WHAT HAPPENED:
On Thursday, January 18, the 11th Congressional hearing on Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policy took place on Capitol Hill.
The hearing centered around a draft of federal NIL legislation written by Florida representative Gus Bilirakis (R) named the “FAIR College Sports Act” - a 56-page draft legislation primarily aiming to enshrine that student-athletes are NOT to be designated as employees of their respective universities - providing the NCAA with an antitrust exemption that grants increased autonomy in determining restrictions around NIL, specifically deals used as player inducements.
One key distinction between the NCAA’s current position and the proposed legislation is the allotment of schools to be directly involved in the facilitation of NIL deals. The NCAA has proposed recent changes to the structure of D-I institutions that would allow for direct player compensation; the Bilirakis bill does NOT agree with such a solution.
Included in this hearing was an often-overlooked party to the NIL discussion: current student-athletes! UCLA quarterback Chase Griffin - a two-time NIL Athlete of the Year and the founder of the Athlete’s Bureau - is one of the few current college athlete voices that has been able to testify in front of Congress.
The 23-year-old stood in firm opposition to the FAIR College Sports Act’s proposed protections for the NCAA, claiming that the burdens it places on student-athletes and services providers in the industry FAR outweigh the proposed benefits created by the level playing field of federal. In Griffin’s opinion, the restriction of the proposed legislation serves to protect the interests of the NCAA more than they do the interest of student-athletes.
Ahead of the hearing, Griffin shared his written testimony and key points with Ben Portnoy of Sports Business Journal:
Interesting insight from UCLA QB Chase Griffin in his written testimony ahead of tomorrow's NIL hearing on Capitol Hill.
— Ben Portnoy (@bportnoy15) January 17, 2024
Below is the summary of key points (basically a bullet point version of what Griffin will read into the record tomorrow). pic.twitter.com/WLyUiPB6fJ
Other witnesses included Michigan softball player Kaitlin Tholl, Radford volleyball player Meredith Page, Missouri Valley Conference commissioner Jeff Jackson and Arizona State Associate Clinical Professor of History Victoria Jackson.
THE REACTION:
It has become more and more apparent to those with an interest in the future of collegiate athletics that the issues of student-athlete employment and antitrust enforcement against the NCAA have become a partisan issue.
Republicans look to provide the NCAA with more autonomy to enforce rules with pro-competitive and maintain the status-quo of athletes not receiving employment designation and the professionalization of college sports that would accompany such an action: including the potential unionization of college athletes.
The majority of Democrats - keeping in line with the aggressive nature of the current administration antitrust policy - do not recognize the NCAA as an entity that necessitates antitrust protection.
The addition of current student-athlete voices in the Congressional hearings presents a positive outlook on the voices that will be heard by federal decision makers. Nobody is impacted by these decisions more than those who put in the hours in training and take the field in competition.
Allowing student-athletes who experience the NIL era daily to participate in these hearings is largely considered a positive in regard to understanding the full landscape of college sports and the real-life ramifications of policy changes.
“I always appreciate people who recognize that I do work hard in the space,” Griffin shared with The Washington Post after the hearing. “But at the same time, I hope that when they recognize me, they realize they are recognizing the majority of college athletes who are partaking in NIL right now. When you say that I’m the poster child of what college athletes should be doing, no, I’m just another example of what college athletes are already doing. And when you look at what I’m doing and say, ‘This is what’s right with NIL,’ no, you’re saying, ‘NIL is what’s right with NIL.’ ”
WHAT IT ALL MEANS:
The inclusion of student-athletes in discussions of federal policy is a welcome change to previous hearings, however, it may be too little too late.
The future of college sports is increasingly becoming a partisan issue. With longstanding party divides on antitrust policy and labor policy, common ground on how to regulate the NCAA is unlikely to be found between Republicans and Democrats.
It has become clear that change in the NCAA will have to come internally or by the federal courts, not through lobbying of Congress, at least not until another election cycle.
“Viewership is up. The amount of money that players are making is up. It sounds like every single piece of the business model is working when it comes to NIL,” Griffin said. “The only place where I think it can get better is by establishing pay for play and revenue share [between schools and athletes].”
###