Associated Press15:54 ET4 minute read
Meet Miami’s NILE King, John Ruiz
Check out John Ruiz, a Miami businessman who has signed deals with several players from The U.
A congressional hearing Wednesday targeting the “NIL chaos” in collegiate sports addressed the impact of athletes deemed employees of their schools, highlighting primarily those who support congressional intervention to protect collegiate support the model.
A subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce held the first hearing on college sports on Capitol Hill in more than two years.
The intended focus was on name, image and likeness compensation for athletes. College athletic leaders have asked for help in the form of federal legislation to create a consistent rule for how athletes with sponsorship or endorsement deals can monetize their fame.
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (Fla.-R), who chairs the subcommittee on innovation, data and trade, said passage of a NIL federal law that would pre-empt existing state laws would bring clarity and transparency to athletes.
“The lack of consistency across states and institutions has created confusion and uncertainty, and a federal standard is needed for all athletes to play by the same rules,” Bilirakis said. “In short, we must strike a delicate balance between collegiate athletes’ rights to benefit from their own NIL while maintaining amateur status for all collegiate athletes.”
Seven previous hearings have been held in the House and Senate, but lawmakers have made no significant progress in passing a college sports bill since the issue first attracted attention.
The last hearing came days before the Final Four of the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments were scheduled to be played in Texas.
Lawmakers questioned six witnesses for nearly three hours. They heard from two college sports administrators, the president of a Division II university, a former NFL player, a current Florida State softball player, and one of the heads of an athlete advocacy group.
Most Witnesses encouraged Congress to take action against NIL.
“We need transparency in the market,” said Pat Chun, Washington state athletic director.
College Football Players Association chief executive Jason Stahl pushed back. He said any NIL regulations would only serve the interests of schools, conferences and the NCAA.
“The federal government should stay out of the NIL free market,” he said.
The NCAA lifted its ban on collegiate athletes making money off their fame nearly two years ago, but fears of lawsuits and a patchwork of state-level NIL laws prevented the federation from enacting detailed and consistent rules.
“The current NIL chaos means student athletes are left to their own devices,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.-R). “And those at the top of their game must figure out how to maneuver through a multitude of agents, collectives and expensive contract offers while maintaining their academic and athletic commitments.”
The concern of many in varsity sports is that NIL will be used as an incentive to recruit or as a de facto pay-for-play, which is still against NCAA rules but difficult to enforce.
New NCAA President Charlie Baker, who was not among the witnesses at the hearing, said athletes are the consumers in this burgeoning market and federal law would be a form of consumer protection.
“NIL is a powerful tool that rightfully empowers student-athletes to earn compensation for their unique market value,” Baker said in a statement. “At the same time, the lack of transparency in today’s NIL market puts student athletes at risk of being exploited by bad actors.”
The hearing also addressed the issue of college athletes being considered employees and the possibility that colleges could be asked to share revenue generated from their sport with athletes.
At most Division I schools, revenue from football and basketball helps fund all other sports.
“Creating an employee-employer model would seriously threaten this current dynamic and change everything we know about supporting sports outside of football and men’s basketball,” said Kaley Mudge, a Florida softball player.
A bill introduced by a California state legislature in January would — if passed — require some Division I schools to share a percentage of revenue with mostly football and basketball players.
A federal lawsuit being heard in Pennsylvania aims to get colleges to treat Division I athletes like employees and pay them an hourly wage. A complaint to the National Labor Relations Board could also result in some collegiate athletes being granted employee status, which could open the floodgates for unions.
“How can a football player unionize and a softball player not?” Chun said.
Patriot League Commissioner Jen Heppel, who testified before lawmakers, said in a written testimony that Division I college athletes, who qualify as employees, “would likely represent a breaking point for sponsorship of athletic programs at Patriot League institutions.” “.