    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         BIG LABOR ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES:
                           EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES
                         OF UNIONIZING STUDENT ATHLETES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                               AND THE WORKFORCE
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                  HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 8, 2014

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-58

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
               committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
                                       or
                Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov

                                   ___________

                              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    87-709PDF                        WASHINGTON : 2015

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

                        JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman

    Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin           George Miller, California,
    Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,             Senior Democratic Member
        California                       Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
    Joe Wilson, South Carolina               Virginia
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
    Tom Price, Georgia                   Carolyn McCarthy, New York
    Kenny Marchant, Texas                John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
    Duncan Hunter, California            Rush Holt, New Jersey
    David P. Roe, Tennessee              Susan A. Davis, California
    Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania         Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Tim Walberg, Michigan                Timothy H. Bishop, New York
    Matt Salmon, Arizona                 David Loebsack, Iowa
    Brett Guthrie, Kentucky              Joe Courtney, Connecticut
    Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee          Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
    Todd Rokita, Indiana                 Jared Polis, Colorado
    Larry Bucshon, Indiana               Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Trey Gowdy, South Carolina             Northern Mariana Islands
    Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania           Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
    Joseph J. Heck, Nevada               Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
    Susan W. Brooks, Indiana             Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
    Richard Hudson, North Carolina       Mark Takano, California
    Luke Messer, Indiana
    Bradley Byrne, Alabama

                        Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
                     Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on May 8, 2014......................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
          Workforce..................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Miller, Hon. George, Senior Democratic Member, Committee on
          Education and the Workforce................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Eilers, Patrick, C., Managing Director, Madison Dearborn
          Partners, Chicago, Illinois................................    63
            Prepared statement of....................................    66
        Livingston, Bradford, L., Partner, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP,
          Chicago, Illinois..........................................    20
            Prepared statement of....................................    22
        Muir, Bernard, M., Director of Athletics, Stanford
          University, Stanford, California...........................    52
            Prepared statement of....................................    54
        Schwarz, Andy, Partner, OSKR, LLC, Emeryville, California....    40
            Prepared statement of....................................    42
        Starr, Hon. Ken, President and Chancellor, Baylor University,
          Waco, Texas................................................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    10

    Additional Submissions:
        Chairman Kline:
            Letter dated May 7, 2014 from Molly Corbett Broad,
              President, American Council on Education...............    75
        Mr. Miller:
            Decision and Direction of Election from Peter Sun Ohr,
              Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board,
              Region 13..............................................   109
            College Athletes Players Association Goals...............   133
            Northwestern Football Sample Schedule....................   134
            The Stanford Daily, Stanford Athletes had Access to List
              of Easy Courses........................................    78
        Mr. Muir:
            Courses of Interest Winter 10-11.........................   136
            Letter dated May 14, 2014 from Bernard Muir, Director of
              Athletics, Stanford University.........................   138
        Mr. Starr: Addendum to Congressional Record dated May 22,
          2014,                                                         141
        Questions submitted for the record by: Marchant, Hon. Kenny,
          a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas          144
        Mr. Schwarz's response to questions submitted for the record    146

                         BIG LABOR ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES:.
                           EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES.
                         OF UNIONIZING STUDENT ATHLETES

                                  ----------

                             Thursday, May 8, 2014

                           House of Representatives,

                   Committee on Education and the Workforce,

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
    2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
    of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Kline, McKeon, Foxx, Roe,
    Thompson, Walberg, Guthrie, DesJarlais, Rokita, Bucshon,
    Brooks, Messer, Byrne, Miller, Scott, Tierney, Holt, Davis,
    Bishop, Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Bonamici, and Pocan.
        Staff present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members
    Services Coordinator; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy;
    Benjamin Hoog, Senior Legislative Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones,
    Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Marvin
    Kaplan, Workforce Policy Counsel; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk;
    James Martin, Professional Staff Member; Zachary McHenry,
    Senior Staff Assistant; Daniel Murner, Press Assistant; Brian
    Newell, Deputy Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General
    Counsel; Jenny Prescott, Legislative Assistant; Molly
    McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Mandy
    Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; Alex
    Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy
    Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Alexa Turner,
    Legislative Assistant; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and
    Fellow Coordinator; Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director;
    Melissa Greenberg, Minority Staff Assistant; Eunice Ikene,
    Minority Staff Assistant; Brian Kennedy, Minority Senior
    Counsel; Julia Krahe, Minority Communications Director; Brian
    Levin, Minority Press Secretary; Leticia Mederos, Minority
    Director of Labor Policy; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor
    Policy Advisor; Megan O'Reilly, Minority General Counsel; Rich
    Williams, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Michael Zola,
    Minority Deputy Staff Director; and Mark Zuckerman, Minority
    Senior Economic Advisor.
        Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the committee will
    come to order. Well, good morning. I would like to begin by
    welcoming our guests and thanking our witnesses for joining us.
    We appreciate the time you have taken to share your thoughts
    and expertise with the committee.
        College sports have become a favored pastime for millions
    of Americans. Whether filling out a tournament bracket--never
    works for me, by the way--to tailgating on a Saturday
    afternoon, or simply cheering on an alma mater for many fans
    college sports is a way to spend time with loved ones and stay
    connected with old friends. Where fans are known for their
    loyalty, student athletes are renowned for their passion and
    talent, and look to leverage their athletic ability in pursuit
    of different dreams. For some, competing at the collegiate
    level is a step toward a career in professional sports.
        For others, in fact for most student athletes, playing a
    college sport is a ticket to an education they simply couldn't
    access without an athletic scholarship. Regardless of why
    student athletes play, their dreams can be turned upside down
    by a sports-related injury. When that happens, institutions
    must step up and provide the health care and academic support
    the student needs. Most institutions are doing just that, and
    standing by their athletes for the long haul. But some are not.
        No student athlete injured while representing their school
    on the field should be left behind because of the misplaced
    priorities of a college or university. Can the NCAA and
    institutions do more to protect students? Absolutely. They can
    start by giving students a greater role in shaping policies
    that govern college athletics. They could also work to help
    ensure a sports injury doesn't end a student's academic career,
    and find a responsible solution that will deliver the health
    care injured players may need. While promoting change is often
    difficult, student athletes deserve a determined effort to
    address these concerns.
        Does that mean that unionizing student athletes is the
    answer? Absolutely not. When he signed the National Labor
    Relations Act, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared,
    ``A better relationship between labor and management is the
    high purpose of this act.'' It is hard to imagine President
    Roosevelt thought the law would one day apply to the
    relationship between student athletes and academic
    institutions. Yet that is precisely where we are.
        A regional director of the National Labor Relations Board
    recently ruled football players at Northwestern University are
    employees of the school for the purpose of collective
    bargaining. The ballots cast in an April 25 election have been
    impounded, pending review by the full board. Given the track
    record of this NLRB, I suspect the board will rubber stamp the
    regional director's decision, setting a dangerous precedent for
    colleges and universities nationwide. In the meantime, schools,
    athletic organizations, students and the public are searching
    for answers to countless questions stemming from this
    unprecedented ruling.
        For example, what issues would a union representing college
    athletes raise at the bargaining table? Would a union negotiate
    over the number and length of practices? Perhaps a union would
    seek to bargain over the number of games. If management and the
    union are at an impasse, would players go on strike? Would
    student athletes on strike attend class and have access to
    financial aid? How would student athletes provide financial
    support to the union? Would dues be deducted from scholarships
    before being dispersed to students? Or are students expected to
    pay out of pocket?
        We know many student athletes struggle financially. How
    will they shoulder the cost of joining a union? Speaking of
    cost, where will smaller colleges and universities find the
    resources to manage labor unions with student athletes? A lot
    of institutions operate on thin margins, and college costs are
    soaring. Are these schools ready to make some difficult
    decisions, such as cutting support to other athletic programs
    like lacrosse and field hockey, or even raising tuition? And
    finally, how will other NLRB policies affect your higher
    education system?
        Are college campuses prepared for micro unions and ambushed
    elections? Are administrators equipped to bargain with
    competing unions representing different athletic programs? Will
    students be able to make an informed decision about joining a
    union in as few as 10 days, while attending class and going to
    practice? These are tough questions, and they should be
    discussed before students and administrators are forced to
    confront a radical departure from long-standing policies. We
    share the concerns of players that progress is too slow, but
    forming a union is not the answer. Treating student athletes as
    something they are not is not the answer.
        The challenges facing student athletes should be addressed
    in a way that protects the athletic and academic integrity of
    higher education. The recent NLRB decision takes a
    fundamentally different approach that can make it harder for
    some students to access a quality education. I strongly urge
    the Obama board to change course, and encourage key
    stakeholders to get to work.
        I look forward to today's discussion, and will now
    recognize the senior Democratic member of the committee, Mr.
    George Miller, for his opening remarks.
        [The statement of Chairman Kline follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Committee on Education
                               and the Workforce

        Good morning. I'd like to begin by welcoming our guests and
    thanking our witnesses for joining us. We appreciate the time you've
    taken to share your thoughts and expertise with the committee.
        College sports have become a favored pastime for millions of
    Americans. Whether filling out a tournament bracket, tailgating on a
    Saturday afternoon, or simply cheering on an alma mater, for many fans,
    college sports is a way to spend time with loved ones and stay
    connected with old friends.
        Where fans are known for their loyalty, student athletes are
    renowned for their passion and talent and look to leverage their
    athletic ability in pursuit of different dreams. For some, competing at
    the collegiate level is a step toward a career in professional sports.
    For others - in fact, for most student athletes - playing a college
    sport is a ticket to an education they simply couldn't access without
    an athletic scholarship.
        Regardless of why student athletes play, their dreams can be turned
    upside down by a sports-related injury. When that happens, institutions
    must step up and provide the health care and academic support the
    student needs. Most institutions are doing just that and standing by
    their athletes for the long-haul, but some are not. No student athlete
    injured while representing their school on the field should be left
    behind because of the misplaced priorities of a college or university.
        Can the NCAA and institutions do more to protect students?
    Absolutely. They could start by giving students a greater role in
    shaping policies that govern college athletics. They could also work to
    help ensure a sports injury doesn't end a student's academic career and
    find a responsible solution that will deliver the health care injured
    players may need. While promoting change is often difficult, student
    athletes deserve a determined effort to address these concerns.
        Does that mean unionizing student athletes is the answer?
    Absolutely not. When he signed the National Labor Relations Act,
    President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared, ``A better relationship
    between labor and management is the high purpose of this Act.'' It's
    hard to imagine President Roosevelt thought the law would one day apply
    to the relationship between student athletes and academic institutions,
    yet that is precisely where we are.
        A regional director of the National Labor Relations Board recently
    ruled football players at Northwestern University are ``employees'' of
    the school for the purpose of collective bargaining. The ballots cast
    in an April 25th election have been impounded pending review by the
    full board. Given the track record of the Obama NLRB, I suspect the
    board will rubber stamp the regional director's decision, setting a
    dangerous precedent for colleges and universities nationwide. In the
    meantime, schools, athletic organizations, students, and the public are
    searching for answers to countless questions stemming from this
    unprecedented ruling.
        For example, what issues would a union representing college
    athletes raise at the bargaining table? Would a union negotiate over
    the number and length of practices? Perhaps the union would seek to
    bargain over the number of games. If management and the union are at an
    impasse, would players go on strike? Would student athletes on strike
    attend class and have access to financial aid?
        How would student athletes provide financial support to the union?
    Would dues be deducted from scholarships before being disbursed to
    students? Or are students expected to pay out of pocket? We know many
    student athletes struggle financially. How will they shoulder the cost
    of joining a union?
        Speaking of costs, where will smaller colleges and universities
    find the resources to manage labor relations with student athletes? A
    lot of institutions operate on thin margins and college costs are
    soaring. Are these schools ready to make some difficult decisions, such
    as cutting support to other athletic programs like lacrosse and field
    hockey, or even raising tuition?
        And finally, how will other NLRB policies affect our higher
    education system? Are college campuses prepared for micro-unions and
    ambush elections? Are administrators equipped to bargain with competing
    unions representing different athletic programs? Will students be able
    to make an informed decision about joining a union in as few as 10
    days, while attending class and going to practice?
        These are tough questions that should be discussed before students
    and administrators are forced to confront a radical departure from
    long-standing policies. We share the concerns of players that progress
    is too slow, but forming a union is not the answer; treating student
    athletes as something they are not is not the answer.
        The challenges facing student athletes should be addressed in a way
    that protects the athletic and academic integrity of higher education.
    The recent NLRB decision takes a fundamentally different approach that
    could make it harder for some students to access a quality education. I
    strongly urge the Obama board to change course and encourage key
    stakeholders to get to work.
        I look forward to today's discussion, and will now recognize the
    senior Democratic member of the committee, Representative Miller, for
    his opening remarks.
                                     ______

        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that we are
    having a hearing to better understand what is really happening
    in college athletics, to air out the very legitimate grievances
    that have been raised by the Northwestern University and around
    the country. Let's start by setting the stage. The nostalgic
    days when student athletes really were, ``students,'' first,
    and when college sports was just about learning teamwork, self-
    discipline and sportsmanship while getting some exercise and
    friendly competition, those days are pretty much over in high-
    level athletic programs.
        During the last four decades, colleges and universities,
    through the NCAA, have perfected the art of monetizing athletic
    play of their best football and basketball players and teams,
    while steadily encroaching on the players' academic
    opportunities. They have created nothing less than a big sports
    empire. The empire is consumed and driven by a multibillion
    dollar exclusive television, radio, multimedia deals, branding
    agreements, primetime sports shows and celebrity coaches with
    seven-figure salaries. Our nation's talented athletes have
    become commodities within this empire.
        They are units of production that are overscheduled and
    overworked, left without safeguards for their health and
    safety, encouraged to put their education on the back burner in
    favor of success on the field. Some athletes have figured this
    out, and now they are starting to ask really smart questions
    about this whole arrangement. They want to know what happens to
    them if they suffer a catastrophic injury on the field that
    leaves them with a lifetime disability. Will they lose their
    scholarship, and with it the chance of an education and a
    career?
        How much of their health care will they and their families
    need to pay out of pocket? They are reading about new studies
    in long-term effects of head injures, and they want to know if
    the schools and coaches are doing all that they can to prevent
    concussion and brain injury on the field. Will their health
    come first when the decision is being made about whether or not
    they are fit to play, or will their team's desire to win trump
    the health concerns of the individual player? They are raising
    questions about the adequacy of their scholarships and the
    restrictions that leave them with little or no support for out
    of pocket and incidental expenses they face.
        Why are some of the teammates finding themselves unable to
    afford enough food to eat or books for their classes while the
    university makes millions from their effort? They want to know
    why so many players didn't finish their academic programs. They
    want to discuss a fairer transfer policy. How can policies be
    changed to support the players' success in academics, not just
    athletics? The National Labor Relations Board decision
    regarding Northwestern University football players documents an
    all-consuming, sometimes eye-popping demand of a college
    football player in today's mega-profit-driven NCAA world.
        At Northwestern, the daily life of a football player
    revolves around practice and preparation, commonly a 40-to 50-
    hour a week commitment during the fall season, with any classes
    or homework squeezed on top. You can see the sample schedule
    displayed here, I believe, on the screen of the Northwestern
    players. Oh, it is over on--underneath the screen, excuse me.
    Players are expected to report to their training room by 6:15
    on Monday mornings for their medical checks. By 7 a.m., it is
    various and team and position meetings, then pads and helmets
    until noon.
        At night, they meet with coaches to review game films. And
    there are always the agility drills, conditioning,
    weightlifting, workouts and playbooks to study in between. From
    the beginning of the month-long August training camp, through
    the grueling 12-week season, to post-season bowl play into mid-
    January, winter warm-ups to February winning edge week, to
    mandatory spring workouts, to high-stakes football preparation,
    nonacademic obligations become the focus of these players'
    lives and the obsession of their coaches. Meanwhile, players
    worry about their health and safety, their financial future and
    their prospects for jobs after graduation.
        The big-business empire of college sports is doing very
    well. Its revenues are up 32 percent in the last six years. And
    many universities are hiking tuition and fees, turning to
    underpaid, overstretched adjunct faculty and cutting student
    services. So the NCAA and the superstar football programs are
    making more and more money, and the athletes they depend on are
    getting less and less. In the end, this is a classic labor
    dispute. The NCAA empire is holding all the cards, making all
    the rules, capturing all of the profits. The hardest-working,
    most valuable components in this system, the players, are left
    with little to say, little leverage, and no blocking or
    tackling but themselves.
        By banding together and bargaining, these athletes can win
    the kinds of things union workers have demanded, and won,
    across the country: a say about avoiding serious injury on the
    job, medical benefits and securities if something goes wrong,
    meaningful input into how they will balance their work--in this
    case, football is their work--with their academic needs and
    their other responsibilities, the respectful treatment and care
    they so richly deserve.
        I look forward to today's hearing and hearing from today's
    witnesses about how we can do more to help protect and support
    these hardworking student employees.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
        Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all committee members will
    be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
    permanent hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record
    will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for
    the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the
    hearing will be submitted in the official hearing record.
        It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel.
    And in light of my failing voice and the very, very long
    resumes of our witnesses, I am going to be extraordinarily
    brief.
        Starting to my left, we have the Honorable Ken Starr. He is
    president and chancellor of Baylor University in Waco, Texas.
    Mr. Bradford Livingston is a partner in Seyfarth Shaw, LLP in
    Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Andy Schwarz is a partner at OSKR LLC in
    Emeryville, California. Mr. Bernard Muir is director of
    athletics for Stanford University in Stanford, California. And
    Mr. Patrick Eilers is managing director at Madison Dearborn
    Partners in Chicago, Illinois and former Minnesota Viking.
    Okay, I couldn't stop.
        Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
    briefly remind everyone of the 5-minute lighting system. The
    system is pretty straightforward. When I recognize you, you
    will have five minutes to give your testimony, the light will
    be green. After four minutes, it will turn yellow. I would hope
    that you would be looked to wrapping up your testimony. When it
    turns red, please wrap up as expeditiously as you can. I have
    told witnesses before I am very loathe to gavel down a witness.
    We are here to listen to you, you are here to give us the
    benefit of your expertise. I am less loathe to gavel down my
    colleagues when we get into our 5-minute questioning session.
    But please, try to be respectful of the other witnesses, and
    wrap up your testimony.
        All right, let's start with the Honorable Ken Starr. Sir,
    you are recognized.
        [The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member,
                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

        Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are having a hearing to better
    understand what is really happening to college athletes, and to air out
    the very legitimate grievances that have been raised at Northwestern
    University and around the country.
        Let's start by setting the stage:
        The nostalgic days where student-athletes really were ``students''
    first--and where college sports were JUST about learning team work,
    self-discipline, and sportsmanship while getting some exercise and
    friendly competition--are pretty much over for high-level athletic
    programs.
        During the last four decades, colleges and universities--through
    the NCAA--have perfected the art of monetizing the athletic play of
    their best football and basketball players and teams--while steadily
    encroaching on the players' academic opportunities.
        They have created nothing less than a big business sports empire.
        That empire is consumed and driven by multi-billion dollar
    exclusive television, radio, and multimedia deals; branding agreements;
    prime- time sports shows; and celebrity coaches with seven-figure
    salaries.
        Our nation's talented college athletes have become commodities
    within this empire.
        They are units of production that are over-scheduled and over-
    worked, left without safeguards for their health and safety, and
    encouraged to put their education on a backburner in favor of their
    success on the field.
        Some athletes have figured this out, and now they are starting to
    ask really smart questions about this whole arrangement.
        They want to know what happens to them if they suffer a
    catastrophic injury on the field that leaves them with a lifetime
    disability.
        Will they lose their scholarship--and with it their chance for an
    education and a career?
        How much of their health care will they and their families need to
    pay for out of pocket? They are reading about the new studies on the
    long-term effects of head injuries.
        And they want to know if the schools and coaches are doing all they
    can to prevent concussions and brain injury on the field.
        Will their health come first when a decision is being made about
    whether or not they're fit to play? Or will the team's desire to win a
    game trump the health concerns of an individual player?
        They are raising questions about the adequacy of their scholarships
    and the restrictions that leave them with too little support for the
    out-of-pocket and incidental expenses they face.
        Why are some of their teammates finding themselves unable to afford
    enough food to eat or books for their classes, while their university
    makes millions from their efforts?
        They want know why so many players don't finish their academic
    programs, and they want to discuss fairer transfer policies.
        How can policies be changed to support players' success in
    academics, not just athletics?
        The NLRB's decision regarding Northwestern University football
    players documents the all-consuming, sometimes eye-opening, demands of
    a college football player in today's mega-profit-driven NCAA world.
        At Northwestern, the daily life of a football player revolves
    around practice and preparations-- commonly a 40- to 50-hour-a-week
    commitment during the fall season--with any classes or homework
    squeezed on top.
        You can see a sample schedule displayed here.
        Players are expected to report to the training room by 6:15 on
    Monday mornings for their medical checks. By 7:50 a.m., it's various
    team and position meetings, then pads and helmets until noon.
        At night they meet with coaches to review game film.
        And there are always agility drills, conditioning and weight-
    lifting workouts, and playbooks to study in between.
        From the beginning of the month-long August training camp; through
    the grueling 12-week season; to post-season bowl play; into mid-January
    winter warm-ups; to mid-February ``Winning Edge'' week; to mandatory
    spring workouts; high-stakes football preparation, not academic
    obligations, becomes the focus of these players' lives and the
    obsession of their coaches.
        Meanwhile, players worry about their health and safety, their
    financial future, and their prospects for a job after graduation.
        The big business empire of college sports is doing very well. Its
    revenues are up by 32 percent over just the last six years.
        And many universities are hiking tuitions and fees; turning to
    underpaid, overstretched adjunct faculty; and cutting student services.
        So the NCAA and superstar football programs are making more and
    more money, and the athletes they depend on are getting less and less.
        In the end, this is a classic labor dispute.
        The NCAA empire is holding all the cards, making all the rules, and
    capturing all the profits.
        The hardest-working, most valuable components of this system--the
    players--are left with little say or leverage, with no one blocking or
    tackling but themselves.
        By banding together and bargaining, these athletes can win the
    kinds of things union workers have demanded and won across the country:
        * a say about avoiding serious injury on the job,
        * medical benefits and security if something does go wrong,
        * meaningful input into how they balance their work--in this case
    football--with their academic needs and other responsibilities, and
        * the respectful treatment and care they so richly deserve.
        I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about how we can
    do more to help, protect, and support these hard- working student
    employees.
                                     ______

     STATEMENT OF HON. KEN STARR, PRESIDENT AND CHANCELLOR, BAYLOR
                        UNIVERSITY, WACO, TEXAS

        Judge Starr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
    here and to discuss this very important issue for private
    higher education. As the chair kindly recognized, I serve as
    president and chancellor of Baylor University. I have served as
    president and CEO of Baylor University since June of 2010.
    Baylor University is located in Waco, Texas. It is a private
    Christian university. It is ranked as a high research,
    comprehensive university, and it is a vibrant community home to
    over 15,000 students, including over 600 student athletes.
        Baylor is a founding member of the Big 12 Conference,
    established in 1994. We sponsor 19 varsity teams. We are very
    blessed at Baylor to have student athletes who succeed both in
    the classroom and on the playing field. Over the past three
    years, Baylor University has been the most successful Division
    1 program in combined winning percentages of football and men's
    and women's basketball. But these accomplishments do not count,
    ultimately, in terms of what we emphasize at Baylor.
        As commencement approaches next week on our campus, we are
    celebrating our academic accomplishments. In fact, we gathered
    together on Monday evening at Baylor's Ferrell Center to do
    exactly that; to honor our student athletes' performance in the
    classroom. During the prior academic year, Mr. Chairman, 86
    percent of senior student athletes at Baylor received their
    undergraduate degrees, and many have gone on to pursue advanced
    degrees. This past fall semester--the grades are not in for the
    spring--our student athletes achieved a cumulative GPA of 3.27.
    That is an all-time high.
        And 347 of our student athletes were named to the Big 12
    commissioners' honor roll. So these are remarkable times for
    Baylor and its athletic program. Yet the reality is, is that
    even in these best of times college athletics, including at
    Baylor, is not a profit-generating activity. It does not
    generate profits for Baylor, nor for the vast majority of
    institutions of higher education. The NLRB regional director's
    recent decision in the Northwestern University case has
    characterized our student athletes as employees. This is an
    unprecedented ruling, as the chairman noted. In our view, it is
    misguided.
        The term ``student athletes'' is real on our campus. We
    would invite members to come to our campus and see for
    themselves. At bottom, it is a relationship which provides a
    college education and even beyond. That at Baylor, student
    athletes are first and foremost students, and they are expected
    to be and required to be. We are far removed from a
    professional sports franchise. We are dedicated to each and
    every student's welfare, including our student athletes.
        Now at Baylor, and across the nation, student athletes
    benefit from a wide array of services that are specifically
    designed to maximize their potential as students, and then to
    prepare the student athletes for their journeys in life after
    college. These services and programs contribute significantly
    to their ultimate academic success. They include academic
    advising, degree planning, career counseling. Many
    institutions, including Baylor, provide very high-quality
    academic support, such as tutoring service, computer labs, and
    study lounges. We have study hall.
        Student athletes also receive specific financial benefits,
    which help them progress toward degree completion. And these
    traditional benefits are very familiar: tuition, room, board,
    fees, books, and other related educational expenses.
        Now, what is the purpose? The purpose in offering financial
    assistance is to encourage our student athletes to carry on,
    and to complete, their academic work. And the vast majority do.
    Now, the NLRB has expressed a view that the legal issue of
    employee status is ultimately a matter of congressional intent,
    and we agree with that.
        In instance however, the regional director has
    mechanically, and we believe erroneously, applied a rigidly
    wooden test drawn from the common law, notwithstanding, as the
    chairman suggested, the absence of any congressional intent to
    include college athletics as an employment venue.
        Now, the decision, by its terms, applies only to private
    institutions. But it does create a dichotomy. For example, the
    decision rightly notes that Northwestern University is
    nonsectarian. But the NLRB has been struggling in various
    dimensions with religious liberty limitations on its own
    jurisdiction.
        So we should reasonably expect some private, religiously-
    affiliated universities to challenge the board's authority to
    be regulating institutional missions expressly grounded in a
    religious world view.
        The second and more structurally significant disparity is
    the decision's implicit exclusion of state institutions. In
    intercollegiate athletics, private universities compete with
    state institutions and this will likely create many
    discrepancies among the nation's universities.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement of Judge Starr follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Mr. Livingston, you are recognized.

      STATEMENT OF MR. BRADFORD L. LIVINGSTON, PARTNER, SEYFARTH
                      SHAW, LLP, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

        Mr. Livingston. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the committee. As the Supreme Court has noted, principles
    developed for the industrial setting cannot be imposed blindly
    in the academic world. While I fully support the NLRA's
    purposes in allowing employees the freedom to choose whether or
    not to form a labor union and bargain collectively, the NLRB
    itself has recognized the problem of attempting to force the
    student-university relationship into the traditional employer-
    employee framework. That problem is apparent here.
        A university's primary mission is to educate its students,
    including student athletes. Student athletes are neither hired
    by a college, nor providing it services for compensation.
    Athletes are students who are participating in its programs
    with a dual role as both student and athlete. Treating these
    participants as NLRA-covered employees changes them from
    students who are student athletes to professional athletes who
    are also students. But even if student athletes could be
    considered employees--and the term is undefined in the NLRA--
    employee status conflicts with the remaining principles
    contained in that act.
        Consistent with labor agreements from other industries, a
    college athletes' union could negotiate over the scheduling and
    duration of practice time, distribution of playing time,
    scholarship allocation by dollar value and player position;
    whether non-bargaining unit players--in this case, walk-ons--
    have the right to perform bargaining unit work by playing in
    games in the broad range of statutory wages, hours, and other
    terms and conditions of employment described in NLRB precedent.
    They could likewise negotiate over academic standards,
    including minimum grade point averages, class attendance
    requirements, the number and form of examinations or papers in
    any course.
        Grievance procedures could challenge a professor's grade,
    and even potentially graduation requirements. And unlike with
    statutory requirements, a college cannot refuse to bargain over
    changes to its own, its conference, or NCAA rules. Eventual
    differences in the conditions under which collegiate teams
    practice and compete will guarantee competitive imbalances. If
    college football players are employees, the NLRA makes it clear
    that they may organize in an appropriate bargaining unit, not
    the most appropriate bargaining unit. Because the petition for
    a unit will be considered appropriate unless a larger group now
    shares an overwhelming community of interest with that group, a
    college would have difficulty proving that the remainder of the
    football team shares an overwhelming community of interest if a
    labor union seeks to represent just the team's offense, perhaps
    just its quarterbacks.
        Different potential union rules among discrete groups
    within one team are modest, however, compared to what will
    happen when college teams compete under different work rules
    negotiated with their respective unions. In professional
    sports, every team is a private employer under the NLRA's
    jurisdiction that can therefore be covered under a single
    collective bargaining agreement. The major professional sports
    leagues have their own multi-employer collective bargaining
    agreements that cover the league and all of its teams. Those
    agreements provide a relatively level playing field, whether
    with salary caps, minimum wage progressions, free agency, drug
    testing protocols, and even revenue sharing.
        Unlike professional leagues, the same will not be true in
    college football. Because its jurisdiction is limited to this,
    to private employers, the NLRB is creating rules for student
    athletes at only 17 schools, fewer than 15 percent of the
    participants. And it is almost certain that the NLRA's regime
    for recognizing and bargaining with unions will not apply to
    the remaining 85 percent that are public universities governed
    by state laws and beyond the NLRB's jurisdiction. Some states
    expressly regulate public sector employee collective
    bargaining, others often either limiting it to certain subjects
    or types of employees.
        Other states have no laws, or prohibit public sector
    bargaining entirely. A bill before Ohio's house of
    representatives clarifies that student athletes at its public
    colleges and universities are not employees. Conversely, too,
    Connecticut legislators indicate that they will introduce
    legislation stating that their public college athletes are, in
    fact, employees. Without a unified collective bargaining
    agreement like the NBA or NFL, every college team must fend for
    itself with its employee athletes. Athletic departments that
    can afford it may be able to hire the best players.
    Institutions whose fortunes and job offers are not as robust
    may attract lesser talent.
        The resulting patchwork of conflicting statuses as
    employees or not, bargaining rights, labor contracts, and
    student athlete rules will create competitive imbalances. The
    National Labor Relations Act is not an appropriate vehicle to
    address student athletes' concerns or disputes with their
    colleges and universities, athletic conferences, or the NCAA.
    For these and the other reasons contained in my written
    testimony, treating these student athletes as employees covered
    by the NLRA is simply unworkable.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for
    the opportunity to share my thoughts with you today.
        [The statement of Mr. Livingston follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Mr. Schwarz, you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF MR. ANDY SCHWARZ, PARTNER, OSKR, LLC, EMERYVILLE,
                               CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Schwarz. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, members
    of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify on these
    issues related to college football. My name is Andy Schwarz, I
    am an economist who specializes in antitrust and the economics
    of college sports. I am a partner with the firm OSKR, but I am
    testifying today solely on my own behalf.
        As the members of the committee know, the NLRB authorized
    an election for Northwestern football athletes. And so to
    start, I want to provide a few facts from those proceedings.
    Scholarship football athletes at Northwestern devote 40 to 60
    hours per week during a 5-month season and 15 to 25 hours per
    week the rest of the year. They receive no academic credit,
    they are not supervised by faculty, and football is not a
    direct part of the curriculum of their undergraduate majors.
        I understand this panel is focused on unintended
    consequences of unionizing college football. So I want to
    explain that the biggest threat to college sports from
    collective action is the current price fixing cartel called the
    NCAA. By price fixing, I am focused on how 351 Division 1
    schools, including my own beloved Stanford, stifle healthy
    economic competition through collusion to impose limits on all
    forms of athlete compensation. College football is an
    enormously popular consumer product. It generates passion from
    fans and billions in revenues from schools, for broadcast
    television networks, for merchandisers and apparel companies.
        FBS football is a professional sports industry. FBS
    football alone reported 3.2 billion in revenue in the most
    recent federal filings. D1 basketball added another 1.4
    billion. Individual athletic departments regularly generate
    more revenue than almost all NHL and NBA teams. Former NCAA
    president, Miles Brand, explained that maximizing revenue was
    the only responsible path for college sports. That is exactly
    how a vibrant business should behave. But there is an economic
    dark side to college sports that comes from collective action,
    which is price fixing.
        The NLRA and the antitrust laws work together to ensure
    that when sports leagues and athletes form partnerships
    negotiations are fair. And either choice is valid; in a
    unionized, collective bargaining path, or a more free market
    approach governed by the antitrust laws. Given the one-sided
    power imposed by collusion, it is not surprising that players
    have turned to labor law and to unionization for a modicum of
    countervailing bargaining power. Other American sports involve
    a league, negotiating with a union, to achieve a competitive
    outcome. Leagues generally encourage unionization.
        In 2011, the NFL players sought to end their union. But the
    NFL went to court to demand they remain a union, against the
    players' wishes. As an economist I focus on the athletes' free
    market value, which is high. But as a union, CAPA is focused on
    very different things. They are focused on enhancing
    educational and safety component of the bargain, better medical
    coverage, reducing head trauma, improving graduation rates and
    establishing educational trust funds to ensure athletes can
    finish their degrees.
        Because of time limits I will summarize my points and leave
    the rest for the question period. Because most athletes do not
    go on to work in the NFL, NCAA collusion effectively denies 95
    percent or more of college athletes of their four best sports
    earning years of their entire career. For some, those may be
    their four best earning years. Money that would go to male
    athletes is, instead, funneled to coaches and into elaborate
    recruiting palaces. College football coaches can make as much
    as $7 million a year. Shunting money to coaches also deprives
    women athletes of Title IX matching funds.
        Collusion shifts the burden from a private school like
    Northwestern to taxpayer-funded Pell grants, sometimes even
    food stamps, or by forcing students to leave school to support
    their families. The current tax code exempts from taxation the
    tuition portion of athletic scholarships as well as tuition
    remission paid to university employees as part of a broader
    compensation package. Nothing in the NLRB ruling should change
    that and, if it did, Congress itself has the power to make sure
    that doesn't happen.
        Finally, the NCAA limits consumer choice with a centrally-
    planned, one-size-fits-all product offering. I also want to say
    that the term ``student athletes'' itself was created to dodge
    legal responsibilities for athletes' safety and to avoid
    economic competition. But the resources from new TV deals alone
    are sufficient for an orderly transition from a command and
    control economy to a market-based one. Americans have a legal
    right to economic markets free of collusion. Until that right
    is respected for college athletes of course they will seek
    collective alternatives.
        An athlete who has bargained, individually or collectively,
    to ensure he is well fed, given real access to a full range of
    majors and programs at a school, and provided with health and
    safety rules that lower the risk of serious head trauma or
    lifelong disability is going to be in a better position to
    benefit from a true education than a hungry or concussed
    athlete forced into a dead end major.
        Thank you for your time.
        [The statement of Mr. Schwarz follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Mr. Muir, please?

       STATEMENT OF MR. BERNARD M. MUIR, DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS,
               STANFORD UNIVERSITY, STANFORD, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Muir. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller and members
    of the committee, I am pleased to be here to provide some
    comments about the experiences of student athletes at Stanford
    University. My comments are specific to Stanford and are not
    focused on the details of the case currently before the
    National Labor Relations Board. But I hope to help illuminate
    some of the larger issues you are addressing today.
        Stanford has 7,000 undergraduate students and nearly 9,000
    graduate students. And the university is recognized
    internationally for its academic quality. We offer 36 varsity
    sports, 20 for women and 16 for men. About 900 students
    participate in intercollegiate sports; 53 percent of them men
    and 47 percent of them women. Stanford has won the Directors
    Cup, which honors the most successful program in NCAA Division
    1 sports for the last 19 years. We are very proud of the
    athletic achievements of our student athletes.
        But what I want to emphasize in my testify this morning is
    that, in athletics, we never lose sight of the university's
    larger mission. Stanford is a university first, and its
    academic mission comes first. We believe the most important
    thing for our student athletes walk out the door with, when
    they leave Stanford, is a Stanford degree. Ninety-seven percent
    of our student athletes achieve this goal, including 93 percent
    of our football student athletes. The athletic experience is
    not pursued at the expense of the academic experience or
    separate and apart from it. Each enhances the other.
        One out of every eight undergraduate students at Stanford
    is a student athlete. So this is not a separate group having a
    separate experience from the rest of the student body. They are
    in the same classes, the same laboratories, the same
    undergraduate housing. They have the same exam schedules, even
    if it means to take a proctored examination on the road, and
    the same degree completion requirements as other students. The
    rigor of the academic enterprise begins with the admissions
    process. Stanford does not admit anyone it is not confident can
    succeed academically at the university.
        Stanford reviews each applicant for undergraduate admission
    holistically, looking at the academic excellence, intellectual
    vitality and the personal context each brings to the table.
    This evaluation occurs in the admissions office independent of
    the athletic department. Our student athletes demonstrate how
    importantly they view a Stanford education by taking all steps
    they need to complete it. As two brief examples, Andrew Luck of
    the Indianapolis Colts and pitcher Mark Appel of the Houston
    Astros organization both bypassed the opportunity to leave
    Stanford with a year of eligibility left and enter the
    professional sports world.
        Instead, they remained at Stanford to complete their
    degree. Even among the few Stanford athletes, student athletes,
    who do not complete a degree before becoming professional
    athletes, many do come back to finish later. The overwhelming
    majority of our student athletes will not go on to earn a
    living in professional sports, but whatever path they take
    their Stanford experience will provide them with outstanding
    preparation for success in the world. The academic grounding
    they receive is solid, and the athletic experience builds on it
    by teaching leadership, strategy, team dynamics, problem-
    solving, and other capacities critical to success. I discuss
    all of these issues more extensively in my written testimony.
        I want to address a related question about how revenue from
    athletics is used. At Stanford, while football and men's
    basketball generate net revenue through ticket sales and TV
    contracts, the vast majority of our 36 sports do not. All the
    revenue that the university receives from these two sports is
    used to support the overall athletic program, including the 87
    percent of our student athletes who participate in those other
    34 sports. We use these revenues to support athletic
    opportunities for the broad cross-section of our students, both
    men and women. Providing these opportunities is very important
    to us.
        Let me close by discussing how we address the needs and
    concerns of student athletes. We work very hard to ensure that
    both the academic and athletic experiences of our student
    athletes are excellent and properly supported. Soliciting
    honest feedback from our students is critical to that
    objective, and we have a variety of avenues for doing so. Many
    of the issues that have been identified by the union seeking to
    represent student athletes are issues we are already addressing
    at Stanford. Although there are areas where our actions are
    governed by NCAA regulations, we are always open to making
    improvements that are within our purview, and to working with
    the NCAA to improve its rules on issues such as minimum
    academic progress for student athletes and scholarships that
    include fair stipends for student athletes' expenses.
        I hope the strengths and benefits of programs such as ours
    will be considered, as the national discussion of these issues
    continues. I also recognize that there is a variation on these
    issues from school to school. And that while I have been
    speaking today about Stanford, there may well be differences at
    other institutions. Stanford stands ready to talk with and work
    with others who are likewise interested in continually
    improving the experience of student athletes across the
    country.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Muir follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Mr. Eilers?

    STATEMENT OF MR. PATRICK C. EILERS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADISON
                  DEARBORN PARTNERS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

        Mr. Eilers. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller, and
    members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you today and present my views on the ongoing
    quest to improve the environment for student athletes on
    college campuses. Before I do so, I would like to make it clear
    that my comments today are strictly my own. Although I was a
    student athlete at the University of Notre Dame and later
    obtained a master's degree from the Kellogg Graduate School of
    Management at Northwestern University, I do not speak for nor
    do I represent these institutions. I speak only for myself.
        I graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1989 with
    a bachelor of science degree in biology, while also pursuing a
    second undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, which I
    received a year later. While I was a student at Notre Dame, I
    played four years of varsity football and also played on the
    varsity baseball team. I had transferred from Yale University
    at the beginning of my sophomore year and had a fifth year of
    academic eligibility, affording me the opportunity to complete
    my second degree. I transferred to Notre Dame to pursue
    excellence in the classroom and on the football field.
        I felt Notre Dame offered me the opportunity to do well in
    both. While it wasn't easy, it certainly was achievable. The
    infrastructure was, and remains, in place to assist student
    athletes to achieve at Notre Dame. I have a daughter who is
    currently a collegiate student athlete there, and I have
    witnessed even further improvements in the program such as
    mandatory study hall for all incoming freshman athletes. I am
    here today as a former collegiate student athlete, and I am not
    an attorney versed in labor law so I will leave the legal
    arguments to the experts to my right.
        The impetus for today's panel is the NLRB regional
    director's ruling that college athletes are deemed employees
    which would enable them to potentially unionize under the
    National Labor Relations Act. The union pursuit is a means to
    an end, a vehicle if you will, to implement improvements to our
    collegiate athletic system. I believe there is little debate
    about necessary logical improvements, which I will describe. I
    believe the debate today should, instead, be focused on seeking
    the most effective vehicle to cause the implementation of these
    improvements.
        The crux of the problem is that the student athletes should
    be students first and foremost. I am concerned that calling
    student athletes employees will make the system more of a
    business than it already is. In my mind, we need to gravitate
    collegiate athletics towards a student-centric model, not the
    other way around. I also worry about the unintended consequence
    of being deemed an employee and what unionization could bring
    to college athletics. That said, as a former student athlete I
    support many of the goals of the National College Players
    Association and the College Athletes Players Association that
    the ranking member described in front. I favor mandated four-
    year scholarships, health insurance benefits, and stipends. I
    will address transfer eligibility briefly.
        Four-year scholarship: as a student athlete you should be
    able to maintain an athletic scholarship for at least four, and
    debatable five, years from the date you entered college,
    assuming you maintain the school's academic and disciplinary
    standards, with the goal of obtaining an undergraduate degree.
    The obligation should be maintained regardless of your
    productivity on the athletic field, and even if you sustain a
    permanent injury. The sad reality at some colleges is, if the
    student athlete is not performing on their field their athletic
    scholarship may not be renewed year to year. This incents
    student athletes to only focus on scholarship renewable at all
    costs, rather than striking the right balance of performance in
    the classroom and on the field of play.
        Health and insurance benefits: after sustaining a sports-
    related injury, a student athlete's scholarship should neither
    be reduced nor eliminated, and there should be guaranteed
    coverage for medical expenses for current and former players.
    Student athletes that sustain permanent injuries should be
    afforded health care insurance benefits for life. I also hasten
    to around that all college athletic programs should enhance
    their efforts to minimize the risk of sports-related traumatic
    brain injuries.
        Stipend: student athletes should be afforded stipends so
    they can handle out of pocket expenses associated with
    attending college, at the very least on a needs-based
    assessment.
        Transfer: if four-year scholarships are mandated, not at
    the option of each college, then I am okay with current
    transfer restrictions. I was a product of these transfer
    restrictions. I was ineligible my sophomore year at Notre Dame.
    However, if honoring four-year scholarships is not required,
    then the one-time, no-penalty transfer option should be
    afforded to all student athletes, not just select sports.
        So in conclusion, these initiatives are, in my mind,
    obvious and necessary improvements. The first three have
    monetary implications which I recognize make them more
    difficult to implement for athletic programs that already
    operate in the red. However, I believe there is clearly plenty
    of money in the system for necessary improvements that have
    been highlighted.
        The National Collegiate Athletic Association is,
    ``dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student athletes
    and equipping them with the skills to succeed on the playing
    field and in the classroom, and throughout life.''
        If this mission statement is true, why then haven't these
    goals already been implemented? I believe this problem exists
    simply because of the fact that the NCAA is a membership-driven
    organization, ``made up of colleges and universities, but also
    conferences and affiliated groups.'' Perhaps because of this
    charter, it appears to me that the NCAA may not have been able
    to get consensus from its diverse membership on these issues. I
    don't have a solution to this problem, but I question the need
    to unionize to effectuate the implementation of these
    initiatives.
        One final note. It is difficult to maintain that we truly
    have a student athlete system, given the relatively low
    graduation rates for student athletes at many institutions
    across the country. This is not an acceptable outcome, and I
    don't see how classifying these student athletes as employees
    is going to improve the situation.
        So finally, I was a student athlete at Notre Dame, period.
    I was not an employee of the university, nor did I want to be
    one. Conversely, I played six years of professional football,
    including three here for the Redskins where I was an employee
    and I wanted to be one.
        Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you
    have.
        [The statement of Mr. Eilers follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kline. Thank you. Thank all of the witnesses. A
    panel of true experts.
        Because you are on a roll there, Mr. Eilers, I am going to
    start with you. Guy from St. Paul that goes on to do all these
    things, we are very proud of you. I know that when you were at
    Notre Dame I think you were part of a national championship
    team, and I am just deeply disappointed you couldn't help the
    Vikings be a Super Bowl team.
        You mention that your daughter is playing lacrosse at Notre
    Dame. And I am--with her--watching her experience and your
    experience, I am wondering if you were ever discouraged at
    Notre Dame from taking a class or pursuing a major because you
    were a student athlete.
        Mr. Eilers. I was not, and I think, further, they
    encouraged us to pursue our academic passions, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Kline. And you wisely moved on from a bachelor's
    degree in biology, which I also had and found useless, so--I
    think probably most of us on this panel, I know I can't speak
    for everybody on both sides of the aisle, but you mentioned a
    lot of issues that could be and should be addressed. Injuries,
    for example you had a sort of a list of things that ought to be
    looked at. And your conclusion was that is something that the
    universities, Notre Dame and all of them, including Baylor and
    Stanford, ought to be addressing. And that being a member of a
    union, a student athletes' being a member of a union, being
    employees, wouldn't help that. Is that--am I oversimplifying
    your position there?
        Mr. Eilers. I don't think you are oversimplifying. I would
    say that I think Judge Starr's Baylor, Bernard's Stanford,
    like, you know, Notre Dame, it is an option to provide for your
    scholarships. Each of our institutions provide that for our
    student athletes. That is not universally adopted across the
    country. And I think for a student athlete not to graduate from
    a university with a degree in hand is a total disservice.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you. And I think, Judge Starr, you
    mentioned something like 86 percent. Could you take about your
    graduation rate for your student athletes again, very quickly?
        Judge Starr. Yes. This last year, academic year, 82 percent
    did, in fact, graduate. A number did, in fact, as did Pat, go
    on to pursue degrees, as well; advanced degrees, graduate
    degrees. And here is the key point. It is individual choice.
    What is the culture? That is the responsibility of the
    university. Does the university create a culture that
    encourages the student to do the best that he or she can? There
    are obviously important issues to be addressed. We completely
    agree with that, and we are part of a conversation that is
    nationwide, with respect to what can we do better.
        We know there are things that can, in fact, be improved.
    Especially the full cost of attendance. Completely agree with
    that. But the real question, I think, with respect to the NLRB,
    Mr. Chairman, is are we going to, in fact, use the National
    Labor Relations Act as a tool for negotiating improvements. And
    it seems to be exactly the wrong way to go. For starters, if I
    may just make one additional point, the collective bargaining
    unit that was recognized by the regional director doesn't
    include the entire football team.
        So if you are a walk-on, if you are one of the 35 members
    of the football team at Northwestern, the representative, if
    the union is, in fact, elected, is not going to be representing
    you. You are going to be outside the unit. Quite apart, then,
    from the non-revenue sports. And that is a fundamental issue.
    We are treating all of our student athletes the same, and we
    want to, in fact, encourage this culture that we want you to go
    to school, we want you to earn your degree, and we want to help
    prepare you for your journey in life.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        And Mr. Muir, back to Stanford. In your testimony you
    talked about how football and basketball were moneymakers, and
    that money went to the other sports. Could you just remind us
    again of how that distribution goes?
        Mr. Muir. Yes. The resources that we derive--
        Chairman Kline. Your microphone.
        Mr. Muir.--from our TV, our media rights, goes back into
    supporting 36 sports, in our case, which is one of the larger
    offerings around the country. But it is to enhance that
    experience overall for all of our student athletes, the 900
    that we support. And so we think that is very important.
        Chairman Kline. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Miller?
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Starr, I assume you weren't calling for a larger
    bargaining unit.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Starr. No, I was not. But it does raise, Mr. Miller,
    the issue.
        Mr. Miller. I appreciate that. I just want to make it
    clear.
        Mr. Starr. Yes, the continuity of interest, the community
    of interest.
        Mr. Miller. Mr. Eilers, I want to thank you very much for
    your testimony. Because you testified in a very straightforward
    manner about the issues that the students at Northwestern were
    raising that are endemic, I believe, to the football programs
    around the country. And that really was, as you pointed out,
    the security of their scholarship--four-year scholarship as
    opposed to year-to-year that can be used as a weapon against
    the student or performance or to get out of--to add somebody
    else to the squad. The health and insurance benefits, the
    concern when you are injured or you have suffered disability as
    a result of that, or you lose your athletic ability and you
    lose your scholarship.
        These things start to accumulate on some students. The
    stipend issue that you have raised and the transfer issue.
    These are the issues that these students felt necessary to form
    a union around because they weren't getting satisfaction. And I
    suspect you would find that if you traveled to most of the
    college campuses that have sports programs, that the students
    feel that they are just--they are caught up in a cog, and they
    are only there for four years, five years, for whatever period
    of time. And they are not being addressed.
        I find it interesting that other witnesses held their
    testimony to that notion, and that is their belief that this is
    a student athlete. These--your student athletes at Northwestern
    said what about the athletic side of it? What about where we
    spend 50 hours a week? What is this imposition on us, and what
    security do we have? And apparently that can never quite get
    addressed.
        And, Mr. Schwarz, that brings me to you. If you read Mr.
    Livingston's testimony, he can tell you why this labyrinth,
    this integral work between conferences and the NCAA and the
    colleges, and maybe even the media, would not be a shield
    against issues raised by this bargaining unit. They could
    travel all over and even has them going into the academic side.
    But that same network is used as a weapon against the athletes.
        Mr. Schwarz. That is right.
        Mr. Miller. That same network is used as a weapon when they
    want to talk about is our stipend fair, are our policies--
    because they don't have any voice in that at all. And then,
    well, the school is happy giving you a four-year--but that is
    not every school in the league, maybe not even in the PAC-12, I
    don't know. But, you know, we have to check with the
    conference. And the conference, well, you know, we are bound by
    the rules. And also remember, today, what conference you get
    in--I mean, conferences are like commodities. They are moving
    them around to generate TV revenues.
        It is no longer allegiance to the fans or the old
    rivalries. It is about what are the revenues that will be
    generated on--you know, mid-week, weekend playoffs. So you want
    to explain a little bit how this is a--if you are a handful of
    student in the Northwestern program, how you are going to be
    heard and how you are going to get results during your career?
        Mr. Schwarz. Sure. If I could just address a couple things.
    One of the statements I heard here is that Baylor treats all of
    its student athletes the same. That is not true. There is a cap
    on how many students can receive scholarships, and walk-ons are
    prohibited from receiving scholarships if they exceed that. So
    there is already, in some sense, a caste system that is
    created--that is a term that Mr. Muir has used to describe
    paying athletes--that distinguishes between scholarship
    athletes and other athletes who likely would get a scholarship
    if the school were actually allowed to exercise individual
    choice. But instead, there is a collusive cap that prevents it.
        Directly to your point, the way I like to think about the
    claim that schools are poor in their athletic departments is
    that it is similar to, say, like a Wall Street banker who
    brings in a million dollars of salary but maybe he has been
    divorced twice and so he has alimony payments. Maybe he has
    kids in college, maybe he has a couple mortgages. And so once
    he is done paying for all those things there is not a lot of
    money left and Wall Street banking doesn't pay that well.
        Mr. Miller. Well, I think that is sort of the point that
    the Knight Commission found in 2010. There is not enough money
    to provide those scholarships, there is not enough money to
    help the other sports. But as they pointed out, the escalating
    coaches' salaries are creating an unsustainable growth of
    athletic expenses.
        Mr. Schwarz. That is right. Once you spend--
        Mr. Miller. And you can bury $7 million into a coach's
    salary or $3 million into coaches' salaries. And I recognize
    that is the exception. But more and more people are joining
    that fraternity. But then you plead, poor mouth, that you can't
    quite take care of your athletic obligations, campus-wide.
        And so I think that we see here is that the NCAA has
    constructed a very, very interesting and overwhelming network
    to be used against these kinds of questions being raised. Even
    a commission as prominent as the Knight Commission that
    examined this impact of, and the relationship, if you will, of
    student athletes. And that is why these students chose to
    become employees. Because they recognize the situation that
    they were in. Classical employer-employee relationship.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter
    from the American Council on Education, which warns that
    treating student athletes as employees, ``would have a range of
    negative and troubling consequences.''
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Miller. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
    record an article from the Stanford Daily, ``Student Athletes
    Had Access to Easy Courses.''
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kline. Without objection, both will be entered in
    the record. All right.
        Dr. Foxx?
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all
    of our witnesses here today. You have provided some fascinating
    information to us, and I am grateful to you. As someone who has
    spent a lot of time in education and higher education, I have
    dealt with student athletes and students who weren't athletes.
    So I appreciate the information.
        Judge Starr, I understand Baylor's priority is education.
    In fact, all of you have talked about that. Would you describe
    how Baylor's athletic programs work with the academic programs
    to ensure student athletes can prioritize their studies while
    also meeting their commitments to the team?
        Judge Starr. One of the keys, Dr. Foxx, is the planning
    process that goes into developing the major planning, then the
    schedule. And the student athletes do have priority in terms of
    registration, so we do not have a crowding out kind of question
    at all. And so throughout the academic year there is a careful
    monitoring of that student's progress. And if there are issues
    that are being identified, then those issues are going to be
    addressed.
        And I think that is why we have seen a steady increase in
    recent years, even before my watch, but it is a point of
    personal emphasis on my watch, that we want the student
    athletes to have that entire reservoir of support. And that is
    why the GPA, cumulative GPA average, is 3.27. It is a very
    labor-intensive and very student athlete-specifically focused
    activity.
        Ms. Foxx. I am assuming you have study halls?
        Judge Starr. They are--as elsewhere, mandatory for first-
    years, for freshmen. And then there are abundant study
    facilities available. They are very conveniently located, as
    part of our Simpson Highers academic and athletic center.
        Ms. Foxx. Well, let me come back to the regional director's
    opinion. He includes a list of restrictions placed on the
    athletes. He says that they have to obtain permission from the
    coaches before applying for outside employment, posting items
    on the Internet, and speaking to the media. They are also
    prohibited from using alcohol and drugs and engaging in
    gambling. Judge, this may sound like a silly question. But
    please tell me why you place these restrictions on student
    athletes.
        Judge Starr. Well, it is, in fact, to create a team
    culture. And also to ensure, as best we can, appropriate
    behavior. Dr. Foxx, when the student athlete arrives he or she
    is presented with a student athletic handbook. And the earliest
    pages say here is the kind of behavior that is forbidden
    because it reflects poorly on the university, it reflects
    poorly on the team and, frankly, it is destructive of the
    culture of the team. So yes, there a number of prohibitions,
    but they are all grounded in human experience. These are things
    that the student athlete should not be doing.
        Ms. Foxx. Some of those things are things no student should
    be doing, correct?
        Judge Starr. That is correct. In fact, one of the things--
    when you go through the ``thou shall not'' list it is, in fact,
    very, very comparable to that of any other student. There are
    obviously some athletics-specific activity. But it is, in fact,
    a community of rules that we are in community together and
    these are the rules that bind us all.
        Ms. Foxx. Right. I would like to ask you this question. And
    then if Mr. Muir has an opportunity to respond to it also I
    would appreciate it. We know that the decision made by the NLRB
    gentleman has implications beyond the NLRA. It has implications
    for Title IX of the education amendments of 1972, Workers'
    Compensation laws, tax law, Fair Labor Standards Act--could all
    be implicated. Would you tell us your thoughts on the possible
    implication of these laws for Baylor, and then, Mr. Muir, for
    Stanford?
        Judge Starr. I think they are very serious issues with
    respect to Title IX in particular. If the football scholarship
    student athletes are all employees then, in fact, that is going
    to create a very serious issue in terms of imbalance with
    respect to what Title IX requires.
        There are going to be a host of other issues, as well.
    Injuries are important, health is very important. We are very
    sensitive to that. And therefore, the question will be
    triggered is--does OSHA have jurisdiction in this context, as
    well. So I think it is going to raise a hornet's nest of
    issues.
        Mr. Muir. Yes, I believe if we go down that path that first
    and foremost, you know, our students are students first. And we
    want to ensure that. Many of the issues that the Northwestern
    student athletes raise are issues that we are already covering
    at Stanford. I think if we go down the path where--eventually
    that we call our students--student athletes--employees, and
    they just become a true working employer--working relationship,
    then I do think some of those things as Title IX and making
    sure that we provide a broad offering to all of our students
    becomes at risk, the pressures become greater.
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. Bishop?
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to our
    panel, thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Eilers, particularly I want to thank you for you
    testimony. Because you have highlighted some of the issues that
    I want to talk about. You described the effort at Northwestern
    as a means to an end. I think it is also fair to describe it as
    a cry for help. I think that we talk about having the student
    athletes interest at the center of what we do--and I used to
    run a college so I--it was a Division 2 school. But there is
    really nobody talking for the students. And I think what is
    happening at Northwestern is that this is an effort to get
    somebody to listen.
        And so I want to address this to Judge Starr and to Mr.
    Muir. You both represent highly-regarded, very prestigious
    institutions that have succeeded both on the athletic field and
    in the classroom. You both are members of very large
    conferences. And I want to just go over what the players at
    Northwestern are asking for. They are asking for efforts to
    minimize college athletes' brain trauma risks. They are asking
    to prevent players from being stuck paying sports-related
    medical expenses. They are asking that graduation rates
    increase. They are asking that educational opportunities for
    student athletes in good standing be protected.
        They are asking that universities be prohibited from using
    a permanent injury suffered during athletics as a reason to
    reduce or eliminate a scholarship. They are asking to establish
    and enforce uniform safety guidelines in all sports to help
    prevent serious injuries and avoidable deaths. And they are
    asking to prohibit the punishment of college athletes that have
    not committed a crime. Is there any one on that list that I
    have just mentioned that is unreasonable? Is there any piece of
    that your institution would say no, I am awful sorry, we can't
    do that?
        Or let me phrase it positively. Would you each be willing
    to lead an effort in your respective conferences to see to it
    that your fellow member institutions say absolutely, guys, you
    are absolutely right? We are going to do it, it is the right
    thing to do.
        Judge Starr. Mr. Bishop, I think that series of questions,
    they are in fact important. They are legitimate. And we are, in
    fact, continually working toward addressing them. Take the
    concussion policy. The NCAA does have a concussion policy, and
    requires members to--our conference requires it. And we have a
    concussion policy. We continually monitor that. There are
    studies underway, from the University of Virginia and the NCAA
    has personally has directly funded a study. So this is evolving
    science. So yes, we want to--
        Mr. Bishop. Here is my question.
        Judge Starr. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. I am sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but I only
    have five minutes. Should we not--if unionization is as bad as
    so many of you think it is, should we not use this as a
    catalyst? I mean, and not just talk about conversations and not
    just talk about yes, we are looking at it and we are studying
    it. Let's do it. Can't--I mean, you are very powerful
    institutions in very powerful conferences that people look to
    for leadership. Can you not just say we are going to lead an
    effort to make this happen?
        Judge Starr. Again, briefly, I believe it is happening. Can
    we move more quickly? Of course, you could always move more
    quickly. But it is, in fact, a serious conversation. These
    myriad issues that you have rightly raised are under serious
    review. And it is not just a conversation, things are
    happening. The NCAA, the cost of attendance for the Division
    1--
        Mr. Bishop. I want to give Mr. Muir a chance. But my
    question is, in these conversations who is speaking for the
    student athlete?
        Mr. Muir. I would say there are a multiple of individuals
    who are speaking for the student athletes, including the
    student athletes themselves. We here are--a number of our
    constituencies, both on and off campus, both saying we need the
    student athlete's voice. And certainly we are being attentive
    to that.
        Our presidents are at the table. They are constantly
    thinking about this. They are trying to take leadership roles,
    as you so mentioned. Athletic directors, I was at an athletic
    directors meeting yesterday. Again, this is a prominent
    discussion point because we do want to make sure that the
    student athlete's experience is the best it possibly can be.
    And we need to enhance it.
        Mr. Bishop. Right. Let me just say one last thing. I hope
    that we can somehow collectively get to the point where we hold
    student athletes to the same--or hold coaches to the same
    standards we hold student athletes. A coach can break a
    contract with impunity. When you left Yale University you had
    to sit out a year. I don't understand why it is that a coach
    can break a contract with impunity, and a student athlete is
    penalized if he wants to move from one institution to another
    institution that he thinks better serves his needs.
        Mr. Eilers, you want to comment on that, or--
        Mr. Eilers. No. I think I kind of said it in my testimony,
    Congressman Bishop. But I do think if you are--if--and I don't
    understand why we can't get there. People should go to college
    to get degrees, first and foremost, full stop. Part of their
    educational experience, at least for me, was participating in a
    sports-related program, just like someone would do drama,
    speech, debate, what have you. It has made me who I am today,
    it has made me a better father, a better husband, a better
    person, a better businessperson.
        And so, you know, it is--I would disagree with Mr.
    Schwarz's characterization that it is separate and distinct
    from your educational experience. I think it is integral, like
    any of those things. And what we need to do is make sure that
    student athletes have the ability to go to an institution for
    four years and earn a degree, and leave with a degree. And so
    if that is the case, I would respectfully disagree that there
    should be some quid pro quo. That person should make a
    commitment to that coach to give him four years of service
    coming out of high school.
        If we don't do that, though, then I would submit to what
    you are suggesting. That we should allow people to then flow
    around, it they should be equal. I want a two-way street to be
    equal for both parties.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Dr. Roe?
        Mr. Roe. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. And just to
    clarify a couple things that Mr. Schwarz started with. A full
    disclosure. The head basketball coach and athletic director
    where I was, where I went to college, Dave Luce, did both jobs
    for a long time. This is a mid-Division 1 school. And I am
    absolutely committed to college athletics. I donated the money
    to build the athletic academic center at the college.
        Mr. Schwarz, you pointed out about how much money--and I
    agree, the NCAA is. But most don't live at that lofty level. I
    just looked--pulled up on my iPad right here, most colleges
    lose money in athletics. They don't make money. A few of the
    big areas do, big schools do. But at Austin P, it is a $9
    million budget a year, not a $90 million budget. And they are--
    most schools at that level are struggling. Now, I realize this
    is unionization at a private university, not a state
    university. But student athletes, Mr. Eilers, I agree totally
    with you.
        And, Mr. Bishop, a couple things. You can transfer now
    and--without loss of a time if you transfer at a different
    level. If you go from Division 1 to Division 2, or Division 2
    up, you can play immediately. Just to clarify that for
    everyone. Either Mr. Livingston or maybe Judge Starr, you--I
    think this ruling, what concerns me is, at least when I played
    sports it was fun. I had a good--I mean, we sound like it is
    some kind of drudgery here. I--golf is sometimes, but for the
    most part sports are fun. That is why you play sports.
        And as Mr. Eilers clearly said, he added his experience as
    a student athlete and it made him a better--he mentioned it
    very eloquently. I think that is what athletics--it did for me.
    It taught me--I learned a lot on the playing field I would
    never have learned in the classroom. So it is--I think it is
    added. Do you think this ruling could potentially cause schools
    just to drop football, or sports?
        Judge Starr. Well, we have to consider all options in terms
    of the best interests of the university. I know that the
    president of the University of Delaware has said that--and he
    was a student athlete himself, that the University of Delaware
    would not be able to continue. Now, it is a public university.
    So it really is raising a host of serious questions. I think it
    could, in fact, at a minimum cause programmatic curtailments. I
    think it raises the issues that we talk about under Title IX:
    how do you achieve the Title IX, a very important balance to
    achieve, as a matter of policy and as a matter of law.
        It is simply the wrong way to go to address these very
    important issues. The number of questions that are raised are
    so myriad they are just remarkably wide-ranging. And I don't
    think there is a real answer for most of these questions. The
    Fair Labor Standards Act is yet another. The antitrust laws
    themselves that were emphasized earlier. So it is bringing us
    into a sea of complete uncertainty.
        Mr. Roe. I agree, and in the--excuse me, go ahead--
        Mr. Livingston. If I might add, the issue that Mr. Schwarz
    talked about in terms of the protection for entire leagues,
    where they all belong under one collective bargaining
    agreement, is absolutely correct for professional sports. That
    does not exist in college sports. The NLRB only would govern 17
    out of the approximately 120 schools that play football. And so
    you end up with a potential arms race for those that can afford
    it, and others--as Judge Starr says--may decide to make a
    decision to get rid of it. Sports are competitive, and so the
    teams that want to win are going to, you know, pay their way up
    to win.
        Mr. Roe. I think if Northwestern unionizes they are going
    to play 12 homecoming games is what I think they are going to
    do. In the event that the student athlete unionizes and parties
    can't agree on the terms and conditions of employment, is it
    possible the student athletes will strike?
        Judge Starr. That is a traditional tool in collective
    bargaining. And that itself raises not only just the idea,
    seems to be unthinkable that the football team goes on strike.
    Well, then what about the non-scholarship athletes? So, again,
    that is the incoherence of the collective bargaining agreement.
    But does that mean they also walk out on class? If they are
    employees, then what is their relationship to the academic
    enterprise?
        Mr. Roe. I think, Mr. Eilers, I am going to you the final
    comment. I think you said it. When I was in college, the
    students were true student athletes. Our quarterback had a 4.0
    as a physics/math major. And there are many people that use
    athletics to do what you have done to enhance their--if you
    play--you were obviously an incredible athlete because you
    played professional football. Well, you are if you got in the
    professional leagues.
        But I think your comments were absolutely spot on, and that
    is the way we should look at it as a student athlete. And you
    pointed out that some students play in the band, some, and they
    practice for hours. Some go to ROTC. They work very hard. And
    drama and other things. And so I will give you the final say on
    this.
        Chairman Kline. Actually, the gentleman's time has expired.
        [Laughter.]
        Brilliant timing.
        Mr. Courtney?
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, you know,
    listening to the testimony, most people, I think, would agree
    that what happened at Northwestern was because the NCAA has
    created a vacuum in terms of students being treated fairly. And
    if you look at the mission statement of the College Athletes
    Players Association, one of the mission statement items is to
    provide better due process in sanction actions. Again, I
    represent the University of Connecticut. We had a pretty
    exciting spring.
        Shabazz Napier made two incredible, I think, courageous
    comments during the course of the lead-up to the tournament.
    Number one, describing in a way that might be embarrassing to
    some that sometimes he went to bed hungry at night. And that is
    because of the nickel-and-dime, Mickey Mouse NCAA rules in
    terms of defining what universities could provide to students.
    I mean, it was kind of almost comical to see Mr. Emmert rush to
    announce a new rule on April 15 that now has changed and
    reformed that, of course, not because of what Mr. Napier said.
        But, you know, for a lot of us, you know, it seems, at
    times, that the only thing that changes the NCAA is external
    pressure. And frankly, that is what I think this event at
    Northwestern has kind of produced. We wouldn't be having this
    hearing to talk about the plight of students but for the
    actions of those students. But frankly, there are other times
    when these sanctions--process is far more pernicious than
    maybe, you know, missing a--a midnight snack. You know, we look
    at what Mr. Napier said about the fact that this is what
    happens when you ban us; the due process, and I use that term
    loosely, that the NCAA engages in, unfortunately, far too many
    times shoots the bystander in an effort to try and comport with
    some measure of student athletes.
        That school was banned because of a cohort of students who
    had poor academic performance. And there is--no one is going to
    dispute that. In 2007, not one player on that team was around
    at the university when those scores triggered an APR finding
    that--with a four-year look-back period. And yet they found
    themselves in a situation where they were banned from post
    season play because of a rule that makes absolutely no sense.
        And by the way, other schools are doing the one-and-done,
    you know, system. Which--you know, try and explain that to the
    average person why that is okay, and yet a student like Shabazz
    Napier is punished. By the--he is going to graduate in a couple
    weeks. He is getting his full degree. He is getting punished
    for something that somebody he never even knew who was at
    stores seven years earlier in terms of their performance. And
    that is where, again, I just am very skeptical, frankly, of the
    protections for students who get swept up in this bizarre,
    Byzantine system of trying to comport with some definition of
    student athletes.
        And with all due respect to the witnesses here, I don't
    think the colleges and universities--because they have their
    own pressures in terms of not rocking the boat with the NCAA to
    really step up and provide real, honest to God advocacy for
    students who are getting swept up. Perry Jones III was
    disqualified at Baylor because his mother took three small
    loans when he was a high school sophomore, before he even went
    to Baylor. And yet he was punished later on in his college
    career because his mother was in a desperate financial
    situation, took a short-term loan from an AAU coach.
        I am sure--you know, no one wants to, you know, vouch for
    that. But nonetheless, why would he get punished for that
    except for the NCAA's desperate attempt to try and somehow
    comport with the definition of student athletes.
        So, Mr. Schwarz, I guess--you know, when we talk about
    treating people with dignity--because that is, to me what is
    really so offensive about the way--you know, the NCAA violated
    patient rights in that Miami investigation. I mean, the power
    that they can exert, again, tramples on people's ability to
    even just have basic due process rights when these sanction
    hearings and investigations.
        And I was wondering if you could just sort of put your
    comments in that context.
        Mr. Schwarz. Sure. Sure, I mean, I think it is a great step
    that the NCAA has started saying that if a school wants to give
    an athlete a meal they are allowed to. Previously, the
    individual choice to feed an athlete was prohibited beyond a
    certain number of meals. And that is the level of cartel
    control we see here.
        And you are exactly right that the issue is not whether a
    benevolent organization will deign to provide the people who
    bring value with some crumbs. It is a voice, it is advocacy.
        I don't know how often James Brown is quoted in here, but
    here he is saying ``I don't want nobody to give me nothing.
    Open up the door, I will get it myself''. And that is,
    effectively, what the movement here is about. It is about
    saying give us some avenue. Let us come in. It is an NCAA
    violation to come in and ask for money right now, as an
    example. You get permanently banned.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. And I
    want to commend him, the gentleman from Connecticut, for
    getting a little bragging without actually mentioning the
    basketball word.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Desjarlais?
        Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly
    appreciate all of you being here today, bringing us your
    expertise.
        I wanted to go to Mr. Livingston first, and ask a few
    questions. Mr. Livingston, the NLRB regional director's
    decision in Northwestern applies solely to private universities
    because state universities, as state government entities, are
    excluded from NLRA coverage. That means the decision only
    applies to a portion of universities in each conference and
    division. However, state law applies to public colleges.
        What are the differences between state and federal laws
    regarding collective bargaining and do mandatory subjects of
    bargaining differ?
        Mr. Livingston. There are a variety of differences and the
    states actually vary widely. The NLRA, as you know, covers
    organizing rules, bargaining unit determinations, subjects of
    bargaining, and the right to engage in economic action. All
    those differ under various state laws. For example, some
    prohibit public sector bargaining entirely. Others permit
    public sector bargaining on very limited terms. Others don't
    have the right to engage in economic action. Others, for
    example, would have interest arbitration. So you would have
    different subjects being negotiated by different groups in
    different collective bargaining agreements.
        It ultimately would end up with individual bargaining and
    an un-level playing field. Different terms in different
    contracts. Then when those teams compete, unlike in
    professional sports you have got something that I simply don't
    think is workable.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay, yes. And I think that is an important
    point. That if the scholarship athletes do organize the union,
    universities will bargain over terms and conditions of
    employment. And the parties are compelled to bargain over
    mandatory subjects of bargaining. What terms and conditions of
    employment are mandatory subjects of bargaining?
        Mr. Livingston. I appreciate the comments that we have
    heard from everyone today about the need for college athletics
    to improve. You know, improve the lot of the student athlete.
    But whether it is the College Athletes Players Association or
    any other union--and, of course, any other union has the right
    to go ahead and organize--under the National Labor Relations
    Act they could bargain about a wide variety of things. The
    statute is wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
    employment. That is so broad that it would cover compensation,
    signing bonuses, retention bonuses, hours of work--so in terms
    of schedules, potentially even class attendance.
        While CAPA's goals may be limited right now, if they are
    eventually certified as some organization based on member
    desires maybe they become greater. And, of course, any other
    union wouldn't be limited to the goals that we have heard
    today.
        Mr. DesJarlais. In the event that student athletes
    unionize, they will pay dues to the union. Where do these
    payments come from?
        Mr. Livingston. Dues are an internal union matter. So how
    they decide to do it is up to them. But under section 302 of
    the Labor Management Relations Act, it is clear that an
    employer--in this case, the university--can't pay it. An
    employer would have to bargain over check-off, for example, but
    that comes from wages. And so unless we are talking about wages
    in some form, the union would have to answer that; CAPA or any
    other union.
        Mr. DesJarlais. We touched briefly, earlier, on taxation.
    These universities and organizations are tax-exempt. If a
    student becomes an employer are they then subject to taxation?
    And if so, does that affect Pell grants, ability to get student
    loans? Where do we go to--how do we go down that road?
        Mr. Livingston. Those really are beyond my area of
    expertise. But I do believe that others perhaps can answer that
    question.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Does somebody else have a comment on that?
        Judge Starr. Well, section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code
    has a very capacious definition of what is income. So if an
    individual is an employee, then very strong arguments, it is
    unsettled and, obviously, this is a new question. But it is
    going to open up serious questions about the entire range of
    services, including the scholarship itself. There are issues
    presently with respect to how a scholarship is treated. But if
    they are employees, then it is compensation and it is
    presumptively taxable.
        Mr. Livingston. And if they are employees, and you presume
    that they would have to pay taxes on it, I would presume that
    the goals any scholarship negotiations, wage negotiations would
    be to increase that amount to take into account the tax
    consequences.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay, thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Fudge?
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
    all for being here today.
        Just want to make a couple of comments about things that I
    have heard in your earlier testimony. I want to go back to
    something my colleague, Mr. Courtney, said. I happen to have
    attended Ohio State University. I knew a lot of the football
    players when I was in school. This issue was a problem then, it
    is an issue today. So why has it not been taken care of in more
    than 30 years? There is no reason for it. And but for the
    courageous actions of these young men, we wouldn't be talking
    about it today. So I want to put that on the record.
        And then, for you, Mr. Livingston, you talked about the
    Ohio statehouse, who has determined that our athletes are not
    employees. Just because they said it doesn't make it so. These
    are the same people that want to restrict voting rights. So
    just because they said that doesn't make it so.
        As well, we do know that student athletes, that scholarship
    athletes, are treated differently than those not on
    scholarship. We know it, and we just need to admit it and not
    even pretend that there is some difference. The restrictions
    they have and the time commitment is much different than
    students who are non-scholarship students.
        First question, I would really like to ask Mr. Schwarz. In
    your written testimony, you mentioned the level of profit the
    NAAC--I mean, the NCAA is making off its student athletes. Do
    you know if any of that profit is dedicated in any way to
    providing health benefits to those students?
        Mr. Schwarz. Some of it is. I mean, most on-field injuries,
    the immediate cost of that injury is covered. It is not
    required, but it is covered. Long-term injuries that linger
    typically are less likely to be covered. So it is not always
    the case.
        Could I just add one quick thing, real fast?
        Ms. Fudge. Very quickly.
        Mr. Schwarz. You mention that since you were in college
    there has been a problem about the cost of attendance stipends.
    The reason that there aren't cost of attendance stipends is
    because the NCAA voted them away in 1973. They have been
    claiming that they have been talking about bringing them back
    now since 1973. In 1986, something was tried, they didn't pass
    it. In 2006, something was tried, they didn't pass it. Now they
    are telling you, oh, it is coming real soon. There has been a
    long history of its coming real soon.
        Ms. Fudge. Well, thank you. You know, I mean, the NCAA also
    doesn't want these young people to be able to make a living,
    the little bit that they can, as well. I mean, I was around
    when the whole scandal at Ohio State happened about some kids
    selling their own shirts. The university sells their shirts
    every day, but the shirts that they take off their back they
    can't sell. I won't go to that one.
        But I would like to ask Mr. Starr and Mr. Muir, what do
    your football and basketball coaches make annually?
        Judge Starr. I don't have the number off the top of my
    head. It is substantial, it is a free market. And so we want to
    keep our coaches. We have had stability, so I--
        Ms. Fudge. But you--
        Judge Starr.--I can get those for you.
        Ms. Fudge. Would you please?
        Mr. Muir?
        Mr. Muir. I am not at liberty to share the numbers.
        Ms. Fudge. Is it a secret?
        Mr. Muir. No, it is just something that we don't share at
    Stanford.
        Ms. Fudge. Okay.
        Mr. Muir. But at the same token--
        Ms. Fudge. Okay, thank you. That is just the only thing I
    wanted to ask you.
        Yes, sir?
        Mr. Schwarz. I know the answer for Baylor. Coach Art Briles
    makes--made, in 2011, $2.4 million; Scott Drew made $2.1
    million. And the women's basketball coach made $1.3 million. At
    Stanford, the number isn't published. But in the one year that
    Jim Harbaugh's salary rose above the Stanford surgeons, who are
    the top five employees, he made a little over $1 million.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Starr, you mentioned earlier that obviously the goal of
    attending a college or university is to obtain a degree. I am
    assuming we agree on that point.
        Judge Starr. Yes, we do.
        Ms. Fudge. Okay, but do you also realize that for Division
    1 football athletes, the admins basketball players, their
    graduation rates across the board hover around 50 percent?
        Judge Starr. At Baylor it is higher. At Baylor it is 62
    percent for our men's basketball team. But I could not agree
    more, Ms. Fudge. We need to create--especially in men's
    basketball, but to a considerable degree in football, as well--
    this culture of student athlete. And it begins with the
    coaches, it begins with the head coach. But the entire
    infrastructure has to be oriented toward that. At the same
    time, these are young men and young women who are making their
    own choices. They decide what is important for them. All we can
    do is create a culture of encouragement and of genuine support.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much. I see my time is going.
        I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, thank you all.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
        Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much. I will be brief. Anyone
    can answer this question. Do athletic scholarships give
    potential academic opportunities to students who otherwise
    would not have them available to them because of--shearly based
    on their ability to play a sport?
        Mr. Muir?
        Mr. Muir. Yes, I would say that the opportunity to attend
    an institution like Stanford, to be afforded the opportunity to
    both compete at the highest level as well as get a quality
    education, we had less than five percent be admitted this past
    year; 40,000 applications. And so when our coaches present
    young people with an opportunity to come and compete at
    Stanford it is a wonderful experience. And I think our kids, as
    soon as they get in the door, understand and cherish that
    opportunity. And as I said, with the high graduation rate they
    understand that they are part of the fabric of the place.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you.
        Judge Starr. There is a very significant opportunity for
    first-generation college attendees. So it is a door opener, it
    has been historically. I believe the NCAA has said that
    approximately 15 percent of student athletes who receive
    scholarships are first-generation; no one has attended college
    in their family. So it is a great part of the American story.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. I will just have a brief comment,
    then. I think we all here today--people testifying and members
    on both sides--know that there are substantial issues we are
    discussing today. And I am hopeful this discussion will
    continue and make things better for, and improvements to, our
    college athletic system. So that young people across the
    country can continue to compete. But also, as many of you have
    outlined, more importantly have access to an educational
    experience that helps them in their future careers and down the
    line.
        So with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Bonamici?
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is a
    very interesting hearing, and I appreciate your expertise, all
    of the witnesses who are here today.
        Mr. Eilers, did I say your name correctly?
        Mr. Eilers. You did.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thanks. Mr. Eilers, you talked about how the
    debate should be about what is the best way to address the
    goal. And I really appreciate that. I know that some of my
    colleagues have mentioned the importance of addressing the
    goals that the college athletes have set out.
        I was reading an editorial that came out after the regional
    director's opinion that said that the college sports
    establishment has brought this trouble on itself by not moving
    to address players' legitimate grievances. Obviously, the
    regional director found some differences between what
    Northwestern is doing and what you have described in your
    experience and, of course, Mr. Muir and Judge Starr.
        I wanted to ask just a quick question. I know, Mr. Eilers,
    you said you went--you have an MBA from Kellogg school, a great
    program. But you are not here representing Northwestern.
        Mr. Livingston, do you happen to represent Northwestern?
        Mr. Livingston. I do not.
        Ms. Bonamici. I was just curious about that because--
        Mr. Livingston. I am here on my own behalf.
        Ms. Bonamici. I was just curious about that because, you
    know, we have heard different experiences here and different
    facts about your colleges, like Mr. Muir, what Stanford is
    doing. But what we are talking about is a decision that is
    specific to Northwestern. And I--one of the things that the
    regional director found was that the scholarship players are
    identified and recruited in the first instance because of their
    football prowess and not because of their academic achievement
    in high school. Is that similar, Mr. Muir, you are shaking your
    head no. Is that different from your experience at Stanford?
        Mr. Muir. That is definitely different. When I think about
    what our coaches are doing in identifying young people to
    potentially come to Stanford, as I said earlier the first
    process that they have to hurdle, they have to go through, is
    making sure that they can pass admissions and make sure that
    they can enter school just like the general student. So we are
    weeding out individuals. Because if they don't have the
    academic record, doesn't matter what their athletic
    accomplishments are. If they are not able to--in order to meet
    the needs of ensuring that they get an education that is not
    going to happen.
        Ms. Bonamici. And I was trying to figure out from reading
    part of the regional director's opinion, what happens if a
    class that--a player, a scholarship player, wants to take,
    because of his major--or I should say his or her major because
    maybe this could be expanded to women's sports, as well--what
    happens if that class conflicts with practice? What does the
    college do?
        Mr. Muir. So when I attend a practice, when I see our
    student athletes practicing, getting ready for a competition,
    there is many a time where I will see our football student
    athletes specifically walk off the field because they are
    attending a lab, they are attending a class and that comes
    first. And--
        Ms. Bonamici. And they are not penalized for that, or--
        Mr. Muir. They are not. Those--
        Ms. Bonamici. They are permitted to do that?
        Mr. Muir. No, those are the same kids who are--who will
    play on Saturdays, as well, too. So--
        Ms. Bonamici. Was that your experience, too, Mr. Eilers?
        Mr. Eilers. Yes, it was. And there--you know, there are
    sacrifices it made. So I took organic chemistry one summer,
    right, between my sophomore and my junior year because of that
    fact and trying to take the labs. I would only submit one
    additional item, which is I think what Stanford has done is
    incredible in football, and what they do on the academic front,
    accomplishing both. There was a brief moment in time, before we
    ran into an unfortunate game against Alabama in the national
    championship, I was most proud of Notre Dame having the highest
    graduation rate for the football players, as well as briefly
    being ranked number one in the country. So you can do both.
        Ms. Bonamici. Well, that is interesting. Because the
    regional director, I believe, found that Northwestern has a 97
    percent graduation rate for its players, which seems to be
    pretty high.
        I wanted to ask also about what happens during the
    recruitment process? Because I mentioned what the finding was
    about Northwestern that they were recruited because of their
    football prowess. But what happens during that recruitment
    process? How are the prospective athletes actually made aware
    of all of the opportunities that are available to them?
        How do they decide what they are considering during that
    consideration process? Who informs them about, you know,
    whether they will lose their scholarship if they don't stay on
    the team? Mr. Muir, and maybe, Judge Starr, you could respond
    to that, as well.
        Judge Starr. First of all, in terms of the recruitment
    process I have personally seen what that process looks like.
    And it includes a very thorough introduction to here is the
    academic support. They will meet people from the academic
    support staff. They will see--and we try, of course, to
    determine is there a diagnostic testing issue. That is done by
    the university. But those tried in terms of any learning
    disability. So there is a very holistic introduction to the
    university as a whole, including the academic side. And
    usually, the parents or parent, or loved one is there with the
    prospective student athlete.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And my time has expired. I yield
    back.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Rokita?
        Mr. Rokita. I thank the chairman. I thank the gentlemen for
    your testimony today.
        You know, I think from what I heard Judge Starr kind of, as
    he would being a former judge, kind of really clarified the
    issue. And that is, are we going to use the NLRA as a vehicle
    for the improvements that you have all talked about today. I
    suspect--no, I can't imagine--the authors of the law or the
    intent of Congress was to cover this situation. But let's poke
    around with it. Let's explore a little bit.
        Mr. Livingston, if the students were to strike or if the
    athletics department or university were to lock the players
    out, like you would have at a steel mill let's say, during the
    collective bargaining process, would the students be able to
    attend class?
        Mr. Livingston. That is an unanswered question. The only
    experience we really have is, in professional sports where it
    is the entire league that typically goes on strike or is locked
    out--
        Mr. Rokita. That is in professional sports.
        Mr. Livingston. But in college, because we don't have it,
    we don't know what would happen. And so, for example--
        Mr. Rokita. Because in college you have classes, right, and
    teachers and whatnot?
        Mr. Livingston. Yes. Would they be entitled to stay in
    their dorms? Would they have to vacate those? Would they have
    to leave class, or start paying for it.
        Mr. Rokita. Thank you.
        Mr. Livingston. Those are unanswered questions.
        Mr. Rokita. Right. Yes, certainly not answered by the law
    or the regulations, or anything else.
        Mr. Muir, Northwestern is in the Big-10 conference, as you
    know, along with two schools in Indiana, one being Purdue, in
    my district. Let's say that Northwestern students, student
    athletes, were to unionize and proceed to either strike or be
    locked out. How would that affect the rest of the conference?
    Using your knowledge and experience.
        Mr. Muir. You know, not being at Northwestern I don't know
    if it is appropriate for me to jump on that. But I--
        Mr. Rokita. No. I just say using your experience and
    knowledge, what do you think would happen? How do you feel?
        Mr. Muir. I think it would be difficult to continue to
    schedule and continue to have competition.
        Mr. Rokita. If Stanford were in a similar situation, what
    would be the effects?
        Mr. Muir. I think if that was the case, we were going down
    the path, Stanford might not opt to continue to compete at the
    level that we are currently competing at.
        Mr. Rokita. Right, kind of to Dr. Roe's point, or comment
    that he made earlier.
        My district also has St. Joseph's College, which I am proud
    to be a board member of. It is a Division 2 school, which if I
    understand right you can share scholarships at that level
    between students, and there are limited funds. Again,
    experience--looking into your crystal ball--what would be the
    effect of Division 2 students with regard to this?
        Mr. Muir. If this--again, I am not a legal expert. But if
    this were--the students at Division 2 wanted to unionize as
    well, too, I think that would dramatically affect whether
    institutions can continue to offer--have these offerings.
        Mr. Rokita. Yes.
        Mr. Muir. Which is part of the fabric of higher education,
    I think, intercollegiate athletics. And so that would be a
    shame if that all of a sudden changed.
        Mr. Rokita. Yes, I--these questions, and your answers,
    continue to bring clarity to me that I don't think this law was
    even intended for this kind of situation.
        Mr. Livingston?
        Mr. Livingston. May I add something? That we are talking
    about scholarships as though there is a finite limit. Under the
    National Labor Relations Act, the union would be able to
    bargain about the number and, of course, the value. So half-
    scholarships versus full scholarships, it is all a subject of
    bargaining under the NLRA.
        Mr. Rokita. Understood. Thank you.
        Judge Starr, coming to you. You know, we often talk about,
    on this committee and in businesses across the nation and in
    union halls, about the cost of unionization, the cost of
    bargaining, the cost of dues, et cetera. Whether or not a union
    member should have to pay dues voluntarily or not have a choice
    in that. What do you think, in your experience, would be the
    cost of unionization for the employer and the employees? Can
    you estimate employer and employee cost if student athletes
    unionized at Baylor, for example?
        Judge Starr. I have not--we have not punched through the
    numbers enough to even come up with a reasonable estimate. What
    we do know is that the whole idea of collective bargaining is,
    in fact, to increase the whole reservoir of duly agreed upon
    commitments by the employer. So I think part of the question
    is, what can we do outside the collective bargaining--which has
    never been contemplated before--that, in fact, improves student
    welfare. That is the ultimate policy question, it seems to me,
    that you have rightly focused on. And the unionization process
    is just raising a whole host of questions that we can't answer
    today.
        But what we do know, the costs will, in fact, go up.
    Including issues, then, with respect to how is that student
    going to be treated as an employee in terms of taxation,
    Medicare and the like.
        Mr. Rokita. Thank you. And that is a segue into my last
    question. And it is for you, Judge Starr. Considering that the
    world is a jury, watching today people might get the impression
    that the acknowledgment that improvements need to be made is an
    acknowledgment that someone was caught or that this just
    started as a reaction to this recent decision. Can you give us
    evidence otherwise, via your testimony?
        Judge Starr. Yes.
        Chairman Kline. I am sorry. I am sorry, Judge. The
    gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Rokita. Can the gentleman respond?
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Scott?
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schwarz, in many
    cases the scholarship requires you to play, in most cases?
        Mr. Schwarz. My understanding is, until 2011 the NCAA
    mandated that the scholarship could only be for one year,
    whether schools wanted to give one or not. If you stopped
    playing during the course of that year you were allowed to
    continue for that year, after which the scholarship would not
    be renewed. The current deal--
        Mr. Scott. Yes, some colleges, you get a scholarship and
    you can continue with the scholarship whether you play or not.
    Isn't that right? If you have a needs-based scholarship?
        Mr. Schwarz. If you choose not to play football, the
    schools have the option per the agreement to terminate the aid,
    even on a four-year deal, at the end of that year.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. Now, you have indicated the number of
    hours that had to be committed. Is an athlete required to
    comply with that schedule?
        Mr. Schwarz. You know, in the NLRB hearing the facts that
    came out that weren't controverted--and, in effect, I heard
    Mark Emmert say similar things--it is a 40-, 50-, 60-hour a
    week job during the season, and about half that off-season.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. Now, can a student ever be--before the
    ruling, could a student ever be an employee of the college,
    like if they worked at the library or something like that?
        Mr. Schwarz. I mean, students are employees at universities
    all the time. At the Stanford Daily, the editor in chief, I
    think, makes about $45,000. Football players--
        Mr. Scott. Now, in that case, is the student's--is the
    status of a student, does that affect his status as an
    employee?
        Mr. Schwarz. No. Students, employees are mutually exclusive
    concepts--
        Mr. Scott. And the part-time job could be an essential part
    of the financial aid package. You get a certain amount of
    scholarship, you get a certain loan and we will make sure you
    get a part-time job at the library. That could be an essential
    part of--
        Mr. Schwarz. That is right. My roommate in college did just
    that.
        Mr. Scott. And it is unlikely that if you quit your job at
    the library you would lose the rest of your scholarship. That
    would be a little unheard of, wouldn't it?
        Mr. Schwarz. I think that is right. You know, there are
    lots of ways that students outside of sports can be
    compensated. At Stanford, there was a class that required
    students to sell an app on Facebook. And to commercialize it
    was part of the requirements of the class, and they got credit
    for doing that rather than being--you know, losing--
        Mr. Scott. Okay. Now, is it possible that some student
    athletes would qualify as employees under this ruling, and
    others not qualify?
        Mr. Schwarz. My understanding is, the ruling applies only
    to FBS football athletes who receive a scholarship.
        Mr. Scott. Now, what would the difference be for those who
    would--I mean, if you have a scholarship and just put a couple
    hours a week in swimming or wrestling or some other sport that
    doesn't have the time commitment, is it possible that you would
    be a student athlete and not an employee?
        Mr. Schwarz. Well, I object to the term ``student athlete''
    because it is a term of our design--designed to basically dodge
    legal agreements. But if you say ``college athlete,'' I think
    college athletes are college athletes if they go to college and
    they play sports.
        Mr. Scott. Well. And it is possible that some would qualify
    as employees and some would not.
        Mr. Schwarz. I think that is right.
        Mr. Scott. And if a college wanted to avoid the union
    problem, they could treat them like college students and not
    like employees. Is that right?
        Mr. Schwarz. I am not sure if I am fully understanding,
    but--
        Mr. Scott. Well, if you are--if you have got a scholarship
    for the chess club or something, or band, and are not required
    to put in these kind of hours, you would be a--I think--a
    college athlete.
        Mr. Schwarz. That is right. And actually, the reverse is
    true. Right now, the chess team has more rights than college
    athletes because the chess team could say I want a college
    scholarship that covers more than just the athletic
    scholarship. They have the right in the market to bargain, but
    football athletes don't.
        Mr. Scott. But it is possible, under this ruling, that some
    would qualify as employees and others would not.
        Mr. Schwarz. I think that is correct.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Eilers, you indicated issues of the right to
    scholarship, medical treatment, the right to minimize brain
    trauma and other situations like that. A union could actually--
    could engage these issues. If it is not the union, who would be
    in a position, in a bargaining position, to engage these issues
    and have the resources actually to do the research and make a
    presentation on behalf of the athletes?
        Mr. Eilers. Yes. Mr. Scott, as I said in my testimony, I
    don't have a solution. To me, it should be the NCAA and the
    member institutions. And it is clear--and I think, some, just
    to clarify what I think are some misconceptions--schools
    operate differently. At Notre Dame, there is a specific
    instance of a scholarship athlete, played football, decided
    after his sophomore year not to play football anymore. We
    honored his scholarship, he graduated with a degree, in four
    years, from the University of Notre Dame.
        There may be other schools that operate differently. And
    our walk-ons were treated just like the scholarship athletes.
    Maybe at the University of Ohio--at Ohio State they weren't. So
    there needs to be an elevation across all, I think, collegiate
    sports to make sure that we are delivering for the student.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mrs. Brooks?
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. And thank you all for your
    testimony today. It is so very important. I am the daughter of
    a high school football coach, and the mother of a D1 soccer
    graduate from Javier University who suffered a serious
    concussion in high school in the last game of her high school
    career. And after wonderful medical treatment and proper
    healing, she went on to play four years of D1 soccer.
        Now, many parents, and people who are helping these
    athletes get scholarships--which they all work so very hard in
    their lives to achieve those scholarships--parents advocate for
    these young people, the students advocate. The student athlete
    advisory committee of the NCAA advocates. I would assume the
    president of the universities and the representatives of each
    of the conferences that represent the NCAA on their board are
    advocates for these athletes.
        And I would submit that there are many avenues to rectify
    the problems. And there are continued problems for college
    athletes. But these athletes make these choices as to which
    schools to attend.
        One thing we haven't talked about enough is the role of the
    coaches in all of this process. And the coaches, who are
    employees of the university who report to the athletic
    directors who report to the college presidents who report to
    the board of trustees, what mechanisms are there in your
    universities for the students to voice their concerns with the
    coaches and the coaches to voice their concerns to the
    administration?
        I will start with you, Judge Starr.
        Judge Starr. Yes, we do have at Baylor, and it is
    frequently the case at most institutions, that there is a
    student athletic council. So these are student athletes
    themselves who come together. They are elected by their fellow
    student athletes. And so they have direct access, not simply to
    their coaches but to the athletic director. They can also
    communicate with someone who we haven't talked about this
    morning. That is the faculty athletic representative, who is
    to, in fact, bring an academic perspective to bear in terms of
    the entire athletic program, including reviewing specific
    cases.
        So there are--you are absolutely right. There are numerous
    avenues for voices to be heard. The NCAA--the final thing I
    would say is, the NCAA itself, however, believes that in its
    governance historically it has not done well in terms of
    assuring the student athlete voice. And so there are reforms
    underway that I think will be adopted that will, in fact,
    better ensure that student athletes are there in the inner
    councils of the NCAA.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
        Mr. Muir?
        Mr. Muir. Yes, we have a number of opportunities to hear
    from our student athletes and from our coaches. The student
    athlete council at Stanford, the cardinal council I just met
    with at my home two weeks ago. And it is a chance for me to
    check in and hear various user concerns and how are we doing.
    And it is really important.
        Also, we survey all of our student athletes after every
    season and we provide feedback. They can do it anonymously, and
    we get information on just how their experience is going. Also,
    the coaches have an open door policy. We look for that when we
    select our coaches, and the proper leadership.
        We think we have one of the largest leadership development
    programs on our campus. And so that is another opportunity for
    student athletes to engage. We have administrators, we have
    counselors, we have tutors, all on a united front to make sure
    that their experience is the best it possibly can be, and an
    avenue for our student athletes to engage.
        Mrs. Brooks. Is it fair to say that your coaches, in part,
    are judged, and their successes judged in part, on the
    graduation rates of their athletes?
        Mr. Muir. Yes, we look at number of things. And we are
    obviously looking at the graduation rates and what they are
    doing in the classroom. And what they are doing to make sure
    that they are solid citizens and a part of the university
    fabric, which is what we have talked about earlier.
        Mrs. Brooks. And I know there is always a tension when
    student athletes have to leave and may miss classes or test or
    labs and so forth. But as Judge Starr indicated, there are
    faculty representatives. And there has to be that relationship
    with the faculty and the athletic department does there not, in
    order to ensure that those students take the tests, that they
    get the proper reinforcement. And, in addition, the study
    halls. I know my daughter, there were numerous study tables
    that were required of all student athletes in order to achieve
    certain GPAs. And those were absolute requirements that they
    must achieve a certain GPA to get out of those study halls.
        Are you familiar with that, Mr. Eilers, at Notre Dame?
        Mr. Eilers. I am. It wasn't proactive like it is today when
    I was there. If you started and you didn't perform well, you
    got sent to study hall. Today, they default to everybody starts
    in study hall. And the only thing else that I would comment,
    Mrs. Brooks, is that I am aware of institutions that aren't at
    this table but take academics and athletics seriously. And
    their coaches do have provisions in their contract that if they
    don't graduate their student athletes there are negative
    implications to their salary and to their career.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
        My time has expired.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Tierney?
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank the
    witnesses today.
        Mr. Eilers, I am impressed that, with the concern and the
    way that you sort of agree with the concerns, the goals, of
    CAPA, but you have a concern about unionization. But I want to
    point out here, these concerns have existed for decades. So I
    wish that you had an idea that you could put forward what you
    would do if you did unionize. Because it seems totally
    frustrating.
        Mr. Schwarz, let me ask you. I mean, these are not new
    problems, are they?
        Mr. Schwarz. No, not at all. As I said, the issue of cost
    of attendance stipends has been around since 1973 when, by
    collective vote, the NCAA took them away.
        Mr. Tierney. And so I agree with my colleagues, that there
    are lots of advocates out there, different people. But
    apparently it hasn't been very effective, right? I mean, how is
    that going for you? They have been advocating all this time,
    and the problem still exists.
        Mr. Schwarz. Well, it is a one-sided discussion.
        Mr. Tierney. On that. So there was also a comment made that
    the student--the college athlete has choices. What would you
    say to that?
        Mr. Schwarz. You know, I am advocating for a much more free
    market opportunity. I think choice would be great.
    Congresswoman Brooks mentioned that schools--students have
    choice. But what they don't have a choice about is the full
    package that they receive. Because the schools fix the price of
    what they offer. Everyone offers the same thing, so it limits
    choice.
        Mr. Tierney. So, the NCAA, you know, seems to have about
    $3.2 billion in revenues. They can make all kinds of decisions
    to make sure that number goes up, but they can't address even
    five really basic issues except to say that it is coming soon--
        Mr. Schwarz. Yes, if I could just--could I add just one
    thing? The idea that this is a money-losing industry, you know,
    is incredible. If you look at a money-losing industry, you
    wouldn't see rising pay for employees, you wouldn't see firms
    flocking to enter the industry. Nineteen new schools have
    entered FBS since 1996. None have left. You wouldn't see
    bonuses that are like 10-to-one for sports results instead of
    academic results. The money is in the system. It is just that
    it is being denied to the primary generators.
        Mr. Tierney. Well, you made another point when we talked
    about ability. You said that money is being funneled to
    football coaches instead of to the male athlete, and cited some
    coaches get paid $7 million on that. And when the money is
    going to coaches in lieu of increased financial aid to the male
    athletes, it sort of effectively puts a cap on that, and then
    deprives female athletes of Title IX matching funds.
        Mr. Schwarz. See, that--thanks right. Title IX doesn't
    apply to coaching pay. That is why male coaches can make so
    much more than female coaches. It applies to financial aid
    provided to students. And so if that aid is capped, which it is
    now--and even the NCAA says they wish it were higher--a lifting
    of that cap on male athletes would result in effectively
    matching funds to female athletes. So the cap on men also
    results in a cap on women.
        Mr. Tierney. Mr. Starr, I want to just go to some part of
    your testimony. I am going to quote it, if you allow me.
    ``Under current principles of Title IX, the amount of financial
    aid awards for student athletes must be in the same proportion
    as the intercollegiate sports participation rate of male and
    females.''
        Judge Starr. Yes.
        Mr. Tierney. But when I look at the data from the
    Department of Education Web site, it shows that Baylor spends
    56 cents on male scholarships out of every dollar, but only 44
    cents on women's scholarships. But the participation rate
    suggests that under Title IX they should be giving something
    like 42 cents to men and 58 cents to women. The Department of
    Education tells us that there is a disparity of just one
    percentage point. You got some serious explaining to do.
        I want to give you the opportunity to sort of explain to us
    the disparity between the scholarship dollars that go to men
    versus women at Baylor, and the participation rates of men and
    women.
        Judge Starr. Well, that is a very dynamic and fluid
    process. So it may change from year to year. But if there is,
    in fact, a disparity--and I accept what you have said, it has
    to be addressed. So we have to come forward with explanations
    as to why there may be a temporary disparity. We recently
    created two new women's sports, with scholarships, in order to
    address the disparity. So we have, for example, created
    equestrian, with a number of scholarships for women. We have
    created acrobatics and tumbling.
        Mr. Tierney. Are you saying you believe this is a temporary
    issue? You are saying this isn't a year-to-year thing? Are you
    saying that with some knowledge of the fact, or are you just
    guessing that is the case?
        Judge Starr. Well, I don't know the specifics of those--
    that specific disparity. So that is information to me. What I
    do know is that the academic department--the athletic
    department does have to focus on this with our Title IX
    compliance officer. We have a Title IX compliance officer who
    reviews all these kinds of issues to determine whether they
    are--
        Mr. Tierney. I am just disturbed that, you know, the NCAA's
    answer to all of these issues, which most people agree ought to
    be addressed, is wait for the next decade or two and we might
    get around to it. And even on the Title IX questions, is yeah,
    we are working on it. I think we all ought to be concerned on
    that.
        And Mr. Eilers, sure, what--
        Mr. Eilers. Could I just share a comment? I agree with
    your--and I have the same frustration. That is that is why I am
    here today.
        Mr. Tierney. Yes, I--
        Mr. Eilers. I would like to see this implemented. And the
    one thing that I didn't want to throw on the table, when we
    were--when I was a student athlete at Notre Dame, we are trying
    to prepare to play. We used to open up against Michigan, trying
    to prepare for class. I just couldn't conceive, when this came
    up, of trying to think about threatening to strike or getting
    to the Friday night or Saturday morning of the football game
    and not leaving the locker room because demands weren't being
    met. I don't think the student athlete needs that incremental
    burden, but we have got to get there on these issues--
        Mr. Tierney. So apparently, they needed to take some
    drastic action just to get the conversation started here with
    some sincerity. So--
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time--
        Mr. Tierney. It is a good idea, I think we ought to at
    least acknowledge that.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Walberg?
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the
    panel for being here.
        I didn't participate in a revenue sport. I was in an
    Olympic sport, but wrestling in high school and college,
    university, for the time that I did that was probably the best
    training for life that I ever had. And I did it out of the joy
    of the sport. I made it by choice. Suffered four shoulder
    surgeries as a result of that in later years of my life, but I
    look back, and I would do it all over again.
        I appreciate also the aspect that there has to be care
    taken for our athletes. And I respect what you have said about
    your concerns, already, on that. Mr. Muir, in your testimony
    you state Stanford has taken steps to cover medical costs for
    injuries, promote player safety, and researched prevention and
    effects of concussions. Could you elaborate a little bit more
    on those steps? And are these consistent with NCAA rules?
        Mr. Muir. They are consistent with NCAA rules. We have a--
    our Stanford medical team is right now doing a concussion study
    on our football student athletes, our lacrosse student
    athletes, our soccer student athletes. What they have told me
    is this research is going to be lengthy in time. We can't today
    say, well, here is how we prevent that from happening. But
    certainly they are observing that. And they have a medical
    mouthpiece that they put in each of the student athletes that
    track where blows come from. And certainly that is going to be
    an ongoing study for us, and they are leading in that regard.
        Across the board in terms of the overall student welfare of
    our student athletes, that is something that we hold close and
    dear to us. And it is important that we try to enhance those
    things as we move forward with our student athletes competing
    at this level.
        Mr. Walberg. Do the student athletes understand this? Are
    they made aware of opportunities, considerations, programs?
        Mr. Muir. They are testing. They are the ones who are
    wearing those mouthpieces, they are the ones who are getting
    educated on the risks that are involved and, certainly, what
    the research that we are trying to do. And there is obviously
    great discussion about what does the future hold. And so that
    is something that they engage in, and I think it has been
    worthwhile to have this leadership role.
        Mr. Walberg. Well, along that line, you state that Stanford
    has taken steps to protect scholarship support for students who
    are medically disqualified from playing. What are those steps?
        Mr. Muir. So, for example, we have three incoming football
    student athletes who have been awarded scholarships. They were
    not able to finish their senior year in competition. We still
    honored those scholarships. We are looking forward to them
    contributing once they are healthy. And we have had other
    student athletes who have gotten injured during the course of
    play while at Stanford that we still honor their scholarships
    at the end of the day. First and foremost, we are here to make
    sure that they get their degree. And we will do everything in
    our power to make sure that happens, regardless of whether they
    continue to play or not.
        Mr. Walberg. What about Baylor, Mr. Starr?
        Judge Starr. It is the same policy in place. We do, in
    fact, care for our student athletes and for our football
    players. If they are, in fact, injured the scholarship
    continues. And we also believe we have the moral obligation to
    them with respect to an injury sustained in football, even post
    graduation.
        Mr. Walberg. Okay.
        Notre Dame, as far as you know, Mr. Eilers?
        Mr. Eilers. Pardon me. As far as I know, Notre Dame is
    consistent with the other testimony.
        Mr. Walberg. Okay. Mr. Muir and Mr. Eilers, I would like
    you to comment, as well. This year, it appears the NCAA will
    revisit the stipend issue. We have talked a bit about that.
    What is the major concern with the stipend issue, from your
    perspective as an athletic director at a major private
    university?
        Mr. Muir. So the major issue, I think, is that each
    institution is trying to pay up to the cost of attendance. That
    is the issue that is out there. For each institution, that cost
    of attendance for personal costs are different. And trying to
    figure out their exact number, where we can at least try to be
    equitable. The other thing that Mr. Schwarz had mentioned, as
    well, is the resources that would be necessary to provide that.
    Not all schools are able to meet that cost of attendance, and
    it is a concern for them. Or they will have to make other
    decisions and so that is a difficult one.
        And that is why we spent so many years trying to figure
    that out. I do feel, because of the discussion and the
    dialogue, that we are closer. We realize we need to enhance
    that overall experience for the student athletes, but it is
    difficult from school to school since there are so few that are
    truly making revenue that they are able to far exceed their
    expenses with revenue. It makes it hard, makes it difficult. So
    I do think we are making progress, but it is going to take a
    little more time.
        Mr. Walberg. Mr. Eilers?
        Mr. Eilers. Yes. And anecdotally, I would just tell you I
    was--my parents, I was fortunate, were able to give me out of
    pocket expense money to--when I was on scholarship at Notre
    Dame. My little brother was there, two years younger than me.
    Chris Zorich became a college All-American and I played with my
    last year at the Chicago Bears. He didn't have--he came from a
    single-parent family, went to Chicago VoTech High School. Had
    no out of pocket money. His mom couldn't afford it, you know.
        So it came down to people--his teammates, you know, his
    mentors to make sure that he could go out to dinner with us,
    you know, do laundry, et cetera off campus if need be. And I
    just think that is wrong.
        Mr. Walberg. Yes, yes. Had my first wrestling win at
    Chicago VoTech.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Mr. Byrne?
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, gentlemen. I am the former chancellor
    of post secondary education for the state of Alabama. I am
    sorry, Mr. Eilers. Don't hold that against me.
        [Laughter.]
        I am also--
        Mr. Eilers. Congratulations.
        Mr. Byrne.--a former labor lawyer who represented numerous
    clients in front of the National Labor Relations Board, dealt
    with the National Labor Relations Act on a number of occasions.
    So this issue fascinates me because I have dealt with it both
    ways. Our two-year colleges, which is what the post secondary
    education department in Alabama deals with, does have athletic
    programs. In fact, we had a golfer at Faulkner State Community
    College that is in my district, named Bubba Watson. Bubba went
    on to the University of Georgia, but he started at an Alabama
    two-year college. And we are very proud of him.
        But we are also proud of all of those student athletes. And
    the vast majority of them will never do what Bubba does, but we
    hope that they come to us and get a good education. Now, Mr.
    Muir, Judge Starr, you know when we are dealing with students
    in that environment they bring their life issues with them.
    They may be students, they may be athletes, but they are also
    young people and they have life issues. And we have coaches and
    counselors that deal with them on stuff that happens on the
    field and stuff that happens off the field. You can't take them
    apart. They just come together like that.
        And I guess what bothers me about this whole issue--and I
    want to share the concerns I have heard about the NCAA, by the
    way. I see that as a separate issue, frankly, and I think we
    are trying to use the wrong tool to get at some of those NCAA
    issues. What concerns me is, is that if students organize, and
    we have to deal with a union representative instead of the
    student, what does that do to the obligation, the
    responsibility--I know you all feel it from your institutions--
    to deal with these student athletes with their life issues and
    the stuff that is not directly involved with whatever they are
    doing on the field. What does that do to that?
        Judge Starr. I think it would be very disruptive. You are
    absolutely right, Congressman, that the relationship is a very
    individual relationship. And it is not just the coach and the
    coaching staff. It is that entire battery of support services,
    it is that tutor. But it is also the faculty member, it is also
    the representative to the student athletic council. At Baylor
    we have a very vibrant chaplaincy program. So there is the
    spiritual dimension, as well. So trying to channel everything
    into, at the age of 18 to 22, a set of labor law issues of
    wages and terms and conditions and so forth, seems to be very
    artificial and arbitrary and not serving the ultimate interests
    of the individual student athlete.
        Mr. Byrne. Mr. Muir, do you have a vantage point on that?
        Mr. Muir. Yes, I do. I just think about the relationships
    that we build with young people. And it starts, obviously,
    prior to coming to college. We start early now. It is becoming
    sophomore year, junior year of high school; obviously, when
    they get to be seniors. And that carries through. Not only the
    four years or five years that they are on campus, but we want
    them to have a relationship with us, actually, once they
    graduate and have the degree. That relationship is so important
    to us.
        And yes, we do have students who have other issues that
    are--that need to be dealt with, and how do they cope and
    manage. But that is--they feel open and for the most of--the
    majority of them, that they are able to come to someone here in
    the university setting--whether it be a faculty member or a
    coach, an administrator. And that is the beauty of the college
    environment. And I think that is really important for us to
    keep in mind as we move forward.
        And certainly there are, as we noted, there are many issues
    that need to be addressed. And I think we are going to work our
    way to getting those done. It is always evolving.
        Mr. Byrne. Well, I would ask this question to legal counsel
    here. I mean, you heard the vantage point of people who are
    dealing with these student athletes on things that go far
    beyond what happens in their actual athletic work, if you want
    to call it work, in this environment. Is the NLRA the right
    tool to deal the issues that people seem to have with the NCAA?
    Sir, let me just say this. NCAA doesn't have anything to do
    with two-year colleges. So some of--we start creating a bigger
    definition of employee, it is going to affect a whole lot of
    people, not just people who are governed by the NCAA.
        So is the NLRA the right tool to do this?
        Mr. Livingston. Well, Mr. Byrne, that is a great question,
    and one of the reasons why I don't think it applies. Under the
    NLRA, all employees have certain rights. And the policies that
    Judge Starr and others have talked about, based on recent NLRB
    decisions they would clearly violate them. A coach is--requires
    his players to be a Facebook friend. The schools monitor
    Facebook postings. They prohibit media interviews.
        Recent board cases have made it clear that violates the
    rights of any employee, whether they are in a union or not. And
    so at all 17 schools the framework that we are talking about
    likely already violates the NLRA. It is just not the
    appropriate tool.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        On my agenda here it says we are to close the remarks, so I
    am going to yield to the senior Democratic member, Mr. Miller,
    for his closing remarks.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think this
    is a very important hearing. You know, America is in the throes
    of celebrating, on a daily basis, socially and economically,
    every way possible, entrepreneurs and those who take risks. The
    list of grievances that these players presented is a list of
    grievances that players could have presented five years ago and
    10 years ago, across the college community. But they haven't
    been addressed. These players are put in the position of being
    on the edge all of the time; scholarship, no scholarship, play,
    don't play, classes, no classes all of the time.
        That is a very interesting place to keep your employees
    that you care so much about. I think these players might play
    better if they had some more certainty in their life. But the
    NCAA doesn't let you do that as a university. We have some
    remarkable examples of universities here and programs. You know
    you are not typical across the board of high-stakes football in
    this country. And we know the athletes are not typical. And the
    fact is, you are graduating people, but we also have clusters
    of athletes that go to certain classes for certain reasons that
    may not have--may not apply toward their graduation so they are
    short but they stay eligible by taking the classes.
        I am not holding you responsible, but that we know this
    landscape. That is why the Knight Commission was set up, to
    look at the landscape. No easy critics out of the industry. But
    the fact of the matter is that this landscape has changed
    dramatically. I have been in Congress long enough to know that
    when I have seen really tough issues on academic sides, where
    they thought that Congress might get involved in accreditation
    or what have you, very often you don't meet the college
    president. You meet the college coach.
        And we know that the education journals, sports journal
    shows--are constantly debating this question who is the most
    powerful person on campus, the president or the coach? We know
    all hell can be paid for the mishandling of the hiring or the
    firing of a coach. These concerns that these young men were
    willing to take a risk on exist on every campus whether or not
    you have the security of a scholarship, for how long; whether
    or not you are going to have health insurance; whether or not
    you are going to--what is going to happen with your injuries if
    you lose your scholarship.
        Stipends, transfers--we have been over this. We have been
    over this and over this and over this. I think I held the first
    concussion hearings. No--this is not proper for public
    discussion. This is a sport, this is volunteers. People play.
    Until they started to see the extent of the damage done. I
    worked with many NFL coaches and many NFL players. We couldn't
    get to first base. I had coaches come and tell me the documents
    are here, we know what has taken place here. Well, finally the
    Players Association went to court, and we know the rest is
    history.
        And that is just the beginning. But the fact of the matter
    is, the determination was made that it was better to run the
    organization in the manner in which the owners wanted to run it
    than to deal with these issues. And I grant you, it could
    change the game. It has already changed the viewership. It has
    changed the way TV portrays it. They don't rerun those big hits
    because the audience has a different reaction today when they
    see that hit. They know that is a damaging hit. They know there
    are consequences to that.
        But before, that was highlights. But highlights now are a
    liability. So we can have all the parade of horribles here
    about what could happen if there is unionization. Why don't we
    think about what could happen if you took care of the problems
    of these student athletes. And if the universities got back in
    control of this program and not the NCAA, not the conference. I
    understand there has got to be rules and regulations. But, you
    know, we see arbitrary decisions made all the time by the NCAA.
    Mr. Courtney raised the issue.
        I remember talking to sports journalists about the issue:
    why are students who had nothing to do with the infraction
    losing their rights to playoff games? You know what that means
    if you think you are going to the NBA or you are going to the
    NFL and you can't get in the playoffs, where everybody is
    focused on your performance? That is a huge punishment. To
    what? That they are upholding some morality of their vision of
    football, and they are going to show that they are really tough
    on this school? No, they were tough on a bunch of students who
    weren't there when the infraction took place.
        So I think there is a lot to think about on the campuses.
    We spend a lot of time in this committee about higher ed and
    the approaches we take. And I think that you, you are here
    because you are leaders in this field. You are not immune from
    this. This is the Stanford Daily that I asked to be put in. The
    list of easy classes that nobody knew exist. Everybody said
    didn't happen. And yet professors said, well, it upped my
    attendance. I am glad it was on there. And they said no, they
    come here to--they major in eligibility.
        I guess the Senate is going to hear from Ms. Willingham on
    North Carolina. I think--I don't know if she is here or not. I
    think she was going to--there you are. I think the Senate--
    Senator Rockefeller and others are going to hear from this. And
    you all know we have been through these scandals before. So you
    can rail against the unionization. Like the NFL, like the NBA
    you better address the problem. This is college sports. Not
    NCAA, it is college sports.
        And I appreciate--I stood on the sidelines. I was so proud
    there--happened to be with a big donor--of USC-Notre Dame in
    Los Angeles, and then in South Bend. Most exciting moment of my
    life. I never knew it could be that noisy. And I played a lot
    of football, but I didn't play at that level. So we know the
    influences here. We know the influences here. They are student
    athletes. I don't think you would treat the other students like
    this on campus.
        You know, I think somebody better get and take control of
    this situation again. And in most of the journals I read the
    president is losing in this war against the coaches for the say
    and the standards on campus. Mr. Schwarz is right. This is like
    that cab in Compton, California. It is always coming, but it
    never arrives. The NCAA just can't make these decisions, and
    yet--so we get these arbitrary actions against institutions and
    against the students and, in some cases, against the coach now
    and then.
        There is a lot to think about here. I have been here 40
    years. I have watched a lot of people deny the problems and
    blame--and go after the symptom which, in this case, is the
    decision to join the union. A rational decision by these young
    people. There was no other outlet for them. No other outlet as
    there wasn't for the people who proceeded them. So I wouldn't
    be so concerned about whether or not they are going to vote
    they are not going to go out on the field on Saturday. That is
    not the makeup of these young men, you know.
        But I remember talking to Bobby Knight when we decided--
    when the networks decided they needed a mid-week game. And now
    we have it, you know, for different--depends on what conference
    you are in, what day we--how many days of school you miss. You
    can keep defending it. I would work on changing it.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
        I am going to thank the witnesses. A lot of expertise, real
    knowledge. I appreciate everything that you had to offer. Quite
    a diversity in experiences and positions here. Somebody who was
    a top-level college athlete, and then went on to play in the
    NFL. Has very strong feelings and opinions about these issues,
    and has pointed out very eloquently, Mr. Eilers, that we have
    got problems out there, as Mr. Miller, again very passionately,
    pointed out that need to be addressed.
        What brought this hearing together was the actions of a
    regional director of the National Labor Relations Board, who
    suggested that these athletes are employees and therefore
    could, if they chose, vote to join a union. And so we explored
    some of the possible downsides of that issue, and we heard from
    witnesses here that talked about how would this deal with class
    attendance and practice times, attending games, how many games.
    What about walk-on players, what about universities who are
    public and don't fall under the National Labor Relations Act.
    And a host, frankly, of potential problems.
        And we wanted to get out that, and I very much appreciate
    the testimony of the witnesses today as we start to explore
    that. I don't think there is a person on this committee that
    doesn't agree that we need to address some of those very issues
    that we talked about and, again, that Mr. Eilers' talked about
    so eloquently. The question is, is unionization of some sports,
    some players, and some schools the appropriate tool to get to
    that end. I think I have been very clear to say that I don't
    think that it is.
        And we need to then focus on, I think, all of us--perhaps
    in Congress and certainly those of you in the field, as it
    were, as athletic directors and college presidents and those
    concerned--to do the sorts of things that Mr. Miller was
    talking about; that we address these issues. I just don't
    believe that the sporadic unionization, and no, I am not
    arguing for a bigger bargaining unit there, Mr. Miller. I just
    think that the law is the wrong law, it is the wrong tool to
    use here.
        Okay. There being no further business, the committee is
    adjourned.
        [Additional Submissions by Mr. Miller follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional Submissions by Mr. Muir follow:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional Submissions by Mr. Starr follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]