an open division. He expressed support for this approach. He then provided Ms. Page with an opportunity to provide any additional comments she may have for the Subcommittee. He highlighted how Ms. Page’s school (Radford University) is located within his Congressional District.
  • Ms. Page discussed how young girls and boys aspire to participate in college sports and expressed concerns with proposals that would classify student athletes as employees. She noted how student athletes currently have the privilege of participating in college sports and the privilege of capitalizing on their NIL rights. She remarked that Congress must prioritize the ability of student athletes to receive an education from their schools. She then discussed how student athletes at mid-major schools are generally seeking out NIL compensation opportunities (and are not usually sought out by brands for NIL compensation opportunities). She stated that student athletes that are seeking out NIL compensation opportunities are more likely to be taken advantage of. She also noted how mid-major universities tend to have less resources to support their student athletes with NIL compensation opportunities. She stated that Congress must protect these student athletes.
• Rep. Griffith asked Ms. Page to indicate whether college sports at mid-major universities and NCAA Division II schools are very different than college sports at high profile college football schools and top NCAA Division I athletic programs.
  • Ms. Page answered affirmatively.

Rep. John Joyce (R-PA):

• Rep. Joyce discussed how college sports plays an important role in American culture and has provided academic opportunities for millions of Americans. He stated that the college sports amateurism model is now evolving in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 NCAA v. Alston decision and changes to NIL compensation policies. He commented that Congress must examine the potential impact of student athlete NIL compensation policy changes on schools (both large and small) and student athletes. He also mentioned how the NCAA is currently facing litigation related to its transfer portal rules, employee status for college student athletes, and retroactive student athlete NIL compensation payments. He asked Mr. Baker to estimate the NCAA’s liability if the NCAA were to lose House v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. He also asked Mr. Baker to project how adverse rulings against the NCAA in these court cases would impact NCAA member schools.
  • Mr. Baker expressed hesitancy to estimate the financial impact of these pending cases given the public nature of the hearing.
• Rep. Joyce interjected to asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether adverse rulings against the NCAA in House v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA would result in “significant financial payments.”
  • Mr. Baker answered affirmatively and added that stakeholders beyond the NCAA would be liable in the event of such a ruling.
• Rep. Joyce then asked Mr. Baker to project the impact of a judicial ruling declaring that student athletes are employees of their schools. He noted how this is a potential outcome of the pending Johnson v. NCAA case.
  • Mr. Baker highlighted how most schools lose money on their sports programs. He commented that college sports programs are only profitable for schools that have television contracts for their sports teams. He stated that an adverse ruling against the NCAA in Johnson v. NCAA would lead between half and two-thirds of all schools to eliminate their college sports programs. He added that HBCUs had submitted a compelling letter arguing against the classification of student athletes as employees.
• Rep. Joyce asked Mr. Baker to project the impact of classifying student athletes as employees of their schools on Title IX and Olympic sports.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that classifying student athletes as employees of their schools would have a significant impact on Title IX and Olympic sports. He noted how women’s sports and Olympic sports generally do not produce revenue for their schools. He stated that this classification would force schools to make difficult decisions regarding which programs to maintain.
• Rep. Joyce interjected to ask Mr. Baker to indicate whether schools would maintain their current number of sports if student athletes were to be classified as employees of their schools.
  • Mr. Baker responded no.
• Rep. Joyce then discussed how Sec. 102 of the FAIR College Sports Act outlines the disclosures required by third parties (such as college boosters and NIL collectives). He indicated that this provision would require third parties to submit a signed affidavit that their NIL compensation agreements are not being used as inducements. He noted how the NCAA currently maintains a prohibition against inducements in college sports. He commented however that the NCAA is currently struggling to enforce this prohibition. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether third parties should be required to sign affidavits that explicitly state that they are not using NIL compensation to induce student athletes.
  • Mr. Baker called it important for the law to distinguish between NIL compensation and inducement. He called the FAIR College Sports Act’s affidavit requirement a “really interesting” way to address this issue.
• Rep. Joyce then asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether the U.S. requires greater enforcement for the student athlete NIL compensation space (such as through the proposed creation of the USIAC).
  • Mr. Baker stated that while he has other ideas for addressing the student athlete NIL compensation space, he applauded Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) for his development of the FAIR College Sports Act.
• Rep. Joyce remarked that Congress must work to address student athlete NIL compensation.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX):

• Rep. Pfluger asked Mr. Griffin to indicate whether schools should share the revenue they generate from college sports with their student athletes. He also asked Mr. Griffin to indicate whether student athletes should be classified as employees of their schools.
  • Mr. Griffin stated that he effectively operates as an employee of his school. He commented however that the NLRB is the ultimate arbiter for determining whether student athletes should be classified as employees of their schools.
• Rep. Pfluger asked Mr. Griffin to answer whether student athletes should be classified as employees of their schools.
  • Mr. Griffin remarked that there should exist a revenue sharing model for college sports. He mentioned how other revenue generating industries compensate their producers for their efforts. He noted how non-student athletes often work as employees of their schools and derive compensation from their work. He also noted how college athletic departments have many employees that derive fair market compensation based on their own work.
• Rep. Pfluger raised concerns that an employment model and revenue sharing for college sports could threaten the continued viability of many college sports programs. He asked Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) to indicate whether classifying student athletes as employees of their schools would reduce the benefits that schools could provide to their student athletes and lead to higher tuition costs.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) answered affirmatively. He commented that women’s sports and Olympic sports would be especially vulnerable to cuts if student athletes were classified as employees of their schools. He added that this change would lead many NCAA Division I sports to become club sports. He commented that his conference’s schools would not want to contract with and restrict opportunities for their student athletes.
• Rep. Pfluger asked Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) to discuss the importance of having Congress take immediate action to address student athlete NIL compensation given the current “patchwork” of state laws governing the issue.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) asserted that federal preemption of state student athlete NIL compensation laws is “extremely important.” He stated that student athletes should have certainty that they will be subject to standard NIL compensation policies, regardless of whether they go to an in-state or out-of-state school.
• Rep. Pfluger also asked Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) to discuss the importance of liability protections for schools and college athletic conferences.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) called it important for Congress to ensure that college athletic conferences can enforce decisions without the prospect of litigation.
• Rep. Pfluger called it important for Congress to enact a federal solution for student athlete NIL compensation given the variance in state policies governing the issue. He then discussed how many students in his Congressional District attend Texas Tech University. He noted how Texas Tech University’s NIL collective has committed to supporting their entire school and commended this NIL collective’s performance. He asked Mr. Baker to discuss how NIL collectives can better interact with student athletes from non-revenue generating sports.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the NCAA’s Project DI proposal seeks to improve how schools support women’s sports through providing schools with a more direct role in student athlete NIL compensation. He commented that this more direct role would in turn increase Title IX’s role in student athlete NIL compensation.
• Rep. Pfluger thanked Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) for his work on developing federal legislation to address student athlete NIL compensation.

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA):

• Rep. Carter also thanked Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) for his work on developing federal legislation to address student athlete NIL compensation. He called the FAIR College Sports Act “necessary” given the current student athlete NIL compensation landscape. He noted that this discussion draft bill provides three possible ways for a student athlete to get crosswise with the NCAA: failing to disclose their signing with an agent, failing to disclose their signing of an NIL compensation agreement, and failing to disclose on a quarterly basis the receipt of covered compensation (such as cash). He remarked that there exist opportunities and guardrails that the U.S. can adopt to enable student athletes to better capitalize on their NIL rights while also facilitating more competitive sports. He highlighted how the NCAA had recently adopted many requirements (including transparency requirements) as part of their recent NIL working group. He asked Ms. Page to explain why transparency is important for student athlete NIL compensation.
  • Ms. Page called transparency “incredibly important” for student athlete NIL compensation. She noted how student athletes currently cannot access information regarding current student athlete NIL compensation deals. She stated that this information would enable her to better understand the current market value of student athlete NIL compensation deals so that she could better negotiate such deals.
• Rep. Carter expressed support for student athlete NIL compensation and asserted that student athletes should be able to profit from the use of their NIL rights in the same manner that schools profit off of these rights. He asked Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) to address how the FAIR College Sports Act would prevent schools from tying NIL compensation to athletic performance metrics.
  • Mr. Jackson (Missouri Valley Conference) noted how many student athletes are currently having their NIL compensation withheld if they do not meet certain athletic performance metrics. He expressed agreement with Rep. Carter’s concerns.
• Rep. Carter asserted that federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation must prevent a “pay for play” system for college sports. He asked Mr. Baker to provide recommendations for preventing this type of system for college sports.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the NCAA’s Project DI proposal would benefit women’s sports and improve transparency and accountability. He also noted that this proposal would enable schools to provide enhanced educational benefits for their student athletes. He emphasized the importance of increased transparency and accountability for student athletes and those that work with student athletes. He stated that Congressional action will be important to protect the NCAA from unnecessary litigation regarding its proposed college sports reforms.