Taking the Buzzer Beater to the Bank: Protecting College Athletes’ NIL Dealmaking Rights (U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce)

Hearing	Taking the Buzzer Beater to the Bank: Protecting College Athletes’ NIL Dealmaking Rights
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce
Date	March 29, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• The Current College Student Athlete Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Compensation Landscape: The hearing largely considered the current state of student athlete NIL compensation policy. Student athletes in certain states may enter into deals with third parties to derive compensation from their NIL rights. The student athlete pursuing these opportunities must navigate a complex system of agents, collectives, and high dollar contract offers while maintaining their academic and athletic commitments. Currently, there does not exist a federal law governing student athlete NIL compensation and states oversee this space.
  • State NIL Compensation Laws: Subcommittee Members, Ms. Heppel, Dr. Abdullah, Mr. Burton, Ms. Mudge, and Mr. Chun expressed concerns over the lack of uniformity across state student athlete NIL compensation laws. They detailed how college student athletes and athletic conferences can experience challenges when trying to navigate these diverse state laws. They further warned that states are passing their own student athlete NIL compensation laws to advantage their schools in the student athlete recruiting process.
  • Impact of Student Athlete NIL Compensation on College Recruiting and the Use of NIL Collectives: Subcommittee Members, Ms. Heppel, and Mr. Burton expressed concerns that school donors and boosters are using student athlete NIL compensation deals to recruit student athletes to their schools. They expressed particular concerns with the rise of NIL collectives, which are independent organizations that pool together donor funds for the purposes of providing student athlete NIL compensation deals to student athletes. They stated that these uses of NIL compensation deals could be turning college sports into a “pay-for-play” model. Moreover, Dr. Stahl questioned the independence of NIL collectives and stated that many college athletic department directors are encouraging their school donors to support NIL collectives.
  • Impact of Student Athlete NIL Compensation on Smaller Schools and Athletic Programs: Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), and Dr. Abdullah expressed concerns that overly permissive student athlete NIL compensation policies can cause funds to be diverted from schools to go directly to the student athletes. They warned that this diversion of funds can lead smaller schools to reduce or eliminate their athletic programs.
  • Impact of Student Athlete NIL Compensation on Non-Revenue Generating Sports and Women’s Sports: Full Committee Chairman McMorris Rodgers noted how most college sports are not profitable on their own. She cautioned that student athlete NIL compensation deals could divert money from athletic departments, which would jeopardize the viability of non-revenue generating sprots. Full Committee Chairman McMorris Rodgers, Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), and Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) also noted that this diversion of funds could impact the viability of women’s sports, which might violate Title IX gender equity protections.
  • NIL Compensation Opportunities for Military Service Academy Student Athletes: Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) and Ms. Heppel raised concerns over how student athlete NIL compensation deals might impact student athletes at the military service academies. Ms. Heppel commented that while military service academies would like to provide their student athletes with the same opportunities as student athletes at other schools, she stated that the student athletes that attend military service academies have different objectives than other student athletes.
  • NIL Compensation Opportunities for International Students: Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) noted that international student athletes are precluded from pursuing NIL compensation opportunities under the terms of their visas. Rep. Cammack, Ms. Heppel, and Mr. Chun expressed interest in extending the right to pursue student athlete NIL compensation deals to international student athletes.
• Proposed Changes to Student Athlete NIL Compensation: Subcommittee Members, Ms. Heppel, Dr. Abdullah, Mr. Burton, Ms. Mudge, and Mr. Chun expressed interest in developing federal legislation to address student athlete NIL compensation. They argued that student athlete NIL compensation could benefit student athletes if well designed and regulated and that federal legislation is necessary to provide consistent national rules. They further contended that national rules are needed to ensure that student athletes are not being taken advantage of in NIL compensation deals. However, Dr. Stahl contended that federal legislation governing the issue is unnecessary and that the current problems in college sports could be addressed internally.
  • Provision of Transparency for Student Athlete NIL Compensation Deals: Ms. Heppel, Dr. Abdullah, Mr. Burton, Ms. Mudge, and Mr. Chun suggested that the U.S. require some level of transparency around student athlete NIL compensation deals. They asserted that greater transparency would enable student athletes to better assess NIL compensation offers, which will make them less vulnerable to bad actors. They also suggested that this information could provide insights into whether these student athlete NIL compensation deals are being provided on an equitable basis.
  • Provision of NIL Compensation Education to Student Athletes: Dr. Abdullah, Mr. Burton, Ms. Mudge, and Mr. Chun expressed support for current policies that provide education to student athletes about NIL compensation. Dr. Abdullah, Ms. Mudge, and Mr. Chun discussed how their schools (Virginia State University, Florida State University, and Washington State University, respectively) currently provide financial literacy and marketing education to their student athletes so that student athletes are better equipped to pursue NIL compensation opportunities.
  • Proposed Adoption of an Employment Model for College Sports: Subcommittee Republicans, Ms. Heppel, Dr. Abdullah, Mr. Burton, Ms. Mudge, and Mr. Chun criticized proposals to classify student athletes as employees of their schools. They contended that an employment model for college sports is antithetical to the educational mission of college sports. They also warned that an employment model could lead schools to eliminate non-revenue generating sports (which might have Title IX implications).
  • Proposed Adoption of a Revenue Sharing Model for College Sprots: Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Mr. Burton, Ms. Mudge, and Mr. Chun also expressed concerns over proposals to adopt a revenue sharing model for college sports in which student athletes would receive a percentage of the revenues generated by their school’s sports programs. They warned that revenue sharing could lead student athletes to become classified as employees and threaten the viability of non-revneue generating sports. Rep. Carter commented that these concerns are especially pertinent given how California is currently considering the College Athlete Protection Act, which would establish a revenue sharing model for California schools. Dr. Stahl argued however that media contracts for college sports are becoming so large that schools can now afford to share revenues derived from sports programs with their student athletes. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) commented however that only the Power Five conferences are receiving these lucrative media rights contracts. Mr. Burton also commented that there might exist a revenue sharing model that could exist outside of an employment relationship. He suggested that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) might give revenue to NIL collectives, which could then be used to compensate student athletes for the use of their NIL rights.
  • Proposed Removal of the Restriction on Ability for Student Athletes to Enter into NIL Compensation Deal with their Schools and Athletic Conferences: Dr. Stahl lamented how the NCAA had recently declared that college athletic departments and conferences cannot make direct NIL payments to student athletes for their appearances in media broadcasts. He called on the NCAA to reverse this policy and commented that such a reversal would open up competition between conferences and individual football programs for player talent. 
• Additional Concerns Raised During the Hearing: The hearing also considered issues impacting colleges sports outside of student athlete NIL compensation. Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) expressed interest in pursuing broader legislation to address these issues.
  • Protections of Student Athletes from Aggressive Agents: Rep. Diane Harshbarger (R-TN) and Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-ID) expressed concerns over unscrupulous agents that are using student athlete NIL compensation deals to take advantage of student athletes. Dr. Abdullah and Mr. Chun suggested that the provision of education to student athletes could protect student athletes from being trapped in one-sided NIL compensation deals. 
  • Proposals for College Student Athletes to Unionize: Several Subcommittee Democrats and Dr. Stahl expressed interest in how permitting college student athletes to unionize could lead to improved conditions in college sports. Dr. Stahl suggested however that formal unionization might not always be necessary for all schools and commented that less competitive college football programs might not require the same level of labor protections. He also warned that a fear of retaliation is preventing college student athletes from collectively organizing. He noted that college football programs could retaliate against their players seeking to collectively organize through less obvious means, such as reducing their playing times.
  • Health Insurance Coverage for Student Athletes: Several Subcommittee Democrats and Dr. Stahl called for student athletes to receive robust health insurance coverage for sports-related medical issues (including post-graduation care). Ms. Mudge discussed how many schools (including Florida State University) provide robust health care coverage for their student athletes, including medical coverage for athletic injuries beyond graduation and eligibility. She also mentioned how schools are expanding access to nutrition and mental health resources for their student athletes.
  • Practice Protections for Student Athletes: Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) and Dr. Stahl expressed interest improving practice safety conditions for college athletic programs. Dr. Stahl noted how coaches currently have total control of practice environments and commented that some coaches might not be sufficiently attentive to the needs of student athletes. He suggested that independent third-party representatives from players associations (such as the College Football Players Association) should be present at practice environments to ensure that health and safety rules are being followed. Rep. Blunt Rochester and Dr. Stahl also expressed interest in how innovative technologies (such as robot tackling dummies) could be leveraged to reduce the need for hitting in college football practices.
  • Title IX Compliance: Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) expressed concerns that schools are overcounting female student athletes for the purposes of Title IX compliance. She asserted that the Committee could not discuss student athlete NIL compensation rights without first addressing how schools are exploiting loopholes that deprive women of the opportunity to pursue college sports. She mentioned how she had introduced the Fair Play for Women Act to close these loopholes.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Ms. Jennifer Heppel, Commissioner, Patriot League
2. Dr. Makola M. Abdullah, Ph.D., President, Virginia State University
3. Mr. Trey Burton, Former National Football League player
4. Ms. Kaley Mudge, Student Athlete, Florida State University
5. Mr. Pat Chun, Director of Athletics, Washington State University
6. Dr. Jason Stahl, Executive Director and Founder, College Football Players Association

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

• He noted how courts have determined that student athletes can obtain compensation for the use of their NIL rights and stated that Congress must now set rules for student athlete NIL compensation.
• He highlighted how many college student athletes have already taken advantage of NIL compensation opportunities.
  • He mentioned how more than 40 NIL deals have been signed since the commencement of the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments and predicted that more NIL deals will be reached in the coming days.
• He remarked that Congress must address the student athlete NIL compensation issue to ensure that NIL deals are transparent and fair and do not compromise the integrity of college sports.
  • He asserted that Congress must work to ensure that student athlete NIL compensation deals do not act as recruiting inducements or pay-for-play schemes.
• He also stated that Congress must consider how NIL regulation would impact capital distribution within the college sports ecosystem, especially amongst smaller college athletic programs.
  • He lamented how St. Francis College had recently decided to eliminate its entire athletics program due to residual financial implications from the COVID-19 pandemic and operating expenses.
  • He expressed concerns that the financial stress of more mandates will only compound such constraints on resources.
• He discussed how charitable funds are being siphoned away from college athletic departments and conferences into third-party NIL collectives.
• He also expressed concerns over the prospects that schools will be forced to classify their student athletes as employees and commented that this policy change could lead schools to eliminate certain sports (particularly non-revenue generating sports).
  • He mentioned how New York is currently considering a proposal to classify student athletes as employees. 
• He remarked that the U.S. must prioritize the creation and maintenance of an “equal playing field” for all college athletes.
• He called it critical for Congress to establish a federal preemptive standard for student athlete NIL compensation to bring clarity and consistency to the space.
  • He commented that the current lack of uniformity in student athlete NIL compensation rules across different states and institutions has created confusion and uncertainty.
• He asserted that Congress must balance the right of college student athletes to capitalize off of their NIL rights with the need to preserve amateur status for all college student athletes.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):

• She noted that while college sports have generated “enormous” amounts of wealth, she stated that this wealth has not been equitably distributed.
  • She asserted that the college student athletes have not yet received their “fair share” of the money generated from college sports.
• She recounted how college football players at Northwestern University (which is located within her Congressional District) had attempted to form a union in 2015 and criticized Northwestern University for employing “anti-union” tactics to block this effort.
• She called it essential for college student athletes to possess the ability to capitalize off of their NIL rights and receive other benefits.
• She then discussed how NCAA rules require student athletes to have basic health insurance and noted that schools are not required to provide health insurance to their student athletes.
  • She criticized the two health insurance options offered by the NCAA for providing insufficient and time-limited coverage for student athletes and noted how student athletes often experience injuries with lifelong consequences.
• She noted how the NCAA had only recently begun to permit some college athletes to capitalize off of their NIL rights following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and the passage of several state laws.
• She remarked however that there remains a power imbalance between college student athletes and their schools and called on Congress to do more to address the student athlete NIL compensation issue.

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

• She mentioned how the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 2021 that the NCAA could no longer prohibit college athletes from receiving compensation for the use of their NIL rights.
• She stated however that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling did not provide clear “rules of the road” and noted how states have since worked to pass their own student athlete NIL compensation policies that advantage their schools.
  • She mentioned how Alabama had passed and quickly repealed a student athlete NIL compensation law due to concerns that their restrictions could place Alabama schools at a competitive disadvantage in sports recruiting.
• She asserted that the current “patchwork” of state student athlete NIL compensation laws creates confusion for athletes, schools, and athletic conferences.
  • She called it unreasonable to expect student athletes to balance their studies with navigating a “maze” of complex and conflicting laws.
• She remarked that the absence of clear and consistent rules governing the student athlete NIL compensation issue could disrupt and eliminate many important elements of the student athlete educational experience.
  • She commented that the absence of these rules is particularly impacting non-revenue generating sports.
  • She expressed particular concerns that the absence of these rules could harm women’s sports and athletic programs at small schools.
• She discussed how most college sports are not profitable on their own and warned that inadequate student athlete NIL compensation rules could jeopardize the continued existence of non-revenue generating sports.
• She also remarked that student athletes seeking to pursue NIL compensation opportunities must navigate a complex system of agents, collectives, and high dollar contract offers while maintaining their academic and athletic commitments.
  • She commented that the pressure being imposed on these student athletes is “immense” and that these student athletes should have access to counseling for financial planning and mental well-being.
• She stated that clear student athlete protections and education can help to prevent the exploitation of college student athletes.
• She concluded that student athlete NIL compensation rights are long overdue and called on the U.S. to create clear national rules governing the issue.

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

• He discussed how college student athletes generate revenues and publicity for their schools through driving ticket sales, television viewership, merchandise sales, and school enrollment.
  • He asserted that student athletes deserve a system that protects their interests and well-being and that preserves the educational mission of college sports.
• He remarked that the NCAA had been forced to permit college student athletes to monetize their NIL rights and expressed his support for this development.
• He contended that student athlete NIL compensation reform should be one part of a broader effort to address a wide range of issues impacting college student athletes.
  • He indicated that these issues include health and safety, the rights of student athletes to form a union, compensation, and gender equity.
• He remarked that Congress must ensure that the welfare of student athletes is the top priority for athletic programs at colleges and universities, regardless of division, conference, or sport.
  • He asserted that student athletes must receive proper care for sports-related medical issues (including post-graduation care) and have their rights to form unions respected and protected.
  • He further stated that Congress must protect and build upon the benefits that Title IX has brought to women’s college sports.
• He concluded that Congress must develop rules governing student athlete NIL compensation that prioritize the welfare of college student athletes over the NCAA’s financial interests. 
• He then yielded the remainder of his time to Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA).

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA):

• She remarked that Congress must act to create a “level playing field” for college athletics and commented that the current “patchwork” of state laws is difficult for colleges and conferences to navigate.
• She expressed particular concerns regarding how this “patchwork” of state laws impacts college student athletes.
  • She recounted how she had faced challenges navigating athletic scholarship rules as a first-generation college student and commented that the advent of student athlete NIL compensation rights makes this process even more complicated.
• She stated that there are several emerging issues involving student athlete NIL compensation, including inequity and collusion among NIL collectives, predatory contracts, and Title IX “loopholes.”
• She remarked that Congress should address the issue of student athlete NIL compensation in a manner that prioritizes student athletes.

Witness Opening Statements:

Ms. Jennifer Heppel (Patriot League):

• She discussed how the Patriot League’s student athletes are “fully engaged” in campus life and testified that these student athletes can participate in study abroad programs, lead campus organizations, and pursue internships.
  • She commented that the Patriot League’s student athletes are not employees and are instead students being provided with “comprehensive support.”
• She noted how Patriot League student athletes can capitalize off of their NIL rights and expressed the Patriot League’s support for student athlete NIL compensation opportunities.
  • She commented that these NIL compensation opportunities can provide important professional, networking, educational, career development, and service dimensions.
• She remarked that the proper management and regulation of student athlete NIL compensation rights represents an area of “constructive” change and opportunity for college student athletes.
• She lamented however that the instability created by multiple state student athlete NIL compensation laws and the current lack of transparency regarding student athlete NIL compensation policies is undermining the positive developments within this space.
  • She asserted that the U.S. must develop national rules for student athlete NIL compensation to address these negative impacts.
• She stated that any federal student athlete NIL compensation policy must preserve and protect the universally considered positives of intercollegiate athletics.
  • She indicated that these positives include its connectivity to the educational mission and the provision of opportunities for young people.

Dr. Makola M. Abdullah, Ph.D. (Virginia State University):

• He discussed how Virginia State University’s athletics program is supported through student fees and stated that student athletics at the school remains an amateur and extracurricular program.
  • He testified that Virginia State University’s athletics program does not generate revenue for the school.
• He mentioned how Virginia State University, other historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), and NCAA Division II and III institutions have competed against major universities for students, student athletes, faculty, staff, administrators, federal grants, and private philanthropic funds for years.
  • He asserted that Virginia State University is not afraid of competition and is confident in its ability to recruit student athletes.
• He noted that while the NCAA currently does not require student athletes to disclose their NIL compensation deals, he indicated that Virginia State University is aware of five student athletes that have such deals.
  • He highlighted how Virginia State University has over 300 student athletes and estimated that these NIL compensation deals have a value of less than $10,000.
• He remarked that the student athlete NIL compensation experience is unique to individual institutions because institutions vary in terms of how much revenue they generate from sports.
• He called it “paramount” for the U.S. to provide college student athletes with the proper tools to manage the responsibilities associated with NIL compensation deals.
  • He testified that Virginia State University provides its student athletes with financial literacy and marketing education so that they can maximize their earnings potential.
• He lastly called on Congress to consider proposals to increase HBCU funding and commented that this funding impacts where many student athletes decide to matriculate.

Mr. Trey Burton (Former National Football League Player):

• He mentioned how he had gotten married and had his first child while still playing college football at the University of Florida and stated that NIL compensation could have significantly benefited his family during this period.
  • He commented that Congress now has an opportunity to ensure that student athlete NIL compensation deals will actually benefit student athletes.
• He discussed how college sports have changed “dramatically” over the past two years and stated that there is a shrinking distinction between amateur sports and professional sports.
  • He mentioned how some states (such as California) have proposed legislation to provide equal revenue sharing between college athletic programs and student athletes.
  • He also mentioned how there are proposals under consideration that would classify all college student athletes as employees of their schools.
• He remarked that policies that permit college student athletes to capitalize off of their NIL rights are likely to remain in effect moving forward and expressed support for these policies.
  • He commented that the benefits associated with student athlete NIL compensation outweigh the drawbacks of this compensation.
• He discussed how student athlete NIL compensation opportunities are enabling student athletes to pursue business ventures, endorsement deals, marketing opportunities, and charity endeavors.
  • He also mentioned how many student athletes are using funds derived from NIL compensation deals to support their families.
• He noted how student athletes have previously been forced to choose between athletic and financial opportunities and remarked that student athlete NIL compensation opportunities enable student athletes to pursue both types of opportunities.
• He then expressed concerns over how states maintain their own laws and policies governing student athlete NIL compensation and called this especially dangerous within the recruiting context.
  • He indicated that there is evidence that schools are using NIL compensation opportunities to recruit high school athletes and transfer athletes.
  • He commented that this use of NIL compensation as a recruitment tool constitutes a “pay-for-play” scheme.
• He criticized the proposals under consideration that would classify college student athletes as employees of their schools and asserted that such a policy would effectively eliminate all amateur sports.
• He also criticized the lack of transparency surrounding many student athlete NIL compensation deals and noted how there have been reports that agents have collected excessive fees from these deals.
  • He added that some student athletes have reportedly signed away their intellectual property (IP) and access to their social media in some cases.
• He remarked that the U.S.’s failure to establish clear guidelines and a uniform set of rules governing student athlete NIL compensation would make student athletes vulnerable to exploitation.
  • He expressed concerns that student athletes are currently being forced to navigate a very complicated system with limited resources and no infrastructure to protect them from bad actors.

Ms. Kaley Mudge (Florida State University):

• She mentioned that she is an outfielder on Florida State University’s women’s softball team and indicated that she plans to pursue a career in nursing following the completion of her college athletic career.
• She testified that she had entered Florida State University as a partial academic and athletic scholarship recipient and stated that she had pursued NIL compensation deals to help cover her tuition.
  • She also mentioned how NIL compensation deals had provided her with important experience in reading contracts, negotiating deals, and earning and saving money.
• She stated that NIL compensation deals have served as an effective means for comprehensive life skills education.
  • She elaborated that these skills include financial literacy training, contract review, personal branding, business formation, and responsible social media strategies.
• She mentioned how Florida State University had developed a “comprehensive” education program to provide their student athletes with knowledge, resources, and support to navigate the NIL compensation environment.
  • She indicated that this program includes the creation of three separate NIL-related courses in partnership with the College of Business and School of Entrepreneurship, support for contract review through the College of Law, cobranding opportunities through use of institutional marks and logos, and an expansion of current university partnerships to develop NIL compensation opportunities.
• She also discussed how Florida State University’s NIL Collective has provided additional student athlete NIL resources.
  • She noted how this Collective helps student athletes to identify and secure new NIL opportunities, understand their market values, and facilitate group licensing opportunities.
• She called it imperative for there to exist national student athlete NIL compensation guidelines and expectations that provide student athletes with the ability to pursue NIL compensation opportunities.
  • She criticized the current framework governing student athlete NIL compensation, which she characterized as involving disparate or non-existent state policies.
• She also stated that national student athlete NIL compensation standards should ensure a healthy recruiting environment to provide fairness, equity, and transparency.
  • She further called on Congress to support and ensure opportunities for sports participation and access to higher education (particularly for underrepresented populations).
• She then discussed how many schools (including Florida State University) provide robust health care coverage for their student athletes, including medical coverage for athletic injuries beyond graduation and eligibility.
  • She also mentioned how schools are expanding access to nutrition and mental health resources for their student athletes.
  • She added that student athletes often receive academic support in the form of advisors and tutors.
• She remarked that the legal protections provided under Title IX and the redistribution of revenues across all sponsored sports make the aforementioned benefits possible.
  • She warned that the application of an employer-employee model to college sports would threaten this current dynamic.

Mr. Pat Chun (Washington State University):

• He mentioned how he had served on the NCAA Division I Transformation Committee and stated that this Committee had proposed a holistic model for student athletics.
  • He explained that this model sets expectations for the health, safety, and well-being of these athletes, and had created a fairer, faster, and equitable NCAA governance model.
  • He asserted however that “significant challenges” remain in college athletics.
• He remarked that the primacy of education remains central to every institution of higher education and stated that proposed state legislation and ongoing litigation may classify student athletes as employees of their schools.
  • He warned that this legislation and litigation could cause “irreparable” damage to the student athlete experience.
• He stated that policymakers should be cautious regarding proposals to apply an employer-employee model to college sports.
  • He commented that the notion that a student athlete could be fired for underperformance undermines the educational mission of schools.
• He also stated that classifying student athletes as employees can erode many of the benefits and guarantees that student athletes currently receive.
• He warned that if one group of student athletes were to be classified as employees (such as student athletes in revenue producing sports), then demands could be made that all student athletes be classified as employees. 
  • He commented that the financial impact of this widespread classification could lead to the reduction of opportunities for broad-based participation in college sports, which would have Title IX implications.
• He then remarked that while student athletes should be permitted to capitalize off of their NIL rights, he stated that the current student athlete NIL compensation environment consists of recruiting inducements, tampering, and “pay-for-play.”
  • He mentioned how recent media reports indicate that student athletes are being approached with empty promises regarding NIL compensation opportunities.
• He also mentioned how sports research firm Navigate had found that 77 percent of general (i.e., non-college athletics) NIL compensation is earned by women while women student athletes are receiving just 16.2 percent of college athletics NIL compensation.
  • He commented that these figures support the belief that the college student athlete NIL compensation market is not reflective of the true value of a student’s NIL rights.
• He stated that the absence of NIL compensation disclosures for student athletes prevents schools and student athletes from properly assessing NIL compensation opportunities for fairness and equity.
  • He asserted that this non-transparent ecosystem enables third parties to profit from the uninformed decisions of student athletes.
• He requested that Congress partner with the NCAA and its member institutions to develop federal standards for student athlete NIL compensation that provide transparency and enforceable safeguards.
  • He further called for “meaningful oversight” that provides protection and value to student athletes and ensures that institutions and outside entities are complying with standardized rules and governing policies.

Dr. Jason Stahl (College Football Players Association):

• He remarked that the current problems in college athletics could be addressed internally.
  • He mentioned how his organization, the College Football Players Association, had developed its own proposal for addressing these issues and expressed the organization’s willingness to work with college administrators on these issues.
• He noted how college student athletes had gained the ability to pursue NIL compensation deals in July 2021 and highlighted how the U.S. Supreme Court had found that NCAA compensation rules violate antitrust laws.
  • He indicated that the NCAA had ultimately decided to drop its NIL monetization restrictions for student athletes in response to legal and public pressure.
• He stated that most evidence suggests that the ability of student athletes to capitalize on their NIL rights has had an “overwhelmingly positive effect” on both student athletes and their families.
• He remarked that industry stakeholders (including student athletes) are sufficiently equipped to address any problems within the student athlete NIL compensation space on their own.
  • He asserted that the federal government should not intervene within the student athlete NIL compensation space.
• He stated that if new policies are needed to govern student athlete NIL compensation, then NCAA administrators and college athletic conferences should interact with student athletes (through their independent players associations) to address these issues.
  • He suggested that the College Football Players Association could help to enforce existing agreements and to screen attorneys and agents for student athletes.
• He then discussed how the media rights contracts for Power Five football conferences and the College Football Playoff (CFP) Championship have “exploded” in recent years.
  • He added that this growth is expected to continue as the CFP will soon expand from 4 teams to 12 teams in 2024.
• He contended that the student athletes that generate much of this value for media rights deserve to participate in the revenue from the media rights agreements.
• He stated that players associations (including the College Football Players Association) should be involved in negotiations to develop revenue sharing agreements that involve student athletes.
  • He commented that there would exist plenty of money to compensate student athletes for the use of their NIL rights without impairing the overall operations of athletics departments.
• He further lamented how the NCAA had recently declared that college athletic departments and conferences cannot make direct NIL payments to student athletes for their appearances in media broadcasts.
  • He called on the NCAA to reverse this policy and commented that such a reversal would open up competition between conferences and individual football programs for player talent.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

• Chairman Bilirakis stated that Mr. Burton would have had “immense” opportunities to earn supplemental income from NIL deals had such deals been permitted during his college football career. He asked Mr. Burton to discuss how this supplemental income could have benefited him.
  • Mr. Burton mentioned how he had gotten married and had a child during his junior year of college. He stated that the opportunity to pursue NIL compensation could have provided his family with financial support during this time. He testified that his family had financially relied upon his athletic scholarship and Pell Grants during this period. He also mentioned how his mother was a single mother and how he had two brothers. He stated that student athlete NIL compensation opportunities could have helped provide financial support to his family. He further mentioned how he had experienced an injury during his final college football game that could have prevented him from pursuing a professional football career. He stated that this injury had created financial uncertainty and commented that his financial prospects would have been bleak had he not entered the National Football League (NFL).
• Chairman Bilirakis asked Ms. Mudge to discuss how NIL compensation opportunities have benefited her as a current student athlete. He also asked Ms. Mudge to address how these NIL compensation opportunities benefit female college student athletes that often lack the same professional opportunities as their male counterparts.
  • Ms. Mudge noted how she had not received a full scholarship and stated that NIL compensation opportunities have helped her to pay her school’s tuition and incidental expenses. She further stated that her NIL deals will help her to pay for her graduate nursing degree.
• Chairman Bilirakis then noted how Mr. Burton had stated that many prospective student athletes had previously needed to decide between either making money and forgoing college athletics or pursuing college athletics while obtaining a college education. He asked Mr. Burton to discuss the academic benefits that he had received while attending the University of Florida. He also asked Mr. Burton to address how Congress could prevent disruptions in academic benefits for student athletes as it works to address the student athlete NIL compensation issue.
  • Mr. Burton mentioned how he had received a college degree from the University of Florida and that his time at the school had enabled him to develop professional relationships. He testified that he had received tutoring services as a student athlete at the University of Florida. He indicated that he has dyslexia and commented that these tutoring services had been especially helpful for him.
• Chairman Bilirakis asked Ms. Mudge to discuss the academic benefits that she currently receives as a student athlete at Florida State University. He also asked Ms. Mudge to address how proposals that would change the current college sports model would impact her ability to continue receiving such benefits.
  • Ms. Mudge remarked that the current college sports model works well and indicated that many student athletes have used athletics as an avenue to pursue a college degree. She stated that a change in this model could result in money being diverted away from non-revenue generating sports, which would reduce the ability of many current student athletes to afford college.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL):

• Rep. Castor remarked that Title IX has had a positive impact on college sports and explained that Title IX prohibits gender discrimination at federally funded schools and in college athletics. She asserted that student athlete NIL compensation policies should not undermine the operation of Title IX. She asked Mr. Heppel to indicate whether women have access to NIL compensation opportunities that are as lucrative as the NIL compensation opportunities of their male counterparts. She also asked Mr. Heppel to provide recommendations for how Congress could ensure that women can participate in college sports as it works to develop federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation.
  • Mr. Heppel remarked that there currently does not exist transparency around student athlete NIL compensation deals, which makes it difficult to assess whether male and female student athletes have equitable access to these deals. She stated that anecdotal evidence and data collected through voluntary reporting indicates that NIL compensation deals are being used to induce recruits and transfers to schools. She asserted that this use of student athlete NIL compensation deals for inducing players to attend a school undermines the promise of student athlete NIL compensation. She called for federal legislation to provide transparency for student athlete NIL compensation deals. She testified that the Patriot League had invested in a software platform that could enable student athletes and schools to report NIL compensation deals. She also mentioned how the Patriot League includes schools from four different states and the District of Columbia, which can make student athlete NIL compensation issues difficult for the Conference to manage. She further mentioned how the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy are members of the Patriot League and indicated that the students at these schools are federal employees. She stated that the Patriot League thus needs to navigate additional regulations around federal employees pursuing student athlete NIL compensation deals.
• Rep. Castor interjected to ask Dr. Abdullah and Ms. Mudge to identify the guardrails that the U.S. should adopt for student athlete NIL compensation deals for ensuring equity.
  • Dr. Abdullah remarked that policymakers must ensure that NIL compensation information is transparent to student athletes and that student athletes are equipped to compare information from one institution and/or collective to another. He stated that this transparency would enable student athletes to successfully negotiate their value.
  • Ms. Mudge remarked that Congress should establish national standards for student athlete NIL compensation. She discussed how different states currently maintain different rules governing student athlete NIL compensation and commented that this variance in policies can impact where student athletes choose to matriculate and transfer to. She also stated that transparency around student athlete NIL compensation would enable student athletes to better discern the fair market value of their NIL rights, which could better equip student athletes to negotiate NIL compensation deals.
• Rep. Castor then noted how Mr. Chun had stated that only 16.2 percent of student athlete NIL compensation deals go to female student athletes. She acknowledged that her question period time had expired and requested that Mr. Chun follow up with the Subcommittee in writing on gender inequities in college student athlete NIL compensation.

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

• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Mr. Chun to discuss how Washington State University is helping to support and educate its student athletes about NIL compensation deals.
  • Mr. Chun remarked that Washington State University strives to empower, educate, and protect its student athletes. He mentioned how Washington State University had partnered with its Carson College of Business to provide a credited course about NIL compensation to its student athletes. He noted how this course educates student athletes on tax issues, social media management, and contracts. He also testified that Washington State University has full-time staff that works directly with its student athletes on NIL compensation matters. He noted that Washington does not maintain a state-level law governing NIL compensation and indicated that student athlete NIL compensation deals in Washington are governed by state ethics laws. He stated that this situation restricts the ability of Washington State University to direct student athletes toward NIL collectives and compensation deals. He remarked however that Washington State University provides as much education and introductions as possible to its student athletes while complying with Title IX, NCAA rules, and state rules.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Mr. Chun to project how Congress’s failure to provide federal certainty to the student athlete NIL compensation landscape would impact school athletic programs and conferences. She also asked Mr. Chun to comment on the role that the NCAA would play in efforts to address the issue of student athlete NIL compensation.
  • Mr. Chun first remarked that NIL compensation is “extraordinarily positive” for college student athletes and called for the continuation of student athlete NIL compensation opportunities. He raised concerns however that student athlete NIL compensation deals are being used as inducements to recruit student athletes. He noted that while the NCAA maintains prohibitions on tampering and inducements for athletic programs, he asserted that the NCAA is currently incapable of enforcing these prohibitions because of state laws governing student athlete NIL compensation. He expressed concerns that the continuation of current trends would lead to a small set of conferences or schools dominating student athlete recruiting. He commented that this outcome would negatively impact college sports throughout NCAA Division I, II, and III, which will undermine the financial viability of the NCAA.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then asked Dr. Abdullah to indicate whether Virginia State University has the resources to support student athletes in the same way as large schools. She also asked Dr. Abdullah to indicate whether Virginia State University student athletes are receiving similar NIL compensation opportunities to student athletes at other schools.
  • Dr. Abdullah testified that Virginia State University supports its student athletes and its athletic program almost entirely through student fees. He stated that Virginia State University has fewer available funds for athletic scholarships and facilities compared to Power Five conference schools. He also stated that Virginia State University has fewer student athlete NIL compensation deals than larger schools. He noted that Virginia State University does not have an NIL collective and stated that many of the school’s athletes are working to negotiate their own NIL compensation deals on the open market.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers lastly asked Ms. Mudge to comment on how the failure to adequately address the student athlete NIL compensation issue could pose threats to Title IX.
  • Ms. Mudge remarked that Title IX has been a very beneficial policy and expressed concerns that new models for college sports could undermine Olympic and women’s sports opportunities. She stated that the undermining of Title IX would prevent future student athletes from enjoying the same benefits and experiences that she had enjoyed as a student athlete.

 Subcommittee Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):

• Ranking Member Schakowsky asked Dr. Stahl to identify specific actions that college sports should take to improve the health care and safety of student athletes.
  • Dr. Stahl first recommended that the practice environment for student athletes should be improved. He noted how coaches currently have total control over practice environments and commented that some coaches might not be sufficiently attentive to the needs of student athletes. He suggested that independent third-party representatives from players associations (such as the College Football Players Association) be present at practice environments to ensure that health and safety rules are being followed. He commented that these health and safety rules are especially important in football and noted how football-related brain injuries are most prevalent in practice situations. He also contended that student athletes should receive health protections beyond their playing careers. He stated that many college student athletes experience sports-related injuries that prevent them from pursuing future sports careers. He called on the NCAA to require that student athletes receive guaranteed health care coverage beyond their playing careers. He also suggested that student athletes be able to access university hospitals and clinics as part of this long-term care for student athletes. He further stated that the schools should be required to care for the brain injuries of their student athletes and noted how the effects from these injuries can take decades to manifest.
• Ranking Member Schakowsky asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether the College Football Players Association is concerned about the onset of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in many former student athletes.
  • Dr. Stahl noted how CTE can be very controversial and expressed his preference for focusing on brain injuries. He stated that many of the College Football Players Association’s older alumni members have claimed to still suffer from brain injuries that they had incurred during their college football playing careers.
• Ranking Member Schakowsky asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether collective bargaining would be helpful to student athletes.
  • Dr. Stahl remarked that collective bargaining would be helpful to student athletes. He stated however that collective bargaining could take many forms. He discussed how college football is currently separating into two tiers of competitiveness. He remarked that formal collective bargaining efforts would be important for more competitive college football programs (e.g., Power Five football programs). He stated however that less competitive college football programs might not require the same labor protections. He asserted that these less competitive college football programs would still need some form of collective bargaining. He suggested that collective bargaining at these levels could be done on a voluntary basis. He indicated that the College Football Players Association is already involved in representing the interests of college football players at a less competitive NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision school.
• Ranking Member Schakowsky noted how the college athletics industry is worth billions of dollars and stated that the U.S. must do more to protect student athletes.

Rep. Larry Buchson (R-IN):

• Rep. Bucshon mentioned how former All American student athletes had told him that they could not afford many personal expenses as students, despite receiving full athletic scholarships. He remarked however that an employment model for college sports would result in many unintended consequences and would pose threats to the integrity of the current student athlete system. He expressed his support for permitting student athletes to pursue NIL compensation deals. He also stated that the U.S. must work to preserve the current student athlete model. He discussed how there are approximately 200,000 student athletes competing at the NCAA Division I level and noted how 80 percent of these student athletes are having positive experiences. He acknowledged that there exist differences in the levels of student support available from schools whose athletic programs do and do not generate revenue. He asked Dr. Abdullah to indicate whether there exists a risk of young student athletes unintentionally precluding themselves from financial aid or other NIL compensation opportunities if resources are limited (especially at smaller schools).
  • Dr. Abdullah called it “critically important” for schools to provide their student athletes with knowledge and information so that the student athletes can protect themselves. He stated that making student athlete NIL compensation deals transparent would enable smaller schools to compete on the open market and provide quality opportunities to their student athletes.
• Rep. Buchson then asked Ms. Heppel to indicate whether institutions that distribute NIL support resources should do so among all student athletes (and not just those participating in revenue generating sports).
  • Ms. Heppel stated that institutions should distribute NIL support resources equally to all of their student athletes.
• Rep. Buchson asked Ms. Heppel to recommend potential guardrails to ensure that institutions do not focus most of their NIL support resources on student athletes participating in revenue generating sports.
  • Ms. Heppel remarked that college athletic conferences and schools already focus on the well-being of all of their student athletes, regardless of sport.

Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE):

• Rep. Blunt Rochester asked Dr. Abdullah to identify key provisions that a federal student athlete NIL compensation standard should include to protect student athletes at smaller schools, mid-sized schools, and HBCUs.
  • Dr. Abdullah noted how there are over 500,000 student athletes that participate in NCAA sports and indicated that many of these student athletes attend Division II schools, Division III schools, and smaller mid-major Division I schools. He remarked that rules governing student athlete NIL compensation should account for these differences in school sizes and revenue generation abilities. He also called for providing transparency for student athlete NIL compensation deals.
• Rep. Blunt Rochester also noted how Dr. Abdullah’s testimony had discussed the importance of providing student athletes with tools to manage the responsibilities that come with NIL compensation deals. She mentioned how Delaware State University student athletes had told her about the difficulties associated with navigating NIL compensation deals and the need for increased resources and support for student athletes interested in pursuing the deals. She asked Dr. Abdullah to discuss the types of resources and tools that could support HBCUs in protecting their student athletes pursuing deals.
  • Dr. Abdullah remarked that Virginia State University provides “quality education” for its student athletes on NIL compensation deals. He stated however that the lack of transparency surrounding student athlete NIL compensation deals and the complexities associated with a state-based governing system for student athlete NIL compensation prevents student athletes from pursuing NIL compensation opportunities. He reiterated his call for providing transparency for student athlete NIL compensation deals.
• Rep. Blunt Rochester asked Dr. Abdullah to address how the U.S. could ensure that student athlete NIL compensation legislation would not exacerbate competitive disadvantages for HBCUs and HBCU student athletes.
  • Dr. Abdullah remarked that HBCUs are always prepared to compete with other schools, despite often facing resource disadvantages. He stated that HBCUs want to ensure that their student athletes can pursue NIL compensation deals.
• Rep. Blunt Rochester then mentioned how Dartmouth College is employing new technology to prevent players on the same team from hitting each other during their practices. She asked Dr. Stahl to explain this technology and to indicate whether this technology ought to be scaled up. She further asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether there exist other emerging technologies that could promote student athlete safety.
  • Dr. Stahl stated that Dartmouth College’s technology to prevent hitting in practices should be scaled up. He explained that Dartmouth College uses robot tackling dummies that cost about $6,000 each. He stated that Dartmouth College had been able to win several Ivy League Conference championships while using this technology, which suggests that the technology does not hinder player development. He noted that the University of Michigan also uses this technology.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Rep. Duncan first stated that the ability of student athletes to capitalize off of their NIL rights will remain in effect moving forward. He asserted however that student athlete NIL compensation has changed the landscape of amateur athletics. He noted how several of the witnesses from diverse backgrounds had called on Congress to develop federal standards for student athlete NIL compensation. He then discussed how the scholarships that student athletes receive from their schools have value. He expressed concerns that the redistribution of revenues stemming from student athlete NIL compensation will impact the ability of schools to fund non-revenue generating athletic programs. He then asked Ms. Heppel to indicate what federal standards for student athlete NIL compensation should look like.
  • Ms. Heppel remarked that policymakers should first focus on ensuring that student athlete NIL compensation would not be used to support recruiting inducements and a “pay-for-play” system. She noted that while there currently exist policies meant to prevent student athlete NIL compensation from being used for these purposes, she stated that the “patchwork” of state laws on the issue make these policies difficult to enforce at a national level. She commented that college sports are national by nature.
• Rep. Duncan expressed agreement with Ms. Heppel’s response. He then mentioned how the Atlantic Coast Council (ACC) Student-Athlete Advisory Committee had stated that a “pay-for-play” model for college sports would exacerbate the disparities faced in women’s sports and HBCUs because it would cause the redirection of funds from non-revenue generating sports to football and men’s basketball. He highlighted how roughly half of Power Five athletic departments run annual deficits. He remarked that directly compensating student athletes will threaten the viability of certain sports and expressed his opposition to changing the college sports model. He asked Dr. Stahl to respond to these concerns that the reallocation of college sports funds will impact the viability of non-revenue generating sports.
  • Dr. Stahl stated that the new media rights contracts for the Power Five conferences are expected to increase significantly.
• Rep. Duncan interjected to comment that the media rights contracts are for the Power Five conferences. He asked Dr. Abdullah to address how Virginia State University (which is a smaller school) will navigate the reallocation of funds in college sports.
  • Dr. Abdullah noted how Virginia State University’s athletics program is mainly funded through student fees and stated that the school is currently able to manage the changes in college sports. He remarked that increased transparency for student athlete NIL compensation deals will enable student athletes to determine their fair market value.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL):

• Rep. Soto first noted how college sports is now a $16.6 billion industry and mentioned how many college student athletes come from communities of color and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. He then recounted how Florida had established its student athlete NIL compensation law in 2021 and indicated that Florida has recently made reforms to this law. He noted that these reforms would enable student athletes to grant permission to their universities to be involved in setting up their endorsement deals, have schools provide financial literacy, life skills, and entrepreneurial workshops to their student athletes, permit NIL compensation contracts to extend beyond a student athlete’s collegiate career, and remove requirements for student athletes and their representatives to disclose their NIL contracts to their schools. He asked Ms. Mudge to indicate whether she had participated in financial literacy, life skills, and entrepreneurial workshops as a student athlete. He also asked Ms. Mudge to indicate whether these workshops had been beneficial to either her or her colleagues.
  • Ms. Mudge mentioned how the compliance department at Florida State University had provided the school’s student athletes with information about NIL compensation opportunities. She also mentioned how some of her teammates had found Florida State University’s courses useful in terms of providing education on how to read contracts, negotiate deals, and create brands. She commented that while she was uncertain as to the specific workshops that Rep. Soto is referring to, she stated that Florida State University has helped its student athletes to navigate NIL compensation opportunities.
• Rep. Soto asked Dr. Abdullah to indicate whether financial literacy, life skills, and entrepreneurial workshops would be beneficial to student athletes across the U.S.
  • Dr. Abdullah answered affirmatively and stated that schools should provide guidance to their students so that they can maximize their value.
• Rep. Soto asked Mr. Burton to indicate whether financial education would benefit student athletes.
  • Mr. Burton called financial education for student athletes “extremely important.” He stated that such education would better prepare student athletes for their professional careers and make them aware of certain key topics (such as taxes).
• Rep. Soto then discussed how there exist health risks associated with college sports and noted how the effects of sports-related injuries could be long lasting. He asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether schools help to support the long-term health care needs of former student athletes suffering from sports-related injuries.
  • Dr. Stahl responded no. He called for the establishment of national standards for the provision of health care to student athletes that extends beyond their college athletic careers.
• Rep. Soto concluded that the U.S. needs federal standards for student athlete NIL compensation to protect against asymmetry in competition.

Subcommittee Vice Chair Tim Walberg (R-MI):

• Vice Chair Walberg mentioned how his state of Michigan had passed student athlete NIL compensation legislation in 2021. He expressed concerns that the current patchwork of state student athlete NIL compensation laws is creating confusion across college athletic conferences. He contended that the U.S. needs to establish clear rules governing student athlete NIL compensation so that student athletes, colleges, and advertisers can all take advantage of these opportunities. He criticized the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for their 2021 memorandum that argued that student athletes should be considered employees of their schools. He recounted how Adrian College in Adrian, Michigan had used sports to improve their enrollment and academic facilities. He asked Ms. Heppel to explain why many of the Patriot League’s member schools are concerned about proposals to classify student athletes as employees of their schools.
  • Ms. Heppel stated that the Patriot League’s schools viewed athletics as an important co-curricular activity. She commented that athletics is part of the student educational process and contributes to the student experience. She asserted that the application of an employer-employee relationship to college athletics would therefore be inappropriate.
• Vice Chair Walberg asked Dr. Abdullah to address his concerns about proposals to classify student athletes as employees of their schools.
  • Dr. Abdullah discussed how Virginia State University has numerous extracurricular activities. He asserted that the application of an employer-employee model to college sports would be inconsistent with the school’s commitment to amateur athletics.
• Vice Chair Walberg then recounted how the NLRB has been involved in several efforts that would change the model for college sports. He noted how the College Football Players Association had recently been involved in an effort to unionize football players at Pennsylvania State University. He asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether he would prefer for student athletes to unionize or for there to not exist student athletes.
  • Dr. Stahl remarked that the College Football Players Association acts upon the direction of its members. He mentioned how the College Football Players Association had pursued a “two tier” campaign with Pennsylvania State University. He explained that this campaign viewed unionization as a last resort if an informal agreement was not reached between the college football players and their coaches, school, and athletic conference.
• Vice Chair Walberg asked Mr. Chun to respond to Dr. Stahl’s comments. He also asked Mr. Chun to indicate the resources that schools would need to relegate if student athletes were to pursue collective bargaining arrangements with their schools.
  • Mr. Chun remarked that the current college sports model prioritizes academics for student athletes. He stated that a system that only treated certain student athletes as employees would be unfair.

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY):

• Rep. Clarke stated that while providing student athletes with the ability to capitalize on their NIL rights is beneficial, she contended that the Committee must work to empower student athletes more broadly. She noted how student athletes are recruited while they are in high school and suggested that high school student athletes should receive education about their NIL rights. She then remarked that the multibillion dollar college sports industry is built on the work of student athletes and noted that the majority of these student athletes are minorities. She commented that these student athletes receive few benefits relative to the revenues they generate for their schools. She then mentioned how the U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh had written in a concurring opinion in NCAA v. Alston that the current NCAA model is suppressing the pay of student athletes. She expressed frustration with how college presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives can benefit from the money generated from student athletes while student athletes do not receive these funds. She asked Mr. Chun and Dr. Stahl to provide their opinions of Associate Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in NCAA v. Alston.
  • Mr. Chun remarked that the primacy of academics is the top priority for college athletics and noted how a college education is the greatest driver of social mobility. He stated however that the current business model for college athletics is flawed. He noted how most schools only have one or two revenue generating sports and indicated that these revenue generating sports are expected to support their school’s entire athletic department. He added that schools are subject to Title IX requirements around equitable access to sports based on sex. He stated however that the current college sports model provides “extraordinary” opportunities for many student athletes.
  • Dr. Stahl expressed general agreement with Associate Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in NCAA v. Alston. He then disputed the assertion that schools are prioritizing academics for their student athletes. He stated that student athletes are becoming much more limited in their ability to choose their own majors and called for this situation to be rectified. He attributed this degradation of academics in college sports to financial pressures.

Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL):

• Rep. Dunn remarked that the current “patchwork” of state regulatory systems that govern student athlete NIL compensation is not working. He commented that this state-based approach leads states to pursue policies that will advantage their schools in the student athlete recruiting process. He called on Congress to enact a national policy for governing student athlete NIL compensation. He expressed particular concerns over the recent growth of NIL collectives and warned that boosters may use these collectives to circumvent student athlete recruiting rules. He commented that these rules foster a system that resembles a “pay to play” system. He stated that Congress should impose guardrails to ensure that schools follow NCAA rules and federal laws. He asked Mr. Chun to discuss the effects of having boosters donate directly to NIL collectives (rather than school athletic departments).
  • Mr. Chun remarked that while Washington State University is supportive of providing its student athletes with NIL compensation opportunities, he expressed concerns that NIL collectives may be used to induce and tamper with student athletes. He stated that federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation could provide needed transparency to ensure that work is being exchanged for NIL compensation. He also stated that such federal legislation would help to ensure that schools are in compliance with Title IX, especially as college coaches and administrators advocate for NIL collectives. He further contended that federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation could consider NIL compensation opportunities for international student athletes.
• Rep. Dunn expressed concerns that NIL collectives could compete for funds with college athletic departments, which would reduce available funds for other sports.
  • Mr. Chun remarked that NIL collectives are not problematic so long as they provide real NIL compensation opportunities to student athletes. He expressed concerns however that NIL collectives are being used to induce recruits to schools and tamper with the student athletes at other schools.
• Rep. Dunn interjected to then note how Ms. Mudge had matriculated at Florida State University before Florida had enacted its student athlete NIL compensation law. He asked Ms. Mudge to discuss how her experience as a student athlete had changed following the law’s enactment.
  • Ms. Mudge remarked that she had been solely focused on having the opportunity to play college softball when she was recruited to play at Florida State University. She then stated that her experience with Florida State University’s NIL collective had been positive. He acknowledged however that there exist NIL collectives that are focused on creating recruiting inducements. She stated that high school athletes could face challenges in turning down recruiting inducements.
• Rep. Dunn commented that many student athletes do not want to become employees of their universities for the purposes of college sports. He then noted how Ms. Heppel had stated that the Patriot League’s student athletes graduate with meaningful degrees and are expected to engage fully in their academic pursuits. He asked Ms. Heppel to indicate whether student athletes in other athletic conferences are provided with the same opportunities to pursue academics.
  • Ms. Heppel remarked that most student athletes can meaningfully pursue academics. She stated that most student athletes understand that they will not pursue professional sports careers post college.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA):

• Rep. Trahan noted how Mr. Chun is responsible for reporting information about Washington State University’s male and female student athletes for the purposes of Title IX compliance. She mentioned how a 2022 USA Today investigative report had found that Washington State University had overcounted its women’s rowing roster by 21 athletes and had counted eight male practice players as female athletes to show Title IX compliance. She asked Mr. Chun to indicate whether Washington State University’s poor reporting had deprived 29 women of the chance to pursue athletic careers at the school.
  • Ms. Chun answered affirmatively so long as USA Today’s findings are correct.
• Rep. Trahan remarked that the U.S. Department of Education permits schools to exploit loopholes to comply with Title IX. She indicated that these loopholes include overcounting women student athletes and counting male student athletes as women student athletes. She asserted that the Committee could not discuss student athlete NIL compensation rights without first addressing how schools are exploiting loopholes that deprive women of the opportunity to pursue college sports. She mentioned how she had introduced the Fair Play for Women Act to close the aforementioned loopholes. She then expressed concerns over the growth of NIL collectives. She asked Mr. Chun to indicate whether he was familiar with the Cougar Collective (which is the NIL collective associated with Washington State University).
  • Mr. Chun answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Trahan asked Mr. Chun to indicate whether he or Washington State University athletic department staff communicate directly with members of the Cougar Collective. She also asked Mr. Chun to indicate whether there occur any discussions between the Washington State University athletic department and the Cougar Collective about potential athletic recruits.
  • Mr. Chun testified that he was not involved in any communications with the Cougar Collective. He also stated that he was unaware of any interactions between Washington State University coaches and the Cougar Collective. He remarked that Washington State University has interacted with the Cougar Collective on compliance education. He stated that the Washington State University athletic department’s compliance staff meets with the Cougar Collective once a month. He remarked that the Cougar Collective is composed of Washington State University alumni that care about the school and are focused on complying with the necessary rules. He lastly noted how Washington does not have a state-level student athlete NIL compensation law.
• Rep. Trahan expressed concerns that many NIL collectives might be engaging in conversations about specific student athletes with universities. She asked Mr. Chun to indicate whether the Cougar Collective equally cares about male and female student athletes.
  • Mr. Chun remarked that he does not have access to information about the Cougar Collective’s deals. He stated that the Cougar Collective has told Washington State University that they are seeking to identify NIL compensation opportunities for female student athletes.
• Rep. Trahan asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether he was aware of instances where school athletic departments and NIL collectives are colluding to induce certain recruits. She also asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether NIL collectives tend to focus on equally supporting male and female student athletes.
  • Dr. Stahl remarked that many college athletic department directors are encouraging their school donors to support NIL collectives. He expressed uncertainty as to how a federal student athlete NIL compensation law could address NIL collectives.
• Rep. Trahan further expressed interest in how the student athlete recruitment practices of NIL collectives impacts the application of Title IX.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ):

• Rep. Lesko mentioned how over 30 states have passed their own student athlete NIL compensation laws and noted how some of these laws have been in effect for over two years. She asked Mr. Chun to cite specific examples where a state was significantly advantaged or disadvantaged relative to another state because of a state’s student athlete NIL compensation law. She also asked Mr. Chun to discuss how these state laws have impacted the ability of student athletes to monetize their NIL rights.
  • Mr. Chun mentioned how his state of Washington lacks a student athlete NIL compensation law and indicated that student athlete NIL compensation in Washington is governed by state ethics laws. He commented that these state ethics laws are more restrictive than the student athlete NIL compensation laws in other states. He stated that Washington State University is prohibited from steering its student athletes toward specific NIL compensation deals or working with NIL collectives. He indicated that schools in some other states are not subject to these same prohibitions.
• Rep. Lesko asked Ms. Mudge to discuss the greatest concerns that student athletes have regarding NIL compensation and to address how federal legislation could mitigate these concerns.
  • Ms. Mudge remarked that federal student athlete NIL compensation legislation would be helpful in that it would provide a uniform set of rules governing the issue. She then discussed how many student athletes have questions about NIL compensation opportunities. She mentioned how she had initially been nervous to pursue NIL compensation deals out of fear that these deals could imperil her athletic eligibility. She stated that the Florida State University athletic department has served as a helpful resource for her to navigate NIL compensation opportunities. She expressed support for federal education requirements surrounding student athlete NIL compensation. She raised concerns that bad actors could take advantage of the ignorance of student athletes when offering NIL compensation deals.
• Rep. Lesko asked Mr. Chun to confirm that an NIL collective can offer a prospective student athlete NIL compensation deals before the student athlete commits to attend the school or arrives at the school.
  • Mr. Chun stated that NCAA rules do not permit an NIL collective to offer a prospective student athlete NIL compensation deals before the student athlete commits to attend the school or arrives at the school. He remarked however that some state student athlete NIL compensation laws might permit NIL collectives to make such offers.
• Rep. Lesko asked Mr. Chun to address how policymakers could ensure that NIL deals are not being used to persuade student athletes to attend certain schools.
  • Mr. Chun remarked that a federal student athlete NIL compensation law is needed to ensure that NIL deals are not being used to induce student athlete recruits to a given school.
• Rep. Lesko asked Mr. Chun to address how proposals to classify student athletes as employees of their schools harm smaller sports and smaller schools. She also asked Mr. Chun to indicate whether such classification would drive some schools to get rid of intercollegiate sports programs altogether.
  • Mr. Chun remarked that schools could not choose to only classify the student athletes in certain sports as employees. He commented that all college sports (regardless of gender) require the same levels of commitments and sacrifices on the parts of student athletes. He asserted than an employment model should therefore not be applied to college sports. He further remarked that the priority in college sports is academics. He stated that an employment model would cause underperformers on sports teams to be fired, which is incongruent with the academic focus of college sports.
• Rep. Lesko then asked Dr. Stahl to elaborate on his proposal to provide health care coverage to student athletes. She asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether student athletes should receive lifetime health care coverage.
  • Dr. Stahl remarked that the College Football Players Association wants to negotiate with schools to develop an appropriate health care coverage system for former student athletes. He stated that the college sports industry could solve many of its problems internally through negotiations and does not require federal legislation.

Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA):

• Rep. Allen recounted how he had a roommate during his college years that was a walk-on student athlete. He noted how his roommate’s status as a student athlete had prevented the roommate from pursuing many job opportunities. He remarked that Congress must enable student athletes to pursue compensation opportunities. He also stated that Congress must address the student athlete NIL compensation issue because many student athletes move across states to play sports. He then asked Mr. Chun to indicate how many student athletes at Washington State University have entered the NCAA Transfer Portal to pursue NIL compensation opportunities at other schools.
  • Mr. Chun stated that he could not provide a precise answer to Rep. Allen’s question because it is very difficult to ascertain the exact reasons that many student athletes transfer schools. He remarked however that students do appear to be transferring schools to pursue NIL compensation opportunities.
• Rep. Allen also asked Mr. Chun to elaborate on his allegations that tampering is occurring within college sports.
  • Mr. Chun mentioned how the basketball coach at Florida Atlantic University had stated that third parties are reaching out to the school’s men’s basketball players about transferring. He asserted that this contact of student athletes from outside parties constitutes tampering.
• Rep. Allen asked Mr. Chun to confirm that a great deal of student athlete NIL compensation is coming from the alumni of schools.
  • Mr. Chun noted how NIL collectives often manage student athlete NIL compensation deals and indicated that the funding managed by these collectives often came from both companies and alumni. He commented that it is often unclear as to whether these deals are used for endorsement purposes or for recruiting.
• Rep. Allen interjected to ask Mr. Chun to indicate whether alumni contributing to NIL collectives can direct where their funds go in terms of specific student athletes and sports.
  • Mr. Chun stated that student athletes should be free to pursue opportunities where they receive compensation for the use of their NIL rights. He raised concerns however that some NIL compensation deals involve no work on the part of the student athlete and are instead used to recruit student athletes to a given school.
• Rep. Allen expressed concerns that NIL collectives could distort parity within college sports.
  • Dr. Abdullah expressed agreement with Rep. Allen’s concerns that NIL collectives undermine athletic parity. He also noted how 70 percent of Virginia State University students are eligible for Pell Grants and stated that student athlete NIL compensation could enable many student athletes to afford college.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN):

• Rep. Harshbarger asked the witnesses to confirm that student athletes could freely transfer between schools on a yearly basis.
  • Ms. Heppel noted that the NCAA Transfer Portal is how student athletes can signal their interest in transferring to other schools.
• Rep. Harshbarger asked the witnesses to confirm that student athletes can put their scholarships at risk if they enter the NCAA Transfer Portal and another school does not extend a scholarship to them.
  • Ms. Heppel confirmed that student athletes that enter the NCAA Transfer Portal can lose their scholarships.
• Rep. Harshbarger called it concerning that student athletes can lose their scholarships for entering the NCAA Transfer Portal. She then discussed how some of the agents representing student athletes in NIL compensation deals have taken advantage of student athletes. She stated that the agents in the student athlete NIL compensation space are unregulated. She also remarked that states and courts could not establish uniform rules governing these agents. She then asked Ms. Heppel to comment on the prospects of adopting a revenue sharing model for football.
  • Ms. Heppel testified that the Patriot League’s individual football programs do not generate revenue.
• Rep. Harshbarger also noted how some NIL collectives tend to be overly reliant on a small number of wealthy donors. She questioned the long-term financial sustainability of these arrangements. She asked Ms. Heppel to confirm that schools could help NIL collectives to raise money.
  • Ms. Heppel testified that she was not aware of any Patriot League member schools having NIL collectives. She stated that she therefore did not know whether schools could help NIL collectives to raise money.
• Rep. Harshbarger further mentioned how she had heard rumors that some schools are using athletic foundations to recruit certain student athletes. She called this rumor troubling. She then asked the witnesses to provide their opinions on the adoption of a revenue sharing model for college sports.
  • Ms. Heppel stated that Congress should be “very cautious” regarding models that could result in student athletes becoming classified as employees of their schools.
  • Dr. Abdullah stated that the U.S. must ensure that the student athletes involved in revenue generating sports can capitalize on the value they generate for their schools.
  • Mr. Burton expressed opposition to the adoption of a revenue sharing model for college sports. He stated that such a model would make student athletes employees of their schools, which would threaten the amateur nature of college sports.
  • Ms. Mudge also expressed opposition to the adoption of a revenue sharing model for college sports. She commented that a revenue sharing model could threaten the viability of many non-revenue generating sports (including her sport of women’s softball).
  • Mr. Chun stated that a revenue sharing model would result in an employment model for college sports, which he called unworkable for many sports.
  • Dr. Stahl remarked that student athletes should receive a percentage of the revenues from media rights contracts when the media companies use the NILs of student athletes. He stated that these media rights contracts would grow significantly over the next two years and asserted that the student athletes that contribute to the value of these contracts should participate in the revenue gains.

Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA):

• Rep. Cárdenas remarked that the range of issues confronting student athletes goes “well beyond” NIL compensation concerns. He noted how the NCAA had generated $1.15 billion in revenue in 2021. He commented that the NCAA is relying upon student athletes that put their bodies at risk to generate this revenue. He stated that student athletes should be able to benefit from the revenue that they are generating for the NCAA. He asked Mr. Chun to indicate whether college student athletes could be better protected if they are able to form and join unions.
  • Mr. Chun remarked that Washington State University student athletes receive academic support and strength and conditioning support.
• Rep. Cárdenas interjected to ask Mr. Chun to indicate whether Washington State University student athletes would be better off if they could form and join unions.
  • Mr. Chun stated that the phrase “better off” would need to be clarified for him to answer the question.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether the ability of student athletes to have representation has improved their condition.
  • Dr. Stahl remarked that the College Football Players Association is currently working to provide representation to student athletes and facilitate unionization when requested. He asserted that union members will receive more workplace protections than non-union members.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether universities currently have unionized employees.
  • Dr. Stahl answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether unionization benefits these university employees.
  • Dr. Stahl answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Cárdenas stated that college student athletes would benefit from formal representation, especially considering their role in generating revenues for their schools. He asked Dr. Stahl to indicate whether unions would provide college student athletes with better representation and protections. He also asked Dr. Stahl to identify the greatest current threat to the ability of college student athletes to form a labor union.
  • Dr. Stahl remarked that a fear of retaliation is preventing college student athletes from collectively organizing. He suggested that college football programs could retaliate against their players seeking to collectively organize through less obvious means, such as reducing their playing times.
• Rep. Cárdenas then mentioned how the University of Notre Dame voluntarily provides its student athletes with ten years of health care coverage after an injury occurs and guarantees that student athletes will maintain their scholarships, regardless of athletic performance or injuries. He asked Dr. Abdullah to indicate the support that Virginia State University would require from the NCAA so that the school could provide similar protections to its student athletes.
  • Dr. Abdullah stated that Virginia State University would require additional revenue to provide the same level of student athlete protections being provided by the University of Notre Dame.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Dr. Abdullah to indicate whether the NCAA could afford to help schools in providing greater protections for their student athletes.
  • Dr. Abdullah answered affirmatively.

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL):

• Rep. Cammack remarked that Congress must address the issue of student athlete NIL compensation and commented that the current state-based approach to regulating student athlete NIL compensation is suboptimal. She asked Ms. Mudge, Mr. Burton, and Dr. Abdullah to indicate whether student athlete NIL compensation contracts should be permitted when a student athlete’s sport is in season.
  • Ms. Mudge stated that student athletes should be permitted to obtain NIL compensation contracts while in season. She noted that not all student athletes want to pursue NIL compensation opportunities. She stated that she personally did not find it overly difficult to pursue NIL compensation opportunities during her softball seasons. She also indicated that her corporate partners have been lenient and helpful in working around her schedule during her softball seasons.
  • Mr. Burton remarked that there should not exist a limit on when a student athlete could pursue an NIL compensation opportunity. He commented that a student athlete might experience a spike in attention because of their athletic performance and should be permitted to capitalize off of this attention.
  • Dr. Abdullah stated that student athletes should be permitted to pursue NIL compensation deals while in season.
• Rep. Cammack then asked Mr. Chun to indicate whether the NCAA Division I Transformation Committee had considered the potential impacts of applying a revenue sharing model to college sports. She specifically asked Mr. Chun to address the types of actions that athletic departments would need to take to comply with a revenue sharing model.
  • Mr. Chun testified that the NCAA Division I Transformation Committee had not considered the potential impacts of applying a revenue sharing model to college sports.
• Rep. Cammack then asked Ms. Heppel and Mr. Chun to indicate whether there should exist an office or a clearinghouse within schools, athletic conferences, or the NCAA that would review and validate companies or individuals seeking to partner with student athletes on NIL compensation deals.
  • Ms. Heppel called it important for student athletes to understand their fair market value and that student athletes enter into legitimate deals.
  • Mr. Chun expressed agreement with Ms. Heppel’s response. He stated that such an office or clearinghouse could provide student athletes with clarity regarding their fair market value.
• Rep. Cammack then discussed how over 20,000 international student athletes currently compete in college sports and noted that these international student athletes are precluded from pursuing NIL compensation opportunities. She explained that NIL compensation deals are not permitted under the terms and conditions of the visas for these international student athletes. She asked Ms. Heppel to identify steps that Congress could take to enable international student athletes to pursue NIL compensation opportunities. She also asked Ms. Heppel to address how extending the right to pursue student athlete NIL compensation deals to international student athletes would impact college athletic programs.
  • Ms. Heppel stated that she is not an immigration attorney and is therefore poorly prepared to speak on this specific issue. She remarked however that schools do not treat their student athletes differently based on their country of origin. She stated that all student athletes should have access to NIL compensation opportunities.

Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-ID):

• Rep. Fulcher asked Ms. Mudge to indicate whether there is any information about NIL compensation that she wishes she had known when she had matriculated at Florida State University.
  • Ms. Mudge stated that she wishes she had known more about NIL compensation when she had matriculated at Florida State University. She also stated that she wished that there had existed federal legislation governing student athlete NIL compensation when she had matriculated at Florida State University. She called the current NIL compensation landscape for student athletes “very confusing” and commented that it is difficult for student athletes to determine which NIL compensation deals are appropriate to pursue. She further remarked that the differences across state student athlete NIL compensation laws makes it more difficult for student athletes to navigate NIL compensation opportunities. Seh called for federal legislation to address student athlete NIL compensation.
• Rep. Fulcher asked Mr. Burton to indicate whether there is any information that he wishes he had known when he had matriculated at the University of Florida.
  • Mr. Burton stated that he wishes he had known more about finances as a student at the University of Florida. He noted how he grew up in a low-income household with a single mother and commented that financial literacy education would have benefited him.
• Rep. Fulcher then asked Dr. Abdullah, Mr. Chun, and Ms. Heppel to address how schools could protect student athletes from self-interested agents.
  • Dr. Abdullah stated that Virginia State University provides “critical education” to its student athletes about agents, which includes meetings between student athletes and agents on campus. He remarked that there should exist transparency surrounding student athlete NIL compensation deals and asserted that this transparency is key to educating and protecting student athletes. He commented that a lack of transparency surrounding student athlete NIL compensation deals opens student athletes up to exploitation.
  • Mr. Chun expressed agreement with Dr. Abdullah’s calls for transparency surrounding student athlete NIL compensation deals. He testified that Washington State University provides extensive education to its student athletes about NIL compensation deals. He asserted however that transparency is key to ensuring that student athletes could adequately navigate the NIL compensation marketplace.
  • Ms. Heppel expressed agreement with the previous comments from Dr. Abdullah and Mr. Chun.

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA):

• Rep. Carter expressed concerns that California’s proposed College Athlete Protection Act could impact non-revenue generating sports. He posited a hypothetical scenario in which Virginia adopts legislation similar to California’s College Athlete Protection Act. He asked Dr. Abdullah to project how such legislation would impact Virginia State University’s non-revenue generating sports.
  • Dr. Abdullah stated that he did not know how such legislation would impact Virginia State University. He noted how this legislation’s revenue sharing provisions mainly impact larger schools and indicate that Virginia State University’s athletics are entirely funded through student fees.
• Rep. Carter asked Ms. Mudge to comment on the impacts of proposals like California’s College Athlete Protection Act.
  • Ms. Mudge remarked that revenue sharing models for college sports could divert funds from Olympic sports to men’s revenue generating sports (including men’s football and men’s basketball teams). She commented that this situation would be “extremely detrimental” to Olympic sports.
• Rep. Carter interjected to state that revenue sharing models in college sports could reduce athletic opportunities for many student athletes. He then expressed concerns over the growing popularity of the NCAA Transfer Portal. He asked Mr. Burton to comment on how changes to the NCAA’s transfer rules had coincided with changes to the NCAA’s NIL compensation policies.
  • Mr. Burton asserted that transfer rules and NIL compensation should be considered distinct items. He commented that the two items are being discussed together because they both constitute significant changes in college sports. He stated that he had heard that NIL compensation deals are being used to recruit student athletes to schools. He called for federal legislation to set rules for how student athlete NIL compensation deals can impact student athlete recruiting.
• Rep. Carter expressed concerns that changes in the rules governing college sports rules could fundamentally change the nature of college sports.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX):

• Rep. Pfluger mentioned how he had been a student athlete at the U.S. Air Force Academy. He asked Ms. Heppel to discuss the specific concerns of military service academies regarding student athlete NIL compensation rules. He also asked Ms. Heppel to address how these concerns might differ from the concerns of other schools.
  • Ms. Heppel noted how the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy (which are members of the Patriot League) face unique federal employee regulations. She indicated that while military service academies would like to provide their student athletes with the same opportunities as student athletes at other schools, she stated that the student athletes that attend military service academies have different objectives than other student athletes.
• Rep. Pfluger then asked Mr. Chun to provide his opinions of revenue sharing models for college sports. He asked Mr. Chun to address how such revenue sharing models would impact Olympic sports and women’s sports.
  • Mr. Chun called the current college sports business model flawed in that it often relies upon a small number of sports to financially support entire athletic programs. He also noted how college sports are subject to equity requirements under Title IX. He raised concerns that California’s proposed College Athlete Protection Act would further contribute to a “patchwork” framework for governing college sports.
• Rep. Pfluger asked Ms. Mudge and Mr. Burton to opine on the adoption of a revenue sharing model for college sports.
  • Ms. Mudge expressed concerns that revenue sharing models for college sports (as proposed in California’s College Athlete Protection Act) could prevent many future student athletes from pursuing college sports careers. She emphasized how her experience as a college student athlete had been an integral part of her college experience.
  • Mr. Burton expressed his opposition to proposals that would classify student athletes as employees. He stated however that there might exist a revenue sharing model that could exist outside of an employment relationship. He suggested that the NCAA might give revenue to NIL collectives, which could then compensate student athletes for the use of their NIL rights.
• Rep. Pfluger asked the witnesses to identify the greatest threat to college sports if Congress fails to take immediate action.
  •  Mr. Chun remarked that the greatest threat to college sports involves the potential adoption of an employment model. He asserted that an employment model for college sports would threaten the viability of Division II, Division III, and most Division I athletic programs.
  • Ms. Heppel expressed agreement with Mr. Chun’s response. She mentioned how student athletics does not generate revenue for Patriot League member schools and asserted that revenue sharing would not be a viable model for Patriot League member schools.