[Senate Hearing 116-526]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       S. Hrg. 116-526

                     COMPENSATING COLLEGE ATHLETES:
                     EXAMINING THE POTENTIAL IMPACT
                      ON ATHLETES AND INSTITUTIONS

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

                                HEARING

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
                          LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   ON

  EXAMINING COMPENSATING COLLEGE ATHLETES, FOCUSING ON THE POTENTIAL 
                  IMPACT ON ATHLETES AND INSTITUTIONS

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 15, 2020

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions
                                
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                            


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-226 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------         
        
        
        
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                  LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming		PATTY MURRAY, Washington
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina		BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont
RAND Paul, Kentucky			ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine			TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana		CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas		        ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska			TIM KAINE, Virginia
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina		MARGARET WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah		        TINA SMITH, Minnesota
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana			DOUG JONES, Alabama
KELLY Loeffler, Georgia			JACKY ROSEN, Nevada

                                     
               David P. Cleary, Republican Staff Director
         Lindsey Ward Seidman, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                  Evan Schatz, Minority Staff Director
              John Righter, Minority Deputy Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                               STATEMENTS

                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2020

                                                                   Page

                           Committee Members

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, 
  Labor, and Pensions, Opening statement.........................     1
Murray, Hon. Patty, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State 
  of Washington, Opening statement...............................     6

                               Witnesses

Blank, Rebecca, Chancellor, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, 
  Madison, WI....................................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
Dennis, Karen, Director of Track & Field and Cross Country, The 
  Ohio State University, Columbus, OH............................    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Summary statement............................................    19
Hartwell, John, Vice President & Director of Athletics, Utah 
  State University, Logan, UT....................................    20
    Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Summary statement............................................    25
Huma, Ramogi, Executive Director, National College Players 
  Association, Norco, CA.........................................    27
    Prepared statement...........................................    29

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.
Murray, Hon. Patty:
    Supplemental documents submitted by Ramogi Huma for the 
      Record.....................................................59-189
    University of San Diego, prepared statement..................   190

 
                     COMPENSATING COLLEGE ATHLETES:
                     EXAMINING THE POTENTIAL IMPACT
                      ON ATHLETES AND INSTITUTIONS

                              ----------                              


                      Tuesday, September 15, 2020

                                       U.S. Senate,
       Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 
430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Alexander [presiding], Burr, Paul, 
Cassidy, Scott, Romney, Braun, Murray, Casey, Baldwin, Murphy, 
Kaine, Hassan, Jones, and Rosen.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

    The Chairman. Good morning. The Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions will please come to order.
    First, I would like to go through a few administrative 
matters that we have adopted because of COVID. We have 
consulted with the attending physician and the Department of 
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control. 
Individuals in the hearing room are 6 feet apart. There is no 
room for the public in person. The press is covering as a pool. 
You can watch this on streaming, or there will be an unedited 
recording that everyone can watch. All of our witnesses today 
and some Senators are participating by video conference.
    I would like to say something about masks. The Office of 
Attending Physician has advised that Senators and witnesses may 
remove their masks to talk into the microphone since our chairs 
are 6 feet apart. So, that is why my mask is off. When I am not 
back here, I am wearing my mask in the hall.
    I am grateful to the Rules Committee, the Sergeant at Arms, 
the Press Gallery, the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol 
Police, and our Committee staff, Chung Shek and Evan Griffis, 
for all of their hard work to keep us safe and connected with 
one another.
    Senator Murray and I will each have an opening statement. 
We will then turn to our witnesses, who we thank for being here 
today. We have four of them. Each witness, we will ask you to 
summarize your remarks in 5 minutes. Then, each Senator will 
have 5 minutes for questions and answers. We will ask Senators 
to keep the questions and answers within that 5-minute period.
    We have votes today beginning at 10:30, but we will not 
interrupt the hearing. We will continue. Someone else will 
preside for a few minutes while I go vote and come back.
    The question for the hearing today is whether the tradition 
of the intercollegiate student athlete is worth preserving; 
and, if so, how to do so. Specifically, what will be the impact 
on that tradition if a growing number of States pass laws 
allowing commercial interests to pay student athletes for use 
of their name, image, and likeness.
    I have had a couple of experiences that have helped form my 
opinions on this subject. First, in 1960, during my sophomore 
year in college, I was exercising on Vanderbilt University's 
cinder track and a man with a large watch in his right hand 
came up. He introduced himself as Track Coach Herc Alley and he 
asked my name.
    He said, Did you run track in high school? I said, No, sir. 
And he said--I said we did not have a track team.
    Why don't you run 100 yards, he said. So, I did, and he 
looked at his watch and he said, that is very good--10.1. I 
have three really fast boys for the 400 yard relay. Why don't 
you be the fourth--440 yard relay then. Why don't you be the 
fourth?
    I joined the Vanderbilt track team, and our team set a 
record for the 440 yard relay. My job was to carry the baton 
from the first fast guy to the third fast guy. The next year, 
we would sometimes practice with students from what was then 
called Tennessee A&I. They were pretty remarkable athletes. 
They included Olympians Ralph Boston, Wyomia Tyus, and Wilma 
Rudolph.
    Coach Alley had no scholarships to offer. His teams rode 
buses to meets. Our cinder track made it hard to establish fast 
times. Scraping together teams of non-scholarship athletes, 
Coach Alley won several Southeastern Conference championships. 
His enthusiasm that day on the cinder track gave me an 
experience that millions of Americans have had--that of being 
an intercollegiate student athlete. Someone else who had that 
experience is also on this Committee, Senator Richard Burr. He 
actually had a scholarship to play football at Wake Forest 
University.
    My experience on the Vanderbilt track team taught me a 
number of lessons, including this one. When joining a relay 
team, be sure to pick three runners better than you are, which 
is not bad advice for how to be an effective Senator.
    As the college football season gets underway, even amidst 
COVID-19, we are reminded of how important these games are to 
the student athletes, to their institutions, and to millions of 
avid spectators. This fascination with sporting competition is 
nothing new, according to the Knight Commission's 1991 report 
on intercollegiate athletics.
    The Knight Commission said, ``The appeal of competitive 
games is boundless. In ancient times, men at war laid down 
their weapons to compete in the Olympic Games. Today, people 
around the globe put aside their daily cares to follow the 
fortunes of their teams in the World Cup. In the United States, 
the Super Bowl, World Series, college football, NCAA basketball 
tournament attract millions. Sports have helped break down 
bigotry and prejudice in American life. On the international 
scene, they have helped integrate east and west, socialists and 
capitalists. The passion from sports is universally shared 
across time and continents.'' That is from the Knight 
Commission.
    But, problems with sports is also nothing--are also nothing 
new. The Knight Commission was established in 1989 to address 
scandals in college sports that were shaking confidence, not 
just of big time collegiate athletics, but in the institutions 
of higher education themselves.
    then, well before that, in 1929, a report from the Carnegie 
Foundation said recruiting had become ``corrupt, professionals 
had replaced amateurs, education was being neglected, and 
commercialism reigned.''
    Even before that, in 1906, in response to criticism from 
President Teddy Roosevelt, the National Collegiate Athletic 
Association, the NCAA, had been formed to protect the safety of 
players and deal with corruption.
    Now, my second experience forming an opinion about the 
subject we are talking about today came from my service on that 
Knight Commission when I was president of the University of 
Tennessee. Our commission recommendation was that university 
presidents take charge, assert themselves, take charge of 
college athletics, take charge of the huge amount of television 
money it attracted, and restore academic and financial 
integrity to the programs. As a result, over the next several 
years, academic standards became more stringent, financial 
support for student athletes increased, college presidents 
asserted more responsibility for financial controls.
    What is especially relevant to today's hearing is that 
despite the problems surrounding intercollegiate athletics 
then, the Knight Commission strongly endorsed keeping the 
student athlete tradition. This is what the Knight Commission 
said, and I think it is worth repeating:
    ``We reject the argument that the only realistic 
solution''--that is to the corruption--``to the problem is to 
drop the student athlete concept, put athletes on the payroll, 
and reduce or even eliminate their responsibilities as 
students.''
    ``Such a scheme has nothing to do with education, the 
purpose for which colleges and universities exist. Scholarship 
athletes are already paid in the most meaningful way possible: 
with a free education. The idea of intercollegiate athletics is 
that teams represent their institutions as true members of the 
student body and not as hired hands. Surely, American higher 
education has the ability to devise a better solution to the 
problems of intercollegiate athletics than making professionals 
out of the players, which is no solution at all, but an 
unacceptable surrender to despair.''
    I hope those words from the Knight Commission 30 years ago 
will guide how this Congress deals with the newest issue 
threatening the concept of student athletes: allowing 
commercial interests to pay athletes for the use of their name, 
image, and likeness.
    Already, four States have enacted laws sanctioning such 
payments in various forms, and more than 30 States are 
considering such legislation. Senator Roger Wicker, Chairman of 
the Commerce Committee, is considering whether there ought to 
be congressional action. Our purpose today as the Senate's 
Education Committee is to inform the work of the Commerce 
Committee by considering the impact of such payments on the 
tradition of the student athletes.
    It would make sense to take a minute to consider exactly 
who and what we are talking about. Last year, there were about 
20 million undergraduates in about 6,000 colleges and 
universities in the United States. Nearly 1,100 of those 6,000 
colleges and universities are members of the NCAA. More than 
460,000 young men and women participate in 24 different sports 
each year in about one-quarter of one million contests. About 
300 of those institutions play football and basketball at the 
highest level. Fewer than 2 percent of student athletes will go 
on to play professional sports, according to the NCAA, so this 
means we are talking about approximately 9,000 college student 
athletes who compete in a few sports out of more than 460,000 
college athletes across 24 sports.
    The current controversy is primarily about an even smaller 
number. A small percentage of those 9,000 students, who play 
football, baseball, or men's or women's basketball, and whose 
skills, or the institutions for which they play, make them 
attractive targets for recruiting officers--offers that will 
combine their scholarship dollars with endorsement money. For 
example, an exceptional quarterback, pitcher, or running back 
might be offered a half million dollars a year by a car 
dealership in the same town as the college with a big time 
football, baseball, or basketball program.
    Now, as the Knight Commission said, student athletes are 
already paid in the most meaningful way with a free education. 
Athletic scholarships are limited to tuitions and fees, room 
and board, and required course-related books, but this can add 
up to a lot of money. The University of Tennessee estimates it 
spends about $115,000 a year per student athlete, including 
room and board, student stipends, academic support, meals, 
sports medicine, training, travel, and equipment.
    Student athletes may also combine other sources of 
financial aid, including Federal or State need-based aid to 
help cover the full cost of attendance. These include Pell 
Grants, Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, work-study, 
State grants based on need using Federal need calculations, 
such as Tennessee's HOPE Scholarship, or veteran's programs, 
such as the GI Bill or Post-9/11 GI Bill. About 92,000, or 20 
percent of the student athletes, receive Pell Grants, which can 
be up to $6,200 more.
    According to the College Board, the value of a lifetime 
degree is $1 million over an individual's lifetime, and 88 
percent of the NCAA's student athletes graduate, earn a degree.
    Now to the question at hand. Should Congress act or should 
varying State laws govern payments for name, image, and 
likeness to student athletes? Is a patchwork set of regulations 
worth the confusion it will cause with unrestrained boosters, 
creative agents, the impact of Title IX on men and women's 
programs, on a coach's effort, and most of all, on the 
tradition of the intercollegiate student athlete? Solving that 
question will be the job of the Commerce Committee, but we can 
inform their decision with today's testimony and Senators' 
comments.
    Based on my experience as a student athlete, my time as a 
university president, and my membership on the Knight 
Commission, let me offer these suggestions:
    One, the Knight Commission was correct to say that student 
athletes should not be on the payroll and should not be treated 
as hired hands.
    Two, Congress should act, but in a limited way as possible 
to authorize an independent entity, safe from litigation, to 
write rules governing payments for the use of names, image, and 
likeness. Congress--imagine all 535 of us doing this--should 
provide aggressive oversight of that entity rather than try to 
write those rules.
    Three, that governing entity should be the NCAA. I know, I 
know. The NCAA is controversial. So will every entity or any 
entity that tries to write rules for intercollegiate student 
athletes. If the NCAA is not doing a good job, the presidents 
of the universities who are in charge of it ought to reform it.
    Giving the job to some existing entity, such as the Federal 
Trade Commission, which does not have exercise--any expertise 
or any sense of responsibility for higher education, makes no 
sense. Giving the job to a new entity would take forever.
    Now, as to rules which the NCAA should write, here is what 
I believe should be the overriding principle: Money paid to 
student athletes for the use of their name, image, and likeness 
should benefit all student athletes at that institution. 
Following this principle would allow the earnings to be used 
for additional academic support, further study or degrees, more 
health insurance options, more support for injured players, and 
other needs.
    It would avoid the awkwardness of a center, who earns 
nothing, snapping the ball to a quarterback, who earns a half 
million dollars for promoting the local auto dealer. It avoids 
the inevitable abuse that would occur with agents and boosters 
becoming involved with outstanding high school athletes. It 
would avoid the unexpected consequences to other teams at an 
institution because of the impact of Title IX or the impact on 
existing student aid to athletes.
    Such a principle as I am suggesting preserves the right of 
any athlete to earn money for the use of his or her name, 
image, or likeness. It simply says if you elect to be a student 
athlete, your earnings should benefit all student athletes at 
your institutions. If you want to keep the money and be 
someone's employees, then go join a professional team. This 
system would create the same kind of choices that today's NCAA 
rules for college baseball require. A high school student must 
stay 3 years if he chooses to participate in a college baseball 
program.
    Senator Kaine and I were talking before the hearing about 
Virginia and Vanderbilt's baseball program. Take Vanderbilt, 
for example. David Price, Sonny Gray, and Dansby Swanson--
familiar names to Major League Baseball fans--all very 
successful professional athletes now. All were drafted by Major 
League Baseball teams while they were in high school. They 
could have earned a lot of money going directly into 
professional baseball. Instead, they chose a Vanderbilt 
education, 3 years of college experience, and the opportunity 
to be taught by Coach Tim Corbin. If Price, Gray, and Swanson 
had been permitted to sell their name, image, and likeness 
while at Vanderbilt, under the principle I am suggesting, their 
earnings would have been used for the benefit of all of 
Vanderbilt's sports teams, men and women.
    Applying such a principle to all intercollegiate athletics 
might cause a few talented athletes to join professional 
leagues immediately after high school. That is their right. 
But, if that young athlete prefers the college experience, the 
expert coaching and teaching, the free education, other 
academic support, and the additional $1 million in their 
lifetime that comes with earning a college degree, then their 
earnings should benefit all the students at their institution. 
And, while the NCAA is making new rules, it ought to assign 
most of the TV revenues to institutions for use and academic 
support for student athletes rather than continue to encourage 
inordinately high salaries for some coaches.
    I do not see a good ending to allowing a few student 
athletes to be paid by commercial interests while most of their 
teammates are not. If young athletes want to be a part of a 
team, enjoy the undergraduate experience, learn from coaches 
who are among the best teachers in the Country, and be paid a 
full scholarship that helps them earn $1 million during their 
lifetime, then all the student athletes at their institution 
should benefit. If that student athlete wants to keep the money 
for himself or herself, that student athlete should become a 
professional.
    I will now recognize Senator Murray for her opening 
statement.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

    Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
and thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us for this 
hearing today.
    Before I speak on the hearing, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to 
mention a few things. First of all, I just wanted to say I have 
been in very close contact with local leaders on the ground as 
families in my home State of Washington and the West Coast are 
dealing with devastating fires that are wiping out communities 
and damaging air quality dramatically.
    I just want to publicly thank the many courageous first 
responders and firefighters, who are risking their lives to 
save our families and communities, and let them all know I am 
committed to doing everything I can to make sure that local 
fire departments and officials and communities have everything 
they need to fight these fires and begin this long road to 
recovery. So, thank you for allowing me to say that.
    Second, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to just 
acknowledge your many decades of leadership on a vast number of 
issues, including on today's topic, which I know you have 
always been focused on. Throughout our time in the Senate and 
our 6 years running this Committee together, you have often 
helped the Committee and its Members in leading us in very 
important discussions on critical issues facing families across 
this Country. And I know I speak for all the Members when I 
thank you for the manner in which you have partnered with me to 
run this Committee as we look into issues like name, image, 
likeness, and so many others.
    It is easy, especially now, to just go into our respective 
corners and not have a discussion about big problems that our 
Country is facing, and it demonstrates really your commitment 
to this institution and the importance of dialog that even now 
you are facilitating bipartisan discussions on topics like 
this. This Committee benefits enormously from your experiences 
as a Governor, as president of the University of Tennessee, and 
Education Secretary.
    I know January is a ways off, but I want to start off by 
thanking you for all of your great work on this Committee and 
in the Senate. Mr. Chairman, I have to say, our work together 
really means a lot to me because, while we do have different 
backgrounds and different perspectives and different styles, 
you and I and the great members of this Committee share a 
commitment to getting things done for families and communities 
we represent, and for our Country. We both want to continue the 
important role this Committee and the Senate play, and we truly 
will miss you helping drive discussions like that one we are 
having today. Again and again over the years, you have come to 
work looking to solve problems, not score political points.
    I know I speak for all Committee Members on both sides of 
the aisle when I say you will be greatly missed.
    There is no better proof of your determination to work in a 
bipartisan way and do whatever it takes to find common ground 
than the countless bills that we have worked on together and 
this Committee was successful in passing, from the 21st Century 
Cures Act to the Every Student Succeeds Act to Perkins CTE, as 
well as a number of bills to address the opioids epidemic. 
These laws did not just tackle big issues. They managed to get 
broad, bipartisan support from all of our colleagues, and 
millions of families for years to come will benefit from your 
work. So, thank you.
    Now, today I am glad to have the opportunity to talk about 
college athletes, which I know is personal to you as a former 
track and field star. And, Mr. Chairman, as you and I have 
talked about before, the issue of compensating college athletes 
is something you have long been focused on, and I am glad we 
are having this conversation today.
    I also want to thank Senator Murphy for pushing us to have 
this discussion today and to colleagues who are off this 
Committee, like Senator Booker, for their work and leadership 
on this issue.
    This summer, our Nation finally began to reckon with police 
brutality and the pervasiveness of systemic racism in our 
Country, a reality which so many have lived with their entire 
life. One of the many issues we are overdue to address is the 
exploitation of college athletes, which has profound racial and 
economic justice implications.
    For too long, the $15 billion college sports industry has 
been a glaring example of economic and racial inequity, one 
where the majority of athletes in Division I revenue-generating 
sports are Black, and mostly White coaches and NCAA officials 
make millions off the labor of young college athletes. Despite 
the fact that college athletes bring in millions of dollars for 
colleges each year and stimulate local economies across the 
Country, they are prohibited from receiving a penny in 
compensation.
    I know there are people who say a 'free education' is a 
privilege, or compensating athletes will hinder their 
education, or paying college athletes will be the end of 
college sports as we know it. But, you know, the stories I have 
heard from many young athletes back in my home State of 
Washington about the inequity and abuse they have experienced 
show how our current system exploits young athletes, 
particularly young athletes of color, and it has to be 
reformed.
    I heard from a former all-star Black college athlete in 
Washington State who, before he went pro, said he had to steal 
food from the cafeteria and grocery stores because he was not 
allowed to work and he could not afford food. That is a tough 
thing for someone to share, but he wanted everyone to know just 
how difficult it can get for so many athletes.
    There are countless stories of college athletes who have 
their futures thrown into jeopardy because they got injured and 
were not guaranteed long-term, affordable healthcare. And, in 
some instances, they might lose their scholarship and their 
chance at an education.
    College athletes are struggling to manage their academic 
course loads and grueling daily schedules filled with workouts, 
practices, and games, while also facing food and economic 
insecurity, while the NCAA and member schools enter into 
billion-dollar media deals, universities invest in luxury 
facilities, coaches receive million-dollar salaries, and more. 
That is immoral. We should not accept that. So, I urge all my 
colleagues in the Senate to listen to the experiences of 
college athletes, particularly college athletes of color, in 
their home States because once you do, it is impossible to deny 
that change is needed.
    There are a lot of ways Congress and other committees can 
act to protect college athletes' rights, and I want to talk 
about a few of them. First and foremost, we need to make sure 
that college athletes are fairly compensated. An important 
first step toward that issue is allowing athletes to profit 
from the use of their name and image and likeness, or NIL. And, 
we have to ensure that all athletes, men and women, get their 
fair share of the revenue that they help to generate.
    But, fair compensation is just one part of protecting the 
rights of college athletes, especially now as the COVID 
pandemic rages on. It is crucial that we establish enforceable 
health and safety standards. If an athlete gets injured while 
playing for their college, they should not be expected to deal 
with the medical or financial fallout on their own. We have to 
make sure that college athletes are guaranteed affordable 
healthcare and that colleges take responsibility for life-long 
health issues related to an injury.
    We absolutely need to give college athletes the quality 
educational opportunities and support they deserve. Too many 
college athletes are being funneled into easy classes, 
sometimes even fake ones, simply do not have the time to 
complete their coursework due to rigorous practice schedules or 
are not finishing their degree. And, for Black athletes, 
graduation rates are significantly lower than White athletes. 
Just 55 percent of Black male athletes from the Power 5 
conferences graduate within 6 years, compared to 70 percent of 
all college athletes. That is wrong, and it is unacceptable. 
All college athletes should receive the academic support they 
need to complete a quality education and assurances that their 
scholarships will not be revoked if they are injured.
    It is clear the status quo is not working. It only serves 
those at the top. The NCAA should have addressed these issues 
long ago but failed to do it, so Congress must face these 
challenges head on and offer college athletes solutions that 
end this current system of exploitation and replace it with a 
system which values college athletes' voices.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, as well as to each of our 
witnesses, who we will hear from shortly.
    Before I close, I just want to say, in addition to these 
injustices right now, college athletes and their peers are also 
dealing with a pandemic that has brought enormous uncertainty 
to higher education. For students and everyone suffering 
through this pandemic, I just want to note, we cannot wait for 
weeks or months for another relief package. We have a lot of 
work to do--a lot of it. So, I hope in the days to come, we can 
finally get started on a serious negotiation to reach an 
agreement that meets the dire needs we are hearing from our 
families and the communities we serve.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray, and thanks for 
your generous comments at the beginning. I think everyone on 
this Committee knows that we would not have had the success we 
have had as a committee of very disparate views over the last 
several years if I had not been working with the Democratic 
Ranking Member, who used to be a kindergarten teacher and who 
learned, as well as taught, how to work well together. So, I 
will have more to say about that at a future hearing, but I 
deeply appreciate that--those comments and the way we have had 
a chance to work together, including today's hearing.
    I want to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Murphy, who is 
here, Senator Romney, Senator Burr, all of whom are among 
Senators who have had a real interest in this subject, which is 
being considered by several committees.
    I am pleased to welcome our witnesses today to the hearing 
focusing on intercollegiate athletics. Senator Baldwin will 
introduce our first witness. Senator Baldwin?
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    I am pleased to introduce Dr. Rebecca Blank, Chancellor of 
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Blank has serves as 
chancellor since 2013. Previously, she served as Deputy 
Secretary and Acting Secretary of Commerce under President 
Obama. She was also a member of the Council of Economic 
Advisors under President Clinton. She has served as Dean and 
Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the University of 
Michigan. She was a faculty member at Northwestern and 
Princeton Universities, and a fellow at the Brookings 
Institution.
    The University of Wisconsin is a member of the Big Ten, one 
of the Power 5 conferences, with 23 varsity sports and 
approximately 800 participating students each year. Chancellor 
Blank was recently appointed to the NCAA Division I Board of 
Directors.
    I look forward to hearing her insights today as part of 
today's important discussion about college athletics and 
compensation.
    Welcome, Chancellor Blank, and On Wisconsin.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
    Our second witness is Karen Dennis. She has served as 
Director of Track & Field and Cross Country at The Ohio State 
University for the past 6 years. She has been named Big Ten 
Coach of the Year four times and was inducted to the Coaches 
Hall of Fame of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country 
Coaches Association in 2018. She earned both a Bachelor's 
Degree in Public Affairs and a Master's Degree in Physical 
Education from Michigan State University.
    Senator Romney will introduce our next witness.
    Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have the honor to introduce John Hartwell, who is Vice 
President and Athletic Director at Utah State University.
    As a former student athlete himself, he played basketball 
for The Citadel. For more than 5 years, he has been the 
Director of Athletics at Utah State, and he has ensured that 
his students have success both in the classroom and on the 
playing field.
    Under his leadership, the Utah State Aggies have achieved a 
54-15 record in men's basketball. Overall, Utah State 
University has claimed five Mountain West regular-season 
championships, and four post-season titles during his tenure.
    Just as impressive is Utah State's student-athlete success 
in the classroom with a 93 percent graduation rate and a 
cumulative 3.36 grade point average, the highest in school 
history.
    Utah State University is a Division I-A institution with 16 
varsity teams. It offers 168 undergraduate degrees and 143 
graduate degrees, and educates 28,000 students, one of whom, by 
the way, is my grandson.
    Today, we examine the potential impacts of the NCAA's 
decision to allow student athletes to be compensated for their 
name, image, and likeness. As a former student athlete, as a 
certified public accountant, as an athletic director at Utah 
State University, John brings an informed and firsthand 
perspective, which I look forward to hearing.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Romney.
    Our fourth and final witness is Ramogi Huma, Executive 
Director of the National College Players Association.
    Mr. Huma played college football at UCLA, where he became 
an advocate for student-athletes' rights. He and his work has 
been featured on numerous news programs. He is often quoted on 
ESPN and CBS Sports promoting athletic--or athlete 
compensation. He earned a Bachelor's Degree in Sociology and a 
Master's of Public Health at UCLA.
    We will now begin hearing from our witnesses.
    Chancellor Blank, let's start with you. Welcome.

   STATEMENT OF REBECCA BLANK, CHANCELLOR, THE UNIVERSITY OF 
                 WISCONSIN-MADISON, MADISON, WI

    Dr. Blank. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and 
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting 
me today. And, thank you, Senator Baldwin, for that very kind 
introduction. I am going to testify about the collegiate model 
of athletics and some of the potential reforms around student-
athletes' ability to earn income from name, image, and 
likeness.
    The University of Wisconsin at Madison is the flagship 
university of our State. We provide a world-class education to 
our students, and I am proud to be its chancellor.
    We are here today to discuss collegiate student athletes. I 
believe deeply in the student-athlete role, with an emphasis on 
student first. It is the right role for those who play sports 
in college. Only a small percentage of student athletes compete 
after college. Three percent at UW go on to play 
professionally. So, we need to prepare our athletes for careers 
off the field.
    The University of Wisconsin is a strong program with 
student athletes who perform well both in the classroom and in 
their sport. Our student athletes not only compete for Big Ten 
and national titles, but they are also strong students. More 
than 350 have been named to the dean's list each year. Last 
year, our student athletes majored in 84 different areas of 
study, and the multi-year graduation rate for our student 
athletes is 90 percent. For all Division I athletes, it is 88 
percent.
    Like other universities, we provide broad support for our 
student athletes. Their scholarships cover the full cost of 
attendance, including tuition, books, fees, housing, and other 
expenses.
    But, that is just the beginning of the support they 
receive. They receive laptops, tutoring, and access to 
dedicated academic advisors. They have access to mentoring and 
world-class coaching, mental health counseling, sports 
psychologists, state-of-the-art healthcare, including care that 
covers anything for at least 2 years after they leave the 
university.
    They have access to unlimited meals and snacks. They 
receive nutrition advice and career counseling, and we pay for 
degree completion at any school in the Country for those who 
leave for professional sports that want to complete their 
degree later.
    All of those benefits, however, are dwarfed by what they 
receive from their college education. I am an economist by 
training, and I know the extensive literature on the returns to 
a college education. College graduates earn a million dollars 
more than those with only a high-school degree over their 
lifetime. The return to their college degree is by far the 
greatest benefit our student athletes receive.
    The business model for college athletics is greatly 
misunderstood by the public. We are not sponsoring college 
sports because of its potential to make money. At the 
University of Wisconsin, only football and men's basketball are 
revenue-generating sports. Our other 21 sports cost more money 
than they generate. But, the value of our academic program is 
the broad opportunities it provides for students with many 
skills to compete. If we had to spend all of our revenue in 
only our two revenue-producing sports, I am not sure we would 
choose to run an athletic program at UW.
    In recent years, there has been a lively discussion about 
allowing students to generate income from name, image, and 
likeness, or NIL. Other students have this opportunity, and I 
support finding ways for student athletes to do so, as well. I 
would like to discuss the parameters, however, of what that 
should look like. While we need congressional help, any 
legislation should improve the situation for students, not make 
it worse.
    The NCAA, the Big Ten, and the A-5 have endorsed a set of 
principles we hope you will consider. These include:
    One, we need Congress to pass Federal legislation and need 
it before July 2021 when the first State law goes into effect. 
We cannot function under a hodgepodge of State laws now being 
passed that will make it difficult for a level playing field 
for recruitment or competition.
    Two, Federal legislation must include a preemption over 
those State laws already enacted. And, in addition, we need a 
very narrowly tailored anti-trust exemption.
    Three, we must protect college recruiting. Student athletes 
should have new avenues to pursue payment from third parties 
for name, image, and likeness, but those should be totally 
outside the recruiting process.
    Four, we must avoid pay-for-play. Our student athletes are 
not professional athletes and they should not be paid to 
participate in sports.
    Last, student athletes are not university employees. Their 
first priority is to be students working toward a college 
degree.
    The NCAA's Division I board of directors is developing new 
NIL rules for student athletes, which will come to the board 
for consideration later this year.
    I value the role of Congress in constructing a national 
framework on NIL and giving us the tools we need to make it 
work. You should not wait on the NCAA process, and I hope you 
will once--once you agree on a national NIL standard, you will 
provide us with the narrow, legal protection needed for us to 
implement your decision.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Rebecca Blank follows:]
                  prepared statement of rebecca blank
    Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and distinguished 
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about 
the collegiate model of athletics and potential reforms around the 
issue of student-athletes' ability to profit from Name, Image, and 
Likeness licensing.

    The University of Wisconsin-Madison is the flagship university in 
our state. We are one of the largest research institutions in the 
country and provide a world-class education to our students. We are 
committed to sharing knowledge and innovation that improves lives in 
Wisconsin and around the globe. I'm proud to have led the university as 
Chancellor since 2013.

    We're here today to discuss collegiate student-athletes. In most of 
the world, talented young athletes leave school to pursue their sports; 
few advance to the top rungs of competition but all pay a price in lost 
opportunities for education. In contrast, the U.S. collegiate model of 
athletics allows students to pursue their athletic ambitions in sports 
as different as volleyball, wrestling, track and field, and basketball, 
while also receiving life-changing educational benefits from great 
institutions like UW-Madison.

    Only a small percentage of college athletes go on to play 
professional sports after college. Since 2015, at Wisconsin we 
typically have around 800 students engaged with our athletic program in 
any year. Over the last 5 years we have had approximately 4,000 total 
student athletes on our campus. Of those student athletes, 
approximately 120, or about 3 percent, have gone on to play 
professionally; this means that 97 percent will not. But one hundred 
percent will benefit from the education they receive on campuses like 
ours.

    I believe deeply that the student-athlete role is the right role 
for those who play sports at UW. The University of Wisconsin is the 
example of a strong program with student-athletes who perform well both 
in the classroom and in their sport. We are proud that our student-
athletes not only compete for Big Ten and national titles, but they 
also are strong students in the classroom. On average more than 350 are 
named to the Dean's List each year.

    During the 2019-20 academic year, UW student-athletes majored in 84 
areas of study. These majors represent all schools and colleges at UW-
Madison except the School of Pharmacy. The multi-year graduation rate 
for our student-athletes is 90 percent. The overall rate for all NCAA 
Division I student-athletes is 88 percent for the data reported in Fall 
2019.

    Like other schools in the Autonomy Five, or Power Five, 
conferences, the University of Wisconsin--Madison provides broad-based 
support for our student-athletes. Financially, our scholarships cover 
the full cost of attendance, including tuition, books, fees, housing, 
and other expenses. Those who are eligible receive Pell Grants in 
addition to their full scholarships. The value of these scholarship 
benefits provided to student-athletes receiving a full aid package 
total nearly $87,000 for out of state students and more than $59,000 
for a Wisconsin resident per year.

    But that's just part of the support received by student-athletes. 
They also receive laptops, tutoring and access to dedicated academic 
advisors. They have access to mentoring and world-class coaching, 
mental health counseling, sports psychologists, state-of-the-art health 
care including care, which covers any issues for at least 2 years after 
they leave the university. They have access to unlimited meals and 
snacks, all provided free of charge--they don't have to pay for food 
out of their scholarship money. They receive nutrition advice, and 
career counseling. We also pay for degree completion at any school in 
the country for those who leave for professional sports but want to 
complete their degree at a later point.

    But all of these benefits are dwarfed by what they receive from 
their college education. I'm an economist by training and know the 
extensive literature on the returns to a college education. By any 
measure, college graduates outperform their peers who have only 
completed their high school degree. For example, the average college 
graduate is 24 percent more likely to be employed than a high-school 
graduate and average earnings among college graduates averages $1 
million higher over a lifetime. When looking at the benefits received 
by student-athletes, for the vast majority, the value of their college 
degree will be the biggest benefit they receive from their college 
experience.

    Add the scholarship benefits to the other assistance available to 
student-athletes and then add in the return to their college education. 
This is a generous package of benefits--more than is received by any 
other students on our campus. Their college-athlete experience also 
builds a network of friends and experiences that shape them for a 
lifetime. Their education has the power to change the trajectory of 
entire families, particularly among first-generation college students 
or those who but for their athletic ability may not have the 
opportunity to attend college at all.

    The business model for college athletics is greatly misunderstood 
by the public. The American collegiate model is focused on offering 
athletic opportunities to a broad base of student-athletes in a wide 
range of sports, regardless of their revenue potential. If college 
sports followed the business model used by private companies, we would 
compete in the sports that generate positive cash-flow and eliminate 
all others. That's not the model any university follows. For instance, 
at the University of Wisconsin, only football and men's basketball are 
revenue-generating sports. Our other 21 sports cost more money than 
they generate--and that is true almost everywhere, with very few 
exceptions.

    But we're not running college sports primarily to make money. We 
are offering training and competitive experiences to a large number of 
students with diverse athletic skills. That fits into our educational 
model, where our goal is to help students develop their skills, their 
self-discipline, their self-knowledge and self-confidence over the 
college years. If we had to spend all of our revenue only within our 
two revenue-producing sports, there would be no Olympic sport 
opportunities and a relatively small number of student-athletes. Under 
these circumstances, I'm not sure we would choose to run an athletic 
program at UW-Madison. Our 800 athletes across 23 sports are all part 
of the fabric of our institution. I'm proud of all of them.

    Collectively within the Big Ten, member institutions offer nearly 
350 varsity sport programs that provide opportunities to over 9,500 
student-athletes. In addition, Big Ten institutions will provide nearly 
$240 million in athletics scholarships this year.

    College athletics has continued to evolve and the system has 
changed as the needs and demands of student athletes has changed. For 
instance, there are a variety of recent NCAA Autonomy 5 rule changes to 
further support student-athletes including a more inclusive definition 
of full cost of attendance, more extensive medical expenses and meal 
provisions, to name a few.

    We are now in the midst of a lively national discussion on how to 
best allow students to generate income from Name, Image, and Likeness, 
familiar known as NIL. Other students have this opportunity and I 
support finding ways for student-athletes to do so as well. I'd like to 
discuss the parameters of how this should look.

    As the debate about Name, Image, and Likeness rights has 
progressed, it has become clear that some would like to use this to 
upend the entire collegiate model. As noted, I agree that we need to 
change our NIL rules, and as you know, the NCAA is in the midst of 
finalizing new rules that allow students to benefit from their NIL, 
with some guideposts around how this would work. This will also require 
assistance from Congress through legislation setting national 
standards. But this must be done thoughtfully. Federal legislation 
needs to improve the situation for student-athletes, not make it worse.

    The NCAA, the Big Ten, and the A5 have endorsed a set of consensus 
principles on NIL that we hope Congress will consider.

        `  We need Congress to pass Federal legislation. The members of 
        the Big Ten and the A5 conferences agree that it is time to 
        reform the rules around Name, Image, and Likeness and we urge 
        Congress to adopt a national standard in short order. A 
        national framework is imperative--we cannot function under a 
        hodgepodge of state laws that make it difficult to have a level 
        playing field for recruiting or competition.

        `  Congress must enact a law before July 2021. Time is of the 
        essence. The State of Florida passed a NIL law that takes 
        effect on July 1. Four other states have also passed NIL laws 
        and 31 other states are considering such laws. The need is 
        obvious for a national framework that is universal, fair, and 
        can be implemented without threat of legally upending the 
        collegiate model.

        `  Congress must include a preemption. A number of state laws 
        are already enacted, and more states are proposing action, so 
        it is vital that Federal legislation include a preemption over 
        the state laws. In addition, the NCAA has faced many antitrust 
        lawsuits, so we hope Congress will include a safe harbor to 
        allow the implementation of NCAA rules on NIL. This is a 
        request for a very narrowly tailored antitrust exemption that 
        allows NCAA to enforce common rules about NIL without facing 
        constant external lawsuits.

        `  Protect college recruiting. Student-athletes should have new 
        avenues to pursue payment from third parties for NIL--but those 
        transactions should be totally outside the recruiting process. 
        It would be a mistake to allow NIL to corrupt the recruiting 
        process, allowing the promise of payments, directly by schools 
        or indirectly by boosters or sponsors. This will contaminate 
        the recruiting process.

           The guardrails needed around the recruiting process are to 
        protect our student-athletes. It doesn't take much imagination 
        to envision a car dealership or other business offering to pay 
        a 17-year old five-star recruit still in high school to enroll 
        at the local university and not consider other options.

        `  Prevent pay for play. Our student-athletes are not 
        professional athletes, and they should not be paid to 
        participate in sports. It is essential to preserve the 
        collegiate model that provides opportunity for so many.
        `  Student-athletes are not university employees. We must make 
        clear that our student-athletes are students, and not 
        university employees. Their first priority is to work in the 
        classroom toward a college degree.

    I have recently been appointed to the NCAA's Division-I Board of 
Directors. The association is currently in the process of considering 
new rules for student-athletes to benefit from their Name, Image, and 
Likeness. By the end of next month, each division should have 
legislation drafted to update NIL rules.

    Speaking personally, I want to assure you that I value the role of 
the Congress in constructing a national framework on NIL. I do not 
believe you should wait on the process at the NCAA to be complete, and 
I hope that once you agree on a national NIL standard, that you will 
provide us with the narrow legal protections needed to implement your 
decision.

    New opportunities for NIL can exist within the confines of our 
student-athlete model and Congress can help make this work--preserving 
the educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands, while 
modernizing endorsement opportunities for all.

    Thank you again for your attention to this important issue and your 
concern for our student-athletes.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chairman. Thank you, Chancellor.
    Ms. Karen Dennis, welcome.

STATEMENT OF KAREN DENNIS, DIRECTOR OF TRACK & FIELD AND CROSS 
        COUNTRY, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, COLUMBUS, OH

    Ms. Dennis. Thank you, Chairman Alexander. And, just 
quickly, I would like to say your 10.1 performance in 1960 
would still be pretty good 60 years later.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Dennis. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and 
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today.
    As one who has been engaged in sports over the past 6 
decades as an athlete, coach, and now one of only 3 percent of 
women in the Country to preside as director of a dual-gender 
track and field program, I am honored to be with you today to 
provide some insights.
    My parents were both college-educated. My mother was a 
school teacher; my father a city of Detroit employee. My father 
was an outstanding high-jumper and sprinter, who competed 
against and with the great Jesse Owens, a renowned Buckeye.
    I graduated Michigan State with a Bachelor's and Master's 
degree. I was the first woman at Michigan State in track and 
field to receive an athletic grant and aid--a whopping $300. I 
was the head coach of Michigan State, UNLV, and the 2000 U.S. 
Women's Track & Field Olympic team. Currently, I am in my sixth 
season as Director of Track & Field and Cross Country at The 
Ohio State University.
    Ohio State's Department of Athletics offers 36 
intercollegiate sports--17 women's, 16 men's, and three co-ed--
and approximately 1,000 student athletes. Only two programs, 
football and men's basketball, actually generate a profit. 
Revenue-sharing from these programs is what makes it possible 
for programs like mine to exist. Ohio State's athletic 
department is one of approximately 20 nationwide that is self-
sustaining and receives no university funds, tax dollars, or 
student fees.
    I have been fortunate to have witnessed and been a 
benefactor to the many changes in collegiate sports over the 
past several decades. Throughout each period and change of 
governance, the student-athlete experience has been 
significantly enhanced. As States begin to enact laws governing 
student-athlete compensation, I would like to offer some 
insights on the impact pay-to-play and name, image, likeness, 
NIL, could have on our students and university sport teams.
    I am a strong supporter of the amateurism model of 
collegiate athletics. Paying players to play, in essence making 
them employees of their universities, would have serious, 
negative consequences on college sports and the student 
athlete. I fear once enrolled, student athletes would 
prioritize athletic performance to the detriment of their 
academics and athletics. The cost of funding pay-to-play, at 
best, would result in smaller squad sizes, thereby eliminating 
competitive opportunities for many students. At worst, it would 
force many athletic departments to completely eliminate non-
revenue-generating sports, such as track and field.
    I also support the NCAA's efforts to allow name, image, and 
likeness opportunities for student athletes consistent within 
the collegiate athlete model. I believe it will serve a broader 
base of students, while embracing the successful NCAA amateur 
sports structure. Given the opportunity to brand themselves 
while in college with technical, intellectual, tangible, and 
legal resources at their disposal, a greater number of student 
athletes will leave school better prepared for life and global 
citizenship.
    However, certain guiderails in education programs must be 
put into place to appropriately support the student athlete. 
With newfound NIL revenue comes new and probably unexpected tax 
liabilities and unexpected financial implications that could 
affect an athlete's ability for some student aid programs, such 
as Pell.
    Social media opportunities must be properly vetted by both 
the student athlete and the institution with appropriate 
privacy protections put into place.
    At Ohio State, we place great emphasis on life-after-sport 
through the Eugene D. Smith Leadership Institute, which 
provides leadership, character, and career development 
opportunities to all student athletes in order to best prepare 
them for life after graduation. There are serious benefits, as 
well as concerns, for student athletes as compensation 
opportunities become reality.
    Policymakers should be encouraged to continue to hear 
multiple viewpoints to ensure that the appropriate structures 
support student athletes and protect the amateurism model, 
which has been so important to the collegiate experience of 
millions of athletes.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look 
forward to answering any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Karen Dennis follows:]
                   prepared statement of karen dennis
    Chairman Lamar Alexander, Ranking Member Patty Murray and 
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 
to testify on the subject of ``Compensating College Athletes: Examining 
the Potential Impact on Athletes and Institutions.'' As one who has 
been engaged in sports over the past six decades as an athlete, coach, 
and now one of only 3 percent of women in the country to preside as 
director of a dual gendered track and field program, I'm honored to be 
with you today to provide you my insights on this important topic.

    My parents were both college educated. My mother was a school 
teacher, my father a city of Detroit employee. My father was an 
outstanding high jumper and sprinter who competed against and with the 
great Jesse Owens.

    I fell in love with track and field watching the 1960 Olympics and 
Wilma Rudolph winning three Olympic gold medals. She became my sports 
hero because she looked like me, and I thought I was also fast. I 
didn't know anything about what it took to become an Olympian. I only 
knew I was faster than any girl and most of the boys in elementary 
school.

    I entered high school during the pre-Title IX era. A time when 
sport participation for girls was limited to only basketball in my 
school. I raced locally, regionally, and ultimately for a state 
championship. As a member of the Detroit Track Club, I was able to 
compete throughout the country and internationally. I qualified for the 
1968 Olympic trials in the 200m dash hoping to be among the top three 
to make the team. Unfortunately, I placed 5th, losing my bid for the 
team.

    In 1972, I entered Michigan State University (MSU). I had a 
daughter and new responsibilities. Completing college became my 
priority. However, while at MSU, I was encouraged by two prominent 
coaches (Coach Jim Bibbs, the first minority head coach in the school's 
history, and Dr. Neil Jackson, the Athletic Director and Women's Track 
and Field coach and former Olympian) to try out for the newly formed 
track team at MSU. I couldn't resist the opportunity to put my spikes 
back on. I was the first woman at Michigan State in track and field to 
receive an athletic grant in aid--a whopping $300.

    I graduated Michigan State University with a bachelor's degree and 
a master's degree. I was the head coach of Michigan State, UNLV, and 
the 2000 U.S. Women's National Track and Field Team. Currently, I'm in 
my sixth season as Director of Track & Field and Cross Country at Ohio 
State.

    The Department of Athletics at Ohio State offers 36 intercollegiate 
sports--17 women's, 16 men's and three co-ed--and approximately 1,000 
student-athletes, nearly two-thirds of whom are Ohio State Scholar-
Athletes and nearly one-half who are Academic All-Big Ten honorees. 
Four Ohio State sports generate revenue: football, men's basketball, 
men's ice hockey and wrestling. Of those, only two programs--football 
and men's basketball--actually generate a profit. Revenue sharing from 
these program is what makes it possible for programs like mine to 
exist. Ohio State's Department of Athletics is one of approximately 20 
nationwide that is self-sustaining and receives no university funds, 
tax dollars or student fees.

    The track and field program is one of the oldest and most storied 
at Ohio State. The men's program dates back to 1913 while the women's 
program started in 1978. Some of the most recognizable names in the 
sport wore the scarlet and gray, including the incomparable Jesse 
Owens. The men's program has won one national championship, produced 59 
NCAA indoor and outdoor champions and nine Big Ten team titles. The 
women's teams have been among the best and most consistent programs in 
the conference and are the winners of back to back indoor team titles 
(2019 and 2020) and three outdoor championships, most recently in 2019. 
It has crowned seven NCAA champions (five indoor and two outdoor). 
Between the two programs, Ohio State has over 400 individual Big Ten 
champions, 200 first-team All-Americans and countless more student-
athletes who have gone on to success in all walks of life.

    I've been fortunate to have witnessed and been a benefactor to the 
many changes in collegiate sports over the past several decades.

          Increased scholarship opportunities for women. 
        Collegiate sports in 1972 were two separate entities: one for 
        men and one for women. Men's sports was governed by the 
        National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and women's 
        sports by the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for 
        Women (AIAW). The disparity between the men and women's 
        programs was blatantly obvious, most notably in travel, 
        housing, equipment, practice times, facilities, coach's pay, 
        and scholarships. The impact of Title IX on women student-
        athletes cannot be overstated. Today, the number of female 
        student-athletes is at an all-time high.

          The ``Cost of Attendance'' component to all student 
        athlete scholarships & budget increase to women sports 
        programs. In 1972, Title IX was enacted into law, which kick-
        started progress for women by requiring schools to provide 
        equitable opportunities for both men and women in sports. By 
        the late 1970's budgets were increased for women's sport 
        programs. Thanks to increased funding and institutional 
        opportunities, there has been a 545 percent increase in the 
        percentage of women playing college sports since the passage of 
        Title IX and in 2019, more than 10,000 women's team competed in 
        NCAA-sponsored sports according to the NCAA. It is critical 
        that these existing opportunities for female college athletes 
        and the advancements which have occurred as a result of Title 
        IX are supported and protected.

          National and international team travel for 
        competitions. As a young coach, after the passage of Title IX, 
        I advocated for a travel budget that would allow for more 
        competitive opportunities, two athletes to a room instead of 
        four, two pairs of shoes per person, $20.00 a day per diem, and 
        scholarship numbers equal to some of my Big Ten competitors. I 
        figured I had nothing to lose, everything to gain. Some of my 
        requests were met.

    Other significant changes include:

          Media and television exposure.

          Equality for National Championships among all NCAA 
        Division programs.

          National and international recruitment.

          Upgraded facilities and locker rooms for both men and 
        women's teams

          Medical services, nutritional and psychological 
        services.

          Equality consideration of salaries for women.

    Throughout each period in change of governance, the student athlete 
experience has been significantly enhanced. The driving force of change 
in this moment is to stay laser-focused on what really matters. As a 
former student athlete, a young coach, and now in the youth of my old 
age, the student athlete experience will continue to be what really 
matters to me.

    The current debate to ``compensate college athletes'' has been 
discussed among coaches and student athletes for years dating back to 
my years as a young coach. As states began to enact laws governing 
student athlete compensation, I'd like to offer some of my insights on 
the impact ``Pay to Play'' and ``Name Image and Likeness'' (NIL) could 
have on our students and university sport teams.

    I am a strong supporter of the amateurism model of colligate 
athletics. Paying players to play--in essence making them employees of 
their universities--would have serious, negative consequences on 
college sports and the student athlete. I fear once enrolled, student 
athletes would prioritize athletic performance to the detriment of 
their academics. While ``paying players to play'' sounds simple and 
easy, the distribution of funds to every student athlete is not. Will 
all student athletes be paid the same? Would non-scorers and students 
that don't play, receive the same level of pay as scorers and our teams 
most relied upon athletes? If so, this approach will take away the 
competitive incentive to get better by rewarding everyone for unequal 
participation. Finally, the cost of funding ``pay to play'' at best 
would result in smaller squad sizes thereby eliminating competitive 
opportunities for many students. At worst, it would force many athletic 
departments to completely eliminate nonrevenue generating sports--such 
as track and field.

    The NIL model will serve a broader base of students through sport 
and continue to embrace the successful NCAA amateur sport structure. 
Providing our student athletes the opportunity to monetize their 
talents through NIL will allow them to grow and use their intellectual 
and creative talents beyond their athletic abilities. It's exciting to 
imagine a student population incentivized to experience and discover 
talents beyond their athletics. Given the opportunity to brand 
themselves while in college with technical, intellectual, tangible and 
legal resources at their disposal, a greater number of student athletes 
will leave school better prepared for life and global citizenship.

    At Ohio State for example, we place great emphasis on ``life after 
sport'' through the Eugene D. Smith Leadership Institute, which 
provides leadership, character, and career development opportunities to 
all student-athletes in order to best prepare them for life after 
graduation. This is in addition to a national model Student-Athlete 
Support Services Office (SASSO) that supports the University and 
Athletic Department missions by providing programs and services that 
promote degree attainment and comprehensive personal development. SASSO 
highlights include:

          An academic counselor assigned each team to provide 
        accurate, academic information and planning related to a 
        student's college progress and degree program;

          Priority scheduling;

          Learning specialists and mentors; and

          Study table and tutoring programs.

    I do have concerns with NIL. Social media apps are the easiest way 
for student athletes to gain recognition and make money. Unfortunately, 
it's the least monitored and regulated. If not properly checked for 
content, highly inappropriate postings could damage the reputation of 
the student and have long-lasting impact. While inappropriate content 
can be identified after the fact, unfortunately that may be too late. 
Who defines what's appropriate becomes another issue that may require 
litigation. Living in the world of Covid-19 and social injustice, 
student athletes run the risk of infringing on a teammate's privacy in 
their posts.

    Social media ``following'' is a highly competitive business. The 
amount of money to be made is dependent on the number of ``followers.'' 
Moreover, immediate financial gratification could become more important 
than attending classes and school events, and even athletic practices. 
Also, with some newfound revenue comes new and probably unexpected tax 
liabilities as well as financial implications that could affect their 
eligibility for some student aid programs, such as Pell. Finally, young 
athletes could attract older followers with the financial means to show 
up at a student's school, residence, hotel or competition. This 
possibility worries me that our student athletes may be exposed to 
uncomfortable and possibly dangerous situations. Certain guardrails and 
education programs must be put into place to appropriately support the 
student-athletes.

    As a minority coach in a minority sport, I know the changes 
considered in this moment will not only change the lives of our student 
athletes but will alter the trajectory of their families, communities, 
and society at large. I've witnessed the value in providing an 
education through athletic participation to students in nonrevenue 
sports and underrepresented populations that have been intellectually 
marginalized. I've watched hundreds of students who would never have 
gone to college--some who didn't even think they belonged in college--
leave school with jobs in careers of their choice.

    In the most recent statistics, Ohio State student-athletes combined 
for a 995 single-year Academic Progress Rate (APR) with 21 teams--20 of 
them nonrevenue generating, including men's track and field--posting 
perfect 1,000 scores. Looking at multi-year scores, 23 teams are at 980 
or higher, including women's track and field and men's and women's 
cross country. According to a 2017 Bureau of Labor Statistics earnings 
by Educational Attainment as cited in the Commission on Black Girls in 
Columbus study, people with a Bachelor's degree earn 65 percent more 
weekly income than those with a high school diploma. The study 
reflected weekly earnings for H.S. graduates is $712 and college 
graduates with a B.S. $1,173. Eliminating economic disparity is 
liberating!

    We cannot ignore the current reality facing universities and their 
athletic programs. The possibility of nonrevenue sports being canceled 
due to lack of funding is frightening. The effects of Covid-19 has 
given us a jarring reality check on our athletic community that now 
threatens our survival. In fact, just last week a Big Ten institution 
dropped its men's track and field program.

    As you craft legislation to increase student opportunities, I ask 
that you do so with an eye not just toward revenue-generating sports, 
but also to sports like those I am privileged to coach.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward 
to answering any questions you may have.
                                 ______
                                 
                  [summary statement of karen dennis]
    Coach Karen Dennis graduated from Michigan State University with a 
bachelor's degree and a master's degree. She has served as the head 
coach of Michigan State, UNLV, and the 2000 U.S. Women's National Track 
and Field Team. She's in her sixth season as the Director of Track & 
Field and Cross Country at The Ohio State University.

    Coach Dennis is a strong supporter of the amateurism model of 
colligate athletics. Paying players to play would have serious, 
negative consequences on college sports and the student athlete. The 
cost of funding ``pay to play'' at best would result in smaller squad 
sizes thereby eliminating competitive opportunities for many students. 
At worst, it would force many athletic departments to completely 
eliminate nonrevenue generating sports.

    Ohio State's Department of Athletics offers 36 intercollegiate 
sports--17 women's, 16 men's and three co-ed--and approximately 1,000 
student-athletes. Only two programs--football and men's basketball--
actually generate a profit. Revenue sharing from these programs 
supports the existence of nonrevenue programs like track and field and 
cross country. Ohio State's Athletics is one of approximately 20 
nationwide that is self-sustaining and receives no university funds, 
tax dollars or student fees.

    Coach Dennis supports compensation for name, image and likeness 
(NIL) and believes it will serve a broader base of students while 
embracing the successful NCAA amateur sport structure. However, certain 
guardrails and education programs must be put into place to 
appropriately support the student athlete. With newfound revenue comes 
new and probably unexpected tax liabilities and unexpected financial 
implications that could affect an athlete's eligibility for some 
student aid programs, such as Pell. Social media opportunities must be 
properly vetted by both the student athlete and the institution, with 
appropriate privacy protections put into place.

    There are serious benefits, as well as concerns, for student 
athletes as compensation opportunities become a reality. Policymakers 
should be encouraged to continue to hear multiple viewpoints to ensure 
that the appropriate structure supports student athletes and protects 
the amateurism model which has been so important to the collegiate 
experience of millions of athletes.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Dennis, for being here today.
    Mr. Hartwell, welcome.

   STATEMENT OF JOHN HARTWELL, VICE PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR OF 
          ATHLETICS, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN, UT

    Mr. Hartwell. Thank you, Chairman Alexander and Ranking 
Member Murray and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank 
you so much for inviting me to testify on this important topic 
today.
    Collegiate athletics have played a huge part in my life. 
The education experiences, relationships, and life lessons 
learned over 4 years as a student athlete at The Citadel many 
years ago have been invaluable to me over the last 37 years. 
The most rewarding aspect of my job is being able to facilitate 
and provide life-changing opportunities through collegiate 
athletics to others, just as I was fortunate to be given many 
years ago.
    My primary responsibility as the Director of Athletics is 
to provide the tools and resources necessary for our student 
athletes to be successful in the classroom and on the fields of 
play. As Senator Romney so graciously pointed out, at Utah 
State, we are winning in the classroom and on the fields of 
play. In addition to the championships won and the high grade-
point averages and grade--graduation success rates, we have 
also finished in the top 25 in the Country over the last 5 
years in the sports of football, men's basketball, men's cross 
country, and men's track and field. In addition, in the 2020 
NFL draft, quarterback Jordan Love was the only non-autonomous 
Power 5 conference student athlete selected. So, there are a 
lot of things going well here at Utah State University.
    I want to talk a little bit about the financial side of 
college athletics, and I will throw back on my CPA hat from 
many years ago to talk a little about that. Operating budgets 
for FBS institutions, the highest level of football playing 
institutions, which there are 130, range from roughly $16 
million to over $230 million in annual budgets. Here at Utah 
State, our budget is around $36 million; and of that $36 
million, $13 million in revenues are generated through football 
and men's basketball. Conversely, for expenditures, we spend 
about $11.5 million annually on football and men's basketball 
expenditures.
    One important consideration in collegiate athletics and the 
collegiate athletics funding model is Title IX. Revenues from 
football and men's basketball help fund scholarships in many 
sports, including for female student athletes, which are 
required by Title IX compliance.
    To me, the greatest victory a student athlete can achieve 
during their collegiate experience is when they walk across the 
stage to get a degree. Once earned, that degree can never be 
taken away. And, as you have heard from other witnesses, that 
degree can often lead to financial success in your life going 
forward, regardless the field of competition they go into. On 
the flip side, an athletic career can be taken away, whether by 
illness or injury, in the flash of an eye. So, the importance 
of getting that degree is so, so important.
    College athletics provides outstanding educational 
opportunities for student athletes, many of whom would not be 
able to afford these educational opportunities without athletic 
scholarships. The evolving needs of student athletes have been 
addressed in recent years with additional benefits being 
allowed by NCAA bylaws, to include cost of attendance stipends, 
which were introduced in 2015. And, the most recent iteration 
is in name, image, and likeness.
    The concept of allowing student athletes the ability to 
profit from their name, image, or likeness, just as any other 
student on campus has the ability to, makes total sense. 
However, this opportunity does not need to become the path to 
pay-for-play, which would erode the collegiate model, which is 
so important to us.
    Some key elements to consider when examining name, image, 
and likeness are these:
    First off, the percentage of student athletes likely to 
generate significant money from name, image, and likeness 
endorsements and sponsorships is a very small percentage of the 
total number of student athletes that compete. At the Division 
I level, we have an average of 180,000 student athletes to 
compete. I would venture to say that the number who can 
generate significant income off of name, image, likeness is a 
very small fraction of that.
    We also have to be careful of the unintended consequences 
of name, image, and likeness can create. Major recruiting 
violations have the opportunity to increase dramatically. It 
would be very difficult to monitor compensation and ethics, 
especially when funneled through third-party entities. As I had 
mentioned, Title IX could be a significant challenge based on 
the makeup of who would be receiving these benefits.
    Also, revenues that benefit all student athletes on a 
campus, such as apparel and footwear deals, or corporate 
sponsorships, may be reduced that benefit--right now benefit 
every student athlete on campus and instead be rechanneled to a 
select few student athletes.
    I think an important point is the financial challenges will 
likely be most severe at limited-resource institutions. We have 
got to have recruiting guardrails put in place, make sure that 
they are in place for collegiate athletics as it relates to 
NIL. Recruitment of prospective student athletes has to be 
safeguarded by the NCAA to maintain any type of competitive 
balance.
    In conclusion, we need Congress to pass legislation on NIL 
to provide a consistent, national framework and ensure 
collegiate institutions and student athletes are not forced to 
navigate different State guidelines on the topic. We would ask 
for swift, preemptive, Federal legislation to offset the 
individual State laws.
    I realize higher education may not be for everyone. In 
baseball and hockey, which have very strong minor league 
programs, there are alternatives if athletes in these sports 
don't desire to go to college. We need to work with the NFL, 
the NBA, the WNBA, and other professional leagues to further 
study possible minor league development systems as an option 
for those athletes not inclined for higher education.
    As we navigate through unprecedented and challenging times 
in our Country, including the COVID-19 pandemic and social and 
political unrest, we must safeguard the overwhelmingly positive 
impact of college athletics and its structure tethered to 
higher education.
    On behalf of my fellow athletic directors, I want to 
express our appreciation for your attention to name, image, 
likeness' impact on collegiate athletics going forward. We 
believe there is a way to provide additional income 
opportunities to student athletes through NIL while preserving 
the collegiate model and the student athletes' amateur status.
    Thanks to you--each of you for your dedicated service to 
our Country and for your interest in this important topic.
    [The prepared statement of John Hartwell follows:]
                  prepared statement of john hartwell
    Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and distinguished 
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 
regarding the current collegiate model for student-athletes and the 
potential impact of Name, Image, and Likeness on that structure moving 
forward.

    Utah State University is one of the Nation's premier student-
centered land-grant and space-grant universities with 17,000 students 
on our main campus in Logan, and nearly 11,000 on our other eight 
campuses around the State of Utah. We are committed to fostering the 
principle that academics comes first by cultivating diversity of 
thought and culture and by serving the public through learning, 
discovery, and engagement. I am fortunate to serve our great University 
as Vice President and Director of Athletics, a position I have held 
since 2015.

    Athletically, Utah State is a proud member of the Mountain West 
Conference and competes in 16 sports at the NCAA Division I level. We 
consider the academic success of our 385-plus student-athletes to be 
our #1 priority. Our current graduation success rate (GSR) is 93 
percent, which is #1 in the Mountain West Conference, and the current 
cumulative grade point average (GPA) for our student-athletes is 3.36.

    In addition to winning in the classroom, our student-athletes are 
excelling on the various fields of play as well. Over the last 5 years 
Utah State Athletics teams have won nine Mountain West titles, 
including back-to-back Men's Basketball Championships in 2019 and 2020, 
and had Men's Cross Country, Football, Men's Basketball, and Men's 
Outdoor Track & Field all finish in the Top 25 in the Nation during 
that span.

    I was fortunate enough to be the beneficiary of an athletics 
scholarship to play basketball at The Citadel in the mid 1980's. The 
education, experiences, relationships, and life lessons learned in 
those 4 years have been invaluable to me over the last 30+ years. After 
working 10 years as a certified public accountant (CPA), including 
private practice, internal audit, and as a Financial Officer for a 
private company, I have spent the last 23 years serving in collegiate 
athletics administration. I made this career change because I wanted to 
facilitate and provide life-changing opportunities through collegiate 
athletics to others just as I was fortunate to have experienced.

    The landscape of collegiate athletics has changed significantly 
over the last 30 years, and it continues to evolve. One thing which has 
remained consistent, however, is that student-athletes are the core of 
collegiate athletics. Without student-athletes, no coach or 
administrator would have a job, and institutional athletics programs 
would not exist. My primary responsibility as an Athletics Director is 
to provide the necessary resources to our student-athletes so they can 
be successful in the classroom, as well as on the fields or courts of 
play, and to equip them with life skills to utilize the remainder of 
their life, regardless of the career path they choose.

    While there is a broad variance in operating budgets for Football 
Bowl Subdivision (FBS) institutions in Division I ($16 million--$230 
million), most FBS institutions provide full cost of attendance 
scholarships. A full athletic scholarship at Utah State covers the full 
cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, books, room, board, and 
other expenses. The cost of a full aid package for the 2020-21 academic 
year (Fall & Spring semester) is $36,340 for out-of-State students and 
$21,652 for a Utah resident. In addition, those student-athletes who 
qualify for a full Pell Grant will receive $6,345 this academic year. 
Our student-athletes who live off campus receive $11,500 in stipend 
checks for the academic year (Fall & Spring semester). If they attend 
Summer School, they receive an additional stipend. The below table 
provides the value of an athletic scholarship at Utah State over a 5-
year period (most student-athletes are on aid for 5 years):

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    In-State                            Out of State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Full Athletic Scholarship (5 yrs)                              $108,260                              $181,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Stipend (cash) from scholarship (5                               $57,500                               $57,500
                                yrs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Pell Grant (5yrs)                               $31,725                               $31,725
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The value of support our student-athletes receive goes far beyond 
the cost of the scholarship outlined above. Every student-athlete has 
an assigned academic advisor, access to individual tutors for 
academics, career counselors, mental health counselors, sports 
psychologists, nutritionists, extensive health care including team 
doctors, licensed trainers, physical therapists, and strength and 
conditioning coaches. Utah State student-athletes also receive training 
table meals and access to a nutritional fueling station that is open 
during the week for snacks and supplements. Our student-athletes also 
receive sport-specific instruction from an outstanding group of both 
head coaches and assistant coaches. These coaches also serve as mentors 
and provide support and guidance far beyond preparing student-athletes 
for competition.

    The relationships that develop between college coaches and their 
student-athletes often last many years after a student-athlete's 
playing career is over. Speaking from personal experience, Les 
Robinson, my college coach, was very influential in my career change 10 
years after I played for him. Due to the amount of time spent with 
their studentathletes in formative years of maturity, coaches feel a 
sense of obligation to mentor their student-athletes long after their 
playing days are over.

    I tell our graduating senior student-athletes every year that 
walking across the stage to receive a degree is by far the biggest 
victory they will experience in college. They may not believe that when 
it happens, but the further along in life they progress, the more they 
realize the truth of that statement. Once earned, that degree can never 
be taken away. Conversely, an athletic career can be cut short by 
injury or illness in the blink of an eye. I can remember several 
conversations with friends when I was in my mid-30's and they would be 
complaining about still paying off student loans, and thinking to 
myself how fortunate I was to get my education paid for while playing a 
game I love.

    Often the narrative these days in collegiate athletics, especially 
at the FBS level, is that athletic departments are flush with cash due 
to the money brought in primarily by football and men's basketball. 
What is usually lost in that discussion is the net revenue generated by 
these sports is used to fund the operations of the non-revenue sports, 
as well as the administrative areas such as academic support, sports 
medicine, and media relations. At Utah State, football and men's 
basketball are the only sports which produce enough income to cover 
their operating expenses, and that does not happen every year. An 
important consideration in the collegiate athletics funding model is 
Title IX. Revenues from football and men's basketball help fund 
scholarships and operations for female student-athletes which are 
required for Title IX compliance.

    It is important for us to always remember athletics is but one 
silo, albeit a very noticeable silo, of an institution of higher 
learning where education is the focus. College athletics provides a 
point of pride and identity for the institution, but it also provides 
outstanding educational opportunities for student-athletes, many of 
whom would not be able to afford these educational opportunities 
without an athletics scholarship.

    In an effort to continue to address the needs of student-athletes 
there have been positive changes in recent years related to allowable 
benefits under the NCAA bylaws. The implementation of cost of 
attendance stipends in 2015 is one example of such progress. The most 
recent iteration is the introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) 
opportunities for student-athletes. To this end, in April 2020, the 
NCAA Board of Governors directed each of the NCAA's three divisions to 
immediately consider updates to relevant bylaws to permit student-
athletes the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name, image, 
and likeness. In Division I, the Legislative Solutions Working Group is 
on track to introduce legislative changes to the Division I Council for 
vote in January 2021. In the interim, the NCAA has approved waivers 
over the last 2 years allowing student-athletes to benefit from their 
name, imager, and likeness in certain circumstances. The waiver 
opportunity will continue to be available to student-athletes as the 
NCAA membership works to modify its rules.

    On the surface, the concept of allowing student-athletes the 
ability to profit from their name, image, or likeness as it applies to 
professional development and entrepreneurship, just as any other 
student has the ability to, makes total sense.

    However, this opportunity does not need to become the path to pay 
for play which would erode the collegiate model.

    There are some key elements to consider when examining the impact 
of Name, Image, and Likeness:

      The percentage of student-athletes likely to generate 
significant money from NIL endorsements and sponsorships is less than 1 
percent of all scholarship student-athletes. Do we need to ``recreate 
the wheel'' in a system that the overwhelming majority of student-
athletes do not think is broken? The Division I Student-Athlete 
Advisory Committee, which represents over 180,000 Division I student-
athletes, spoke loud and clear about this topic in its Oct. 29, 2019 
document titled ``We are the 100 percent''.

      The unintended consequences of NIL reform could be 
significant.

        `  The probability of unfair recruiting practices rises 
        exponentially.

        `  Monitoring compensation and ethics will be extremely 
        difficult.

        `  Direct or indirect issues with Title IX.

        `  Revenues from footwear/apparel contracts, corporate 
        sponsorship rights on campuses that benefit all student-
        athletes will be reduced due to deals by the footwear/apparel 
        companies and corporate sponsors with individual student-
        athletes.

        `  The financial challenges will likely be the most severe at 
        limited resource institutions and historically black colleges 
        and universities.

      We need the U.S. Congress to pass legislation on NIL to 
provide a consistent national framework and ensure collegiate 
institutions and student-athletes are not forced to navigate a myriad 
of different State guidelines on the topic. There are five states which 
have already passed NIL legislation with the Florida law set to be the 
first to go into effect on July 1, 2021. Thirty-one additional states 
have introduced legislation related to NIL. We would ask for swift, 
preemptive Federal legislation to offset the individual State laws.

        `  Recruiting guardrails for college athletics are a must. 
        Recruitment of prospective student-athletes has to be 
        safeguarded by the NCAA to maintain any type of competitive 
        balance.

    We are currently navigating through unprecedented and challenging 
times in our country, including the COVID-19 pandemic, social and 
political unrest, and the economic challenges associated with the 
aforementioned issues. As we continue to address these issues, the 
overwhelmingly positive impact of collegiate athletics and its 
structure tethered to higher education is something we must safeguard.

    I realize higher education may not be for everyone, whether or not 
you are a student-athlete. For those athletes in sports such as 
baseball and hockey, which have strong minor league systems available 
to kids right out of high school, there are alternatives if they do not 
desire to go to college. We need to work with the NFL, the NBA, and the 
WNBA to further study possible minor league developmental systems as an 
option for athletes in those sports who do not want to go to college.

    As we have witnessed here in the past several weeks, sports are a 
vital and positive component of our society. Whether it is to unite 
people of different backgrounds or beliefs to reach together for a 
common goal, or to serve as a platform for speaking out, sports are 
powerful. Collegiate sports, which is such a unique and positive 
platform in our country, need to be preserved for both this generation 
and generations to come.

    I speak both from a personal perspective, as one whose life has 
been so positively impacted by the opportunity to be a collegiate 
student-athlete, and from a professional perspective, when I think 
about the countless student-athletes I have seen make the amazing and 
positive transformation and maturation from prospect to student-athlete 
to professional (in a wide array of vocations), all made possible by 
the education they received as a student-athlete. I speak for all of my 
fellow Directors of Athletics when I express our appreciation for your 
attention to NIL's impact on collegiate athletics going forward. We 
believe there is a way to provide additional income opportunities to 
student-athletes through NIL, while preserving the collegiate model and 
the student-athletes' amateur status.

    Thanks to each of you for your dedicated service to our country and 
your interest in this important topic.
                                 ______
                                 
                  [summary statement of john hartwell]
    Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and distinguished 
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 
regarding the current collegiate model for student-athletes and the 
potential impact of Name, Image, and Likeness on that structure moving 
forward.

    Utah State University is one of the Nation's premier student-
centered land-grant and space-grant universities with 17,000 students 
on our main campus in Logan, and nearly 11,000 on our other eight 
campuses around the State of Utah. I am fortunate to serve our great 
University as Vice President and Director of Athletics, a position I 
have held since 2015.

    Athletically, Utah State is a proud member of the Mountain West 
Conference and competes in 16 sports at the NCAA Division I level. Our 
current graduation success rate (GSR) is 93 percent, which is #1 in the 
Mountain West Conference, and the current cumulative grade point 
average (GPA) for our student-athletes is 3.36. In addition to winning 
in the classroom, our student-athletes are excelling on the various 
fields of play as well. Over the last 5 years Utah State Athletics 
teams have won nine Mountain West titles, including back-to-back Men's 
Basketball Championships in 2019 and 2020, and had Men's Cross Country, 
Football, Men's Basketball, and Men's Outdoor Track & Field all finish 
in the Top 25 in the Nation during that span.

    I was fortunate enough to be the beneficiary of an athletics 
scholarship to play basketball at The Citadel in the mid 1980's. The 
education, experiences, relationships, and life lessons learned in 
those 4 years have been invaluable to me over the last 30 plus years.

    The landscape of collegiate athletics has changed significantly 
over the last 30 years, and it continues to evolve. One thing which has 
remained consistent, however, is that student-athletes are the core of 
collegiate athletics. Without student-athletes, no coach or 
administrator would have a job, and institutional athletics programs 
would not exist. My primary responsibility as an Athletics Director is 
to provide the necessary resources to our student-athletes so they can 
be successful in the classroom, as well as on the fields or courts of 
play, and to equip them with life skills to utilize the remainder of 
their life, regardless of the career path they choose.

    While there is a broad variance in operating budgets for Football 
Bowl Subdivision (FBS) institutions in Division I ($16 million--$230 
million), most FBS institutions provide full cost of attendance 
scholarships. A full athletic scholarship at Utah State covers the full 
cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, books, room, board, and 
other expenses. The cost of a full aid package for the 2020-21 academic 
year (Fall & Spring semester) is $36,340 for out-of-State students and 
$21,652 for a Utah resident. In addition, those student-athletes who 
qualify for a full Pell Grant will receive $6,345 this academic year. 
The below table provides the value of an athletic scholarship at Utah 
State over a 5-year period (most student-athletes are on aid for 5 
years):

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    In-State                            Out of State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Full Athletic Scholarship (5 yrs)                              $108,260                              $181,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Stipend (cash) from scholarship (5                               $57,500                               $57,500
                                yrs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Pell Grant (5yrs)                               $31,725                               $31,725
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The value of support our student-athletes receive goes far beyond 
the cost of the scholarship outlined above. Our student-athletes also 
receive sport-specific instruction from an outstanding group of both 
head coaches and assistant coaches. These coaches also serve as mentors 
and provide support and guidance far beyond preparing student-athletes 
for competition. The relationships that develop between college coaches 
and their student-athletes often last many years after a student-
athlete's playing career is over.

    I tell our graduating senior student-athletes every year that 
walking across the stage to receive a degree is by far the biggest 
victory they will experience in college. They may not believe that when 
it happens, but the further along in life they progress, the more they 
realize the truth of that statement. Once earned, that degree can never 
be taken away. Conversely, an athletic career can be cut short by 
injury or illness in the blink of an eye. I can remember several 
conversations with friends when I was in my mid-30's and they would be 
complaining about still paying off student loans, and thinking to 
myself how fortunate I was to get my education paid for while playing a 
game I love.

    Often the narrative these days in collegiate athletics, especially 
at the FBS level, is that athletic departments are flush with cash due 
to the money brought in primarily by football and men's basketball. An 
important consideration in the collegiate athletics funding model is 
Title IX. Revenues from football and men's basketball help fund 
scholarships and operations for female student-athletes which are 
required for Title IX compliance.

    It is important for us to always remember athletics is but one 
silo, albeit a very noticeable silo, of an institution of higher 
learning where education is the focus. College athletics provides a 
point of pride and identity for the institution, but it also provides 
outstanding educational opportunities for student-athletes, many of 
whom would not be able to afford these educational opportunities 
without an athletics scholarship.

    In an effort to continue to address the needs of student-athletes 
there have been positive changes in recent years related to allowable 
benefits under the NCAA bylaws. The implementation of cost of 
attendance stipends in 2015 is one example of such progress. The most 
recent iteration is the introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) 
opportunities for student-athletes. On the surface, the concept of 
allowing student-athletes the ability to profit from their name, image, 
or likeness as it applies to professional development and 
entrepreneurship, just as any other student has the ability to, makes 
total sense. However, this opportunity does not need to become the path 
to pay for play which would erode the collegiate model.

    There are some key elements to consider when examining the impact 
of Name, Image, and Likeness:

          The percentage of student-athletes likely to generate 
        significant money from NIL endorsements and sponsorships is 
        less than 1 percent of all scholarship student-athletes.

          The unintended consequences of NIL reform could be 
        significant.

          We need the U.S. Congress to pass legislation on NIL 
        to provide a consistent national framework and ensure 
        collegiate institutions and student-athletes are not forced to 
        navigate a myriad of different State guidelines on the topic.

          Recruiting guardrails for college athletics are a 
        must.

    We are currently navigating through unprecedented and challenging 
times in our country, including the COVID19 pandemic, social and 
political unrest, and the economic challenges associated with the 
aforementioned issues. As we continue to address these issues, the 
overwhelmingly positive impact of collegiate athletics and its 
structure tethered to higher education is something we must safeguard.

    I realize higher education may not be for everyone, whether or not 
you are a student-athlete. For those athletes in sports such as 
baseball and hockey, which have strong minor league systems available 
to kids right out of high school, there are alternatives if they do not 
desire to go to college. We need to work with the NFL, the NBA, and the 
WNBA to further study possible minor league developmental systems as an 
option for athletes in those sports who do not want to go to college.

    As we have witnessed here in the past several weeks, sports are a 
vital and positive component of our society. Whether it is to unite 
people of different backgrounds or beliefs to reach together for a 
common goal, or to serve as a platform for speaking out, sports are 
powerful. Collegiate sports, which is such a unique and positive 
platform in our country, need to be preserved for both this generation 
and generations to come.

    I speak both from a personal perspective, as one whose life has 
been so positively impacted by the opportunity to be a collegiate 
student-athlete, and from a professional perspective, when I think 
about the countless student-athletes I have seen make the amazing and 
positive transformation and maturation from prospect to student-athlete 
to professional (in a wide array of vocations), all made possible by 
the education they received as a student-athlete. I speak for all of my 
fellow Directors of Athletics when I express our appreciation for your 
attention to NIL's impact on collegiate athletics going forward. We 
believe there is a way to provide additional income opportunities to 
student-athletes through NIL, while preserving the collegiate model and 
the student-athletes' amateur status.

    Thanks to each of you for your dedicated service to our country and 
your interest in this important topic.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hartwell.
    Mr. Huma, welcome.

STATEMENT OF RAMOGI HUMA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COLLEGE 
                 PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, NORCO, CA

    Mr. Huma. Good morning. My name is Ramogi Huma. I am a 
former UCLA football player and the Executive Director of the 
National College Players Association, which served as the 
primary advocate for the California, Florida, and Nebraska NIL 
laws, and is assisting nine of the other 27 States pursuing 
similar legislation.
    First, I would like to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking 
Member Murray for inviting me to testify today. For the record, 
the NCPA's opposition to each NCAA and Power 5 conference 
proposal is included in my written testimony.
    In the last couple of months, we have seen colleges, 
conferences, and the NCAA voice opposition to racial injustice 
in policing and in other areas, which is positive. However, 
NCAA sports itself is based on racial injustice. The NCAA uses 
amateurism as cover to systematically strip generational wealth 
from predominantly Black athletes from lower-income households 
to pay for lavish salaries of predominantly White coaches, 
athletic directors, commissioners, and NCAA administrators.
    Amateurism is further exposed as a fraud as colleges and 
commissioners cite billions in college football revenues as 
justification for resuming college football in the COVID 
pandemic without uniform safety standards.
    To claim education is the top priority is also exposed as 
false as colleges cut non-revenue sports and players' 
educational opportunities while paying coaches millions of 
dollars.
    NCAA sports is asking Congress to support this unjust 
system and trample the rights of States for adopting laws to 
protect their college athletes.
    NCAA sports claims that a patchwork of State laws that give 
athletes economic freedoms would be impossible to govern, but 
NCAA sports has demonstrated its ability to comply with an 
ever-changing array of COVID orders issued by Governors and 
counties to return players to play in the pandemic. They can 
surely comply with any mild differences in State laws that 
grant college athletes economic freedoms.
    NCAA sports also claims a patchwork of State laws would 
ruin the level playing field in college sports. However, 
Federal courts have concluded multiple times that a level 
playing field does not exist under NCAA rules. Colleges with 
the most revenues and wealthiest boosters have the largest 
recruiting budgets, hire the best coaches, build the best 
facilities, and in turn, they get the best recruits, win the 
most games, and score the richest TV deals, allowing them to 
continue their dominance.
    In 2019, Ohio State University earned $209 million in 
athletics revenue. Utah State earned $35 million. Both are in 
the FBS Division. ESPN's pre-season football rankings had Ohio 
State at No. 2 in the Nation, while Utah State was ranked 95th. 
College athletes should not be forced to sacrifice their 
economic freedoms and rights so the NCAA and its colleges can 
pretend that a level playing field exists.
    The claims that non-revenue sports would have to be cut and 
players in revenue sports should earn some of the money that 
they generate are baseless. If big football and basketball 
revenues were needed for other sports to exist, then NCAA 
Division II would not exist. But, it does--over 300 schools 
where there are not enough football and basketball revenues to 
subsidize other sports.
    NCAA Division III and the IA in community college athletics 
would not exist either. But, they do exist. They simply do not 
spend extravagantly like Division I schools.
    We conducted an analysis with Drexel University professor 
Ellen Staurowsky, finding that in 2017, the average Division I 
FBS college spent about $34 million per year more than the 
average Division I FCS college to field the same sports. This 
means that FBS expenditure levels are not necessary to field 
these Division I sports.
    In fact, while FBS revenues exploded by over $5 billion 
between 2003 and 2018, the number of athletes decreased by over 
300, while the number of assistant coaches increased by over 
1,500. Administrative expenses skyrocketed by over $1 billion. 
It is clearly unnecessary to hire more coaches and 
administrators for fewer athletes.
    Part of the $34 million per school in excess expenditures 
could be used to compensate college athletes while fully 
complying with Title IX and preserving all non-revenue sports. 
Equal payments to athletes could come directly from conferences 
or athletic associations. It is a very realistic model. All it 
would take is for colleges to curb some of the excess 
expenditures on extra coaches, enormous salaries, and lavish 
facilities.
    In closing, we are asking Congress not to adopt a narrow 
NIL law designed to reduce athletes' economic freedoms as 
requested by NCAA sports. College athletes do not need Congress 
to secure NIL freedoms as States across the Nation are already 
enacting equitable laws. Instead, we ask Congress to enact 
much-needed, broad-based reform to bring forth the enforcement 
of health and safety standards, to end sexual abuse and 
negligent practices that harm college athletes, to prevent 
college athletes from being stuck with sports-related medical 
expenses, improve graduation rates, and to finally allow 
players to share in the revenue that they generate. And, yes, 
we would like NIL compensation to be included in a broad-based 
bill in a way that extends, not undermines, what the States are 
pursuing.
    We are grateful to the group of Senators who put forward 
legislative framework for our College Athletes Bill of Rights 
that will bring forth broad-based reform in college sports, and 
we support the direction of that framework 100 percent.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ramogi Huma follows:]
                   prepared statement of ramogi huma
    Dear Chairman Alexander, Ranking Murray, and Members of the HELP 
Committee,

    Thank you very much for inviting me to participate in the 
``Compensating College Athletes: Examining the Potential Impact on 
Athletes and Institutions'' hearing on Tuesday, September 15, 2020. 
This discussion encompasses important economic rights and freedoms that 
college athletes should be afforded. The National College Players 
Association (NCPA) is a co-sponsor of California SB 206 known as The 
Fair Pay to Play Act, served as the primary advocate for the Florida 
NIL and Nebraska laws, and is providing information and support to an 
additional 9 of an estimated 27 other states pursuing similar 
legislation.

    Please accept this summary, full written testimony, the attached 
documents, and the list of topics and links at the end of this letter 
to be entered as my written testimony.

    Summary

    NCAA sports' athlete compensation prohibition imposes second-class 
citizenship upon college athletes nationwide. It's a system based on 
racial injustice as it denies predominantly Black revenue athletes, 
many of whom are from low income homes, of billions of dollars in 
generational wealth that instead flows to predominantly White coaches, 
administrators, commissioners, and NCAA staff.

    College athlete NIL compensation and equitable revenue sharing can 
take place without cutting nonrevenue sports or violating Title IX by 
targeting excess expenditures on coaches' salaries and luxury 
facilities. Data and information in this testimony provides objective 
support for this fact.

    Congress should not ignore sexual and physical abuse, deadly 
negligence, poor graduation rates, and other serious issues that harm 
college athletes while passing NCAA-friendly NIL legislation designed 
to roll back rights and freedoms states are providing college athletes. 
Instead, the NCPA encourages Congress to adopt broad based reform that 
includes the third party enforcement of uniform health and safety 
standards, protections to increase graduation rates, medical expenses, 
revenue sharing and other key protections for college athletes.

    Full Written Testimony

    NCAA sports seeks to operate above the law while legally sentencing 
college athletes, many of whom are Black athletes from underprivileged 
households, into second class citizenship. Separate is not equal in 
education and college athletes should have equal rights and freedoms 
afforded to other students and Americans. NCAA sports is asking 
Congress to eliminate college athletes' protection under both antitrust 
and labor law in return for tinkering with just a sliver of the 
racially discriminatory economic exploitation inflicted upon college 
athletes.

    College athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL) pay is the smoke 
that hovers above the raging fire of injustices at the core of NCAA 
sports. College athletes' economic, academic, and physical well-being 
continue to be consumed by an insatiable greed and a mentality that 
treats players as property rather than people.

    America has not seen so many college athletes in modern times voice 
opposition to racial discrimination in policing, on campus, and 
elsewhere. Their anger over racial injustice has finally outweighed 
their fear of coaches who have sought to silence them. It would be a 
travesty that, in the midst of college athletes finding their voice, 
Congress gives legal cover and protections to cement the devastating 
racial discrimination that exists in NCAA sports.

    Equal Rights

    Instead of excluding college athletes from antitrust protections, 
Congress can address certain restraints on trade directly through 
legislation. For instance, Congress can prevent NIL agreements from 
being used as inducements to lure high school recruits and college 
transfers to a particular college. Congress does not need to give the 
NCAA an antitrust exemption to accomplish these things.

    Similarly, Congress does not need to proactively exclude college 
athletes from rights under the National Labor Relations Act or state 
labor laws. The NIL pay in question does not have implications on 
employee status so there is no compelling reason for Congress to 
address the issue. Though college athletes have yet to prove that they 
are employees, this could change in the future. Plenty of students are 
university employees--including those who work in the student store, 
dining halls, and libraries. Congress should not block an avenue that 
could help college athletes address a host of critical issues such as 
health and safety and degree completion.

    Ignore the Competitive Equity Myth

    NIL arrangements with boosters, alumni, and college sponsors should 
not be banned in the name of competitive equity because competitive 
equity does not exist in college sports. These same sources already 
give athletic programs money that is used to recruit the best recruits, 
win the most games, and generate the biggest TV deals that allow rich 
athletic programs to continue their dominance. In their most recent 
report to the Department of Education, Ohio state reported $209 million 
dollars in athletic revenue while Utah State reported only $35 million 
in athletic revenue. They are both in the FBS Division. How can anyone 
suggest that these two colleges compete on an equal playing field? How 
can colleges, conferences, and the NCAA justify denying college 
athletes economic freedoms in the name of competitive equity when this 
severe disparity among colleges exists and is held up as the system 
that should be preserved? Colleges, conferences, and the NCAA have not 
moved to address these inequities--they haven't banned booster payments 
to colleges and they don't share athletics revenue equally among 
colleges in the name of competitive equity. In addition, other leagues 
do not ban 3d party NIL deals with fan clubs and those leagues operate 
very well.

    Federal legislation should not sacrifice college athletes' freedoms 
so that NCAA sports can pretend that competitive equity exists. 
Additionally, roster and scholarship limits keep the inequity from 
``getting worse''. There is a finite number of recruits each year and 
the top recruits already flow to the Power 5 Conferences. If fair 
legislation inadvertently changes recruiting migrations to where some 
of the top recruits begin to flow away from some of the Power 5 
Conferences, it would actually increase competitive equity compared to 
where it is today.

    Developments

    One recent development exposes as false claims that the NCAA, 
conferences, and colleges would be unable to withstand competitive 
inequities or navigate around a patchwork of state name, image, and 
likeness (NIL) laws. The vigor and support these same entities have for 
complying with everchanging state, county, and city COVID-19 orders 
related to the return of college sports makes clear that they are 
capable of complying with an array of different laws--just as other 
businesses involved in interstate commerce must do. Disturbingly, the 
return to college sports is taking place without the enforcement of 
COVID-19 health and safety standards while higher rates of obesity, 
high blood pressure, and sickle cell put college football players at 
higher risk of COVID-19 complications. College athletes lack 
information about such risks, are being required to sign liability 
waivers at many campuses, are subject to inadequate testing, and often 
have little to no information about how many teammates may have COVID.

    Competitive equity will be affected as some of the COVID-19 orders 
may limit or even prevent some teams from returning to sports this 
season. This situation will have a significant impact on athletics 
revenue and recruiting, which are the primary factors when considering 
competitive equity. Nonetheless, the NCAA, conferences, and colleges 
are demonstrating that state and local laws that will have stark 
impacts on competitive equity is compatible with ``The Collegiate 
Model''.

    To date, many athletes from football teams across the Nation have 
players who have tested positive for COVID-19. Some outbreaks have been 
so severe that athletic activities have been suspended on some 
campuses, and entire seasons have been postponed or canceled at many 
other colleges. If NCAA sports is willing to risk the health and safety 
of their college athletes, their families, and communities in pursuit 
of billions of dollars in football revenue, it can surely withstand 
inconveniences that allow college athletes economic freedoms associated 
with NIL compensation.

    Additionally, the State of Florida and Nebraska have adopted name, 
image, and likeness legislation similar to California SB 206. In total, 
approximately 27 other states are pursuing NIL freedoms for their 
college athletes. Federal legislation is not necessary to preserve 
college sports or ensure college athletes gain NIL compensation 
freedoms.

    I would also like to inform you that the National Association of 
Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), an intercollegiate athletic 
association comprised of more than 250 colleges and 65,000 college 
athletes, announced a NIL proposal that mirrors the pillars of 
California SB 206 and virtually all of the other proposed state NIL 
legislation. The proposal would allow college athletes to secure 
representation and receive NIL compensation. This is significant. This 
proposal undercuts the NCAA's notion that ``The Collegiate Model'' must 
impose overbearing restrictions and exclude various economic freedoms 
that the states are pursuing.

    Another development is that on May 18th, 2020, the 9th Circuit 
Court of Appeals ruled in favor of plaintiffs who sued the NCAA over 
illegally price-fixing college athlete compensation. This is yet 
another instance of the NCAA breaking Federal antitrust laws, laws for 
which they are currently seeking an exemption from. This ruling 
includes prohibiting the NCAA from restricting compensation and 
benefits related to a college education. As I stated in my previous 
Senate Commerce Committee testimony, each antitrust action against the 
NCAA has resulted in benefits for countless college athletes.

    Finally, another antitrust lawsuit was filed on June 15, 2020 
against the NCAA for its rules that prohibit college athlete NIL 
compensation. The NCAA's claims in an earlier NIL case (O'Bannon v. 
NCAA) that NIL pay would destroy college athletics will ring hollow now 
that California, Florida, and Nebraska have passed NIL laws; and NCAA 
leaders and conference commissioners now say players should have some 
NIL freedoms. Notably, this lawsuit seeks to open NIL compensation 
related to TV broadcast revenue, which is an important aspect of 
gaining economic equity for college athletes.

    Congressional Action

    It would be especially unjust for Congress to turn a blind eye on 
critical aspects of college athlete well-being and economic equity that 
are much more important than narrow NIL compensation.

    Today, the NCAA says it has no duty to protect college athletes and 
refuses to enforce health and safety standards despite negligent deaths 
during workouts, sexual assaults against hundreds of college athletes, 
and athletic trainer surveys finding rampant mistreatment of 
concussions and other serious injuries nationwide. The NCAA says it has 
no duty to ensure a quality education for college athletes while 
football and basketball players' Federal graduation rates hover around 
50 percent and many college athletes are pushed into classes and majors 
that they do not want to take for athletic eligibility purposes.

    Economic equity for college athletes is inextricably tied to not 
only college athlete NIL freedoms and ensuring they receive a 
significant portion of commercial revenue that their talents generate, 
but it is tied to their freedom from medical expenses, freedom from 
preventable sports-related injury and abuse, freedom from serious 
obstacles that impede degree completion, freedom to transfer once 
without punishment in pursuit of better academic and athletic 
opportunities, freedom from unfair athletic association investigations 
that can harm their economic stability and future, and freedom from 
illegal, cartel activity that stifles their economic opportunities.

    The NCPA is asking Congress to decline NCAA sports' request for 
narrow and unjust NIL legislation. Instead, the NCPA is asking Congress 
to pursue broad-based reform that is critical to college athletes' 
well-being. The NCPA has background information and well as a roadmap 
for legislative provisions that will provide critical freedoms and 
protections for college athletes. I ask for a continued dialog with 
each of your offices so that we can work together to bring forth a fair 
and just arrangement for college athletes.

    The NCPA strongly opposes the following athlete NIL restrictions 
proposed by the NCAA and the Power 5 Conferences that would roll back 
protections and freedoms guaranteed by California, Florida, and being 
pursued in other states:

          A Federal ban on direct compensation to college 
        athletes from colleges, conferences, or athletic associations--
        opposed. No other student or American faces such a threat to or 
        restriction of their rights. This provision would impose second 
        class citizenship on college athletes, many of whom are Black 
        athletes from low-income households. This is a shameful attempt 
        to legalize NCAA sports' racially discriminatory system that 
        pays lavish salaries to predominantly white coaches, athletic 
        directors, and commissioners, off the backs of 
        disproportionately Black athletes in revenue sports. Players 
        should receive an equitable portion of athletic revenue they 
        help generate.

          Antitrust and litigation exemptions--opposed.

    The very narrow areas where restraint of trade are justified such 
as prohibiting NIL deals to be used as inducements for prospective 
college athletes should be enacted directly by Congress. The NCPA has 
assisted antitrust lawsuits and investigations that have led to 
important advancements for college athletes such as the elimination of 
an NCAA prohibition on medical coverage during summer workouts (White 
v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit settlement), removing the NCAA's 1-year 
scholarship limit (US DOJ Antitrust Investigation), eliminating the 
NCAA's ban on player stipends to cover basic necessities (O'Bannon v. 
NCAA NIL antitrust ruling), and, assuming the US Supreme Court will 
allow the 9th Circuit's Alston v. NCAA antitrust ruling to stand, the 
option for colleges to pay athletes educational related compensation 
including up to $14,000 per year in academic achievement awards. If the 
NCAA already had an antitrust exemption, these gains would never had 
been made and the states would have never had the ability to adopt NIL 
laws at the core of this hearing.

          Prohibiting employee status for college athletes--
        opposed. Targeting and stripping college athletes of rights 
        under labor laws is unethical and racially discriminatory. 
        Plenty of regular students are university employees and this 
        exclusion would have a disparate impact on thousands of college 
        athletes from protected classes. Third party NIL reform does 
        not invoke employee status so there is no need for Congress to 
        address this issue at all.
          Denying college athletes the ability to secure 
        representation and earn NIL pay for a semester--opposed. This 
        is simply an unjustifiable and needless attack on college 
        athletes' rights. Other students work long hours to put 
        themselves through college and do not face such prohibitions in 
        the name of academics. As compared to traditional student 
        employment, NIL deals can require very little time demand. If 
        there is true concern about having the appropriate balance of 
        time demands, NCAA sports should reduce athletic time demands. 
        NCAA surveys found that Division I athletes spend 32 hrs/week 
        in their sport alone (42 hrs/week in football) despite the 
        NCAA's 20 hr/week limit on athletics participation. Reducing 
        athletic time demands to give players more time to exercise 
        their economic freedom is a fair way to address this issue.

          Punishment of college athletes who do not publicly 
        expose their NIL deals--opposed. This would prevent 
        opportunities in which college athletes could otherwise start a 
        small business or enter into NIL deals with businesses that 
        need to protect trade secrets. The right to secure proper 
        representation and financial skills development will help 
        ensure players are informed about agreements that may enter 
        into.

          Prohibiting NIL deals with athletic boosters and 
        companies/competitors contracting with colleges--opposed. 
        Players are people not university property. Universities deals 
        should not dictate whether or not players are free to earn 
        compensation from their own name, image, and likeness rights. 
        And again, competitive equity does not exist in college sports. 
        Athletic booster donations and corporate sponsorships already 
        inhibit competitive equity. It is unjust to allow booster 
        payments and sponsorship money to continue to athletic programs 
        while excluding players from NIL deals with these same sources. 
        Such restraints of trade would significantly harm players' 
        economic freedom and opportunities.

          Prohibition on group licensing--oppose. The NCAA's 
        claim that college athlete group licensing could only take 
        place with a union is false. For instance, One Team is a group 
        licensing entity that services a number of professional 
        athletes and is not a union.

          Enlisting the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to 
        handle agent certification--opposed. Agent certification in pro 
        sports is operated by players unions. While no such union 
        exists in college, Congress should create player-led oversight 
        commission for this function. The FTC has no experience in 
        college athlete NIL and cannot be expected to properly fulfill 
        this role.

          Preemption of state laws--opposed. There has been no 
        reasonable Federal legislation introduced that would ensure 
        equitable economic terms for college athletes to warrant 
        preventing states from addressing these issues.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this hearing 
and I am committed to working with you in continuing discussions on 
this issue and other issues concerning college athletes' well-being.

    Attachments to be included as part of written testimony:

          ``Lavish Spending: 2016-17 Division I Expense 
        Comparisons, FBS v FCS''--Analysis using Data from US DOE by 
        Ramogi Huma, Executive Director, National College Players 
        Association and Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D., Professor, LeBow 
        College of Business, Drexel University Professor, Sports Media

          ``FBS Participation, Revenue, Expenses Trends''--
        Analysis using Data from US DOE and The Knight Commission on 
        Intercollegiate Athletics by Ramogi Huma, Executive Director, 
        National College Players Association and Ellen J. Staurowsky, 
        Ed.D., Professor, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University 
        Professor, Sports Media

          ``Comments from Professor Len Simon on Name, Image, 
        and Likeness Bills''--Len Simon, lawyer and Professor of Sports 
        Law

          ``Madness Inc.: How everyone is getting rich off 
        college sports--except the players''--US Senator Chris Murphy

          ``2019 Racial and Gender Report Card: College Sport'' 
        by the Institute of Diversity and Ethics in Sport

          2018-19 NCAA ``Coach and Student-Athlete Demographics 
        by Sport'' (Division I Men's Basketball)

          2018-19 NCAA ``Coach and Student-Athlete Demographics 
        by Sport'' (Division I FBS Football Autonomy)

          2018-19 NCAA ``Coach and Student-Athlete Demographics 
        by Sport'' (Division I FBS Football Non-Autonomy)

          ``2019 Adjusted Graduation Gap Report: NCAA FBS 
        Football'' by The College Sport Research Institute

          ``2019 Adjusted Graduation Gap Report: NCAA Division 
        I Basketball'' by The College Sport Research Institute

    Links to be included as part of written testimony:

    NCAA Sports' Racially Discriminatory System

    ``How the NCAA's Empire Robs Predominantly Black Athletes of 
Billions in Generational Wealth''--Ramogi Huma, Executive Director, 
National College Players Association Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D., 
Professor, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University & Professor, 
Sports Media, Roy H. Park School of Communications, Ithaca College 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z97vhcjErrHIvuO3Nu2wUWbG90bFKnm--/view

    ``Four Years a Student-Athlete'' https://www.vice.com/en--us/
article/ezexjp/four-years-a-student--athlete-the-racial-injustice-of-
big-time-college-sports

    ``The Shame of College Sports''--Civil Rights Historian Taylor 
Branch in The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/
2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

    Players Can be Stuck With Sports-Related Medical Expenses

    https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/sports/16athletes.html

    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/kevin-wares-injury-draws-attention-
ncaa-healthcare--debate/story'id=18889697

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/sports/a-fight-to-keep-college-
athletes-from-the-pain-of-injury--costs.html

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/karenweaver/2020/01/18/add-this-to-
your-list-of-ncaa-to-dos-medical--expenses/#53b92d8e752f

    The NCPA sponsored a 2012 Athletes Bill of Rights in California 
that requires colleges with high media revenues to pay for players' 
out-of-pocket sports related medical expenses as well as premiums for 
low income college athletes. It also prohibits colleges from refusing 
to renew scholarships due to permanent injury: https://
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml'bill--
id=201120120SB1525

    Power 5 Conferences (65 of 351 Division I colleges) adopted a rule 
aimed at covering players' sports-related medical expenses for up to 2 
years, and the Pac-12 adopted a rule requiring colleges to pay up to 4 
years of sports-related medical expenses. However, conferences have not 
demonstrated enforcement. For instance, Stanford's policy states such 
expenses are covered only between 12-24 months. Stanford's SA Handbook 
(p. 66): https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/gostanford.com/
documents/2019/10/29/2019--20--Student--Athlete--Handbook.pdf

    Power 5 4-year medical expense (unenforced?) commitment: https://
swimswam.com/power-5--conferences-vote-extend-medical-care-student-
athletes/

    Lack of Enforced Health & Safety

          Health and safety standards are not enforced in 
        college sports--NCAA says colleges ``self-police'', can choose 
        not to follow NCAA guidelines, including those related to 
        COVID-19. http://a.espncdn.com/ncf/news/2001/0816/1240463.html

    COVID-19 ``Guidance'' not mandatory http://www.ncaa.org/sport-
science-institute/resocialization--collegiate-sport-action-plan-
considerations https://deadspin.com/ncaa-lets-michigan-state-off-the-
hook-in-nassar-case-1828719733 https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/
oregon-football-workouts-sent-players-to-hospital-who-will-stand-up-
for-them/2017/01/17/1c0d7fae-dcf7-11e6-918c-9ede3c8cafa--story.html 
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/01/advocates-say-uncs-
hiring-coach-accused-abuse-points-lack-ncaa-oversight

          NCAA holds it has no duty to protect college 
        athletes. https://www.cbssports.com/general/news/ncaa-denies-
        legal-duty-to-protect-student-athletes-court-filing-says/ 
        https://www.ocregister.com/2020/06/02/ncaa-argues-in-sex-abuse-
        case-it-has-no-legal-duty-to--protect-athletes/

          Athletic staff's sexual and physical assaults against 
        college athletes, and injuring or killing an athlete in a 
        negligent workout are not against NCAA rules.

          Countless sexual assaults by athletic personnel 
        against college athletes led to no NCAA sanctions.

          NCAA study: 50 percent of college athletic trainers 
        admit to returning concussed players back to same game. https:/
        /www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-the-ncaa-wont-
        adopt-concussion-penalties----at-least-not-yet/ https://
        www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/10/us/ncaa-concussions/index.html

          National Athletic Trainers Assoc: 19 percent of 
        coaches played athletes who were not medically cleared, 2/3 
        report being pressured by nonmedical staff to make medical 
        decisions for athletes, despite NCAA guidelines discouraging 
        this practice. https://www.nata.org/press-release/062619/
        onlyhalf-collegiate-level-sports-programs-follow-medical--
        model-care-student http://www.chronicle.com/article/Trainers-
        Butt-Heads-With/141333/'cid=longform-related https://
        www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4639885/

          California Athletic Trainers Association Survey: 82 
        percent of trainers do not follow colleges' own concussion 
        policies.

          Multiple claims of serious athlete mistreatment at 
        UCLA, USC, Loyola Marymount.https://www.latimes.com/sports/
        ucla/la-sp-ucla-football-lawsuit-jim-mora-20190530-story.html 
        https://sports.vice.com/en--us/article/usc-football-team-
        doctor-admits-to-ignoring-fda-and-ncaa--painkiller-regulations 
        http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/--/id/14682233/
        university-california-admits-negligence--2014-death-lineman-
        ted-agu http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-usc-brian-
        baucham-lane-kiffin-lawsuit-20160425-story.html http://
        deadspin.com/5949336/uscs-robert-woods-couldnt-keep-his-
        balance-after-a-helmet-to-helmet-hit-missed-one-play http://
        sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/07/08/stanford-university-ncaa-
        facing-concussion-lawsuit-from-former-football-players/http://
        www.dailycal.org/2016/09/01/former-cal-football-players-files-
        concussion-lawsuit-pac-12-ncaa/ Loyola Marymount faculty member 
        & NCPA spoke w multiple players claiming misconduct--here's a 
        glimpse https://www.youtube.com/watch--v=S--aW6skSHOs

          African American college athletes and football 
        players may have an increased risk of COVID-19 complications 
        (high blood pressure, sickle cell, obesity) https://
        prospect.org/health/playing-games-with-college-athletes-lives/
        http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-institute/core-principles-
        resocialization-collegiate-sport http://www.ncaa.org/sport-
        science-institute/resocialization-collegiate-sport-action-plan-
        considerations

    Due Process

    How a Little Known Rule Shuts NCAA Athletes Out of the Legal System 
https://www.vice.com/en--us/article/8qy400/how-a-little-known-ncaa-
rule-shuts-athletes-out-of-the-legal-system

    Transparency

    Why Top NCAA Recruits Shouldn't Sign National Letters of Intent 
https://www.vice.com/en--us/article/pgn38z/why-top-ncaa-recruits-
shouldnt-sign-national--letters-of-intent

    Example of Alternative to National Letter of Intent: https://
www.ncpanow.org/cap-guarantee
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Huma. And thanks to all the 
witnesses.
    Votes have begun. We will continue the hearing, and we will 
alternate so we can go to the floor and vote.
    I will begin a 5-minute round of questions. And, again, I 
would ask Senators to--and witnesses to try to keep each 
Senator's time within 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huma, I agree with you about coaches' salaries, and my 
thinking is slightly different than the issue that we are--of 
name, likeness, and image that we are talking about today. But, 
I agree with the point that I think it would be a practical 
move for the NCAA, particularly if we were in the pre-COVID 
situation where television revenues were about to explode, to 
require most of that revenue to go for the benefit of student 
athletes, not to raise the salaries of coaches around the 
Country.
    But, let me take that principle and apply it to name, 
image, and likeness. Mr. Hartwell, why hasn't baseball come 
pretty close to getting it right? I mean, here we have a--there 
is a great--you know, I mentioned some of the great Vanderbilt 
baseball players--Sonny Gray, a couple of others, David Price, 
Cy Young winner. Kumar Rocker is there now. He helped them win 
the World Series. When he graduated from high school, he had a 
choice to make. He could have gone straight into Major League 
Baseball and probably played in the minor leagues for a little 
while. Or, he could have gone to Vanderbilt and got a 
Vanderbilt degree, been coached by Tim Corbin, enjoyed the 
undergraduate experience, but he would have to stay for 3 
years.
    Why shouldn't we say that if some auto dealer in Nashville 
wants to sponsor the name, image, and likeness of Kumar Rocker, 
or Sonny Gray when he was there, why shouldn't those earnings 
go to all of the student athletes at Vanderbilt instead of to 
the pitcher? Why shouldn't we simply say that jeopardizes the 
intercollegiate athletic experience for student athletes, and 
that if a pitcher or a running back or a quarterback wants to 
be sponsored individually by someone, they can become a 
professional?
    Now, they might find that even if they are a very good 
quarterback that they will earn a lot more money from the local 
auto dealer at the university--if they are a quarterback for 
the University of Alabama than they are for a Class A 
professional football league.
    Why isn't the right solution to make the choice a lot like 
the baseball choice and to say, sure, you have a right to earn 
it, but if you earn it and you elect to be a student athlete, 
then that money goes to all the student athletes; if you elect 
to keep it, then you become a professional?
    Mr. Hartwell.
    Mr. Hartwell. Mr. Chairman, you know, that model exists in 
some extent right now as it relates to, again, the example I 
used earlier, whether it is footwear and apparel rights as it 
relates to a Nike or an Adidas or an Under Armour. And, in the 
situation if they were allowed to do individual deals----
    I will go back to our example, Jordan Love, our highest 
profile student athlete, first-round draft pick of the Green 
Bay Packers. We would have a select few student athletes who 
would be able to command those types of revenues.
    In all likelihood, as it relates to a footwear and apparel 
company, they would diminish the amount that they were 
providing to the institution and instead funnel it to that 
individual, who they thought had the greatest opportunity to go 
forward and be professional and have a greater return on that 
investment for them. And, so, in that example, you would, in 
all likelihood, not be able to provide two or three pairs of 
shoes and practice gear and uniforms for, you know, all the 
individuals on your track and field team, or on your gymnastic 
team and things like that. And, so, those are the challenges 
that are there.
    Also, with baseball, you have the opportunity--with 
baseball and hockey, they have very robust minor league systems 
that allow those students coming out of high school, who are 
not inclined to pursue higher ed or who want to go directly to 
the professional ranks, that opportunity. And, so, that 
minimizes in a lot of cases the issues in those sports.
    The Chairman. Ms. Dennis, I have only 30 seconds left. What 
would the impact be--would it be better to allow any 
endorsement money to be spread among all the student athletes 
or should the individual student keep it?
    Ms. Dennis. Thank you for that question, Senator Alexander. 
I am not sure--I am not sure how to answer that because I think 
name, image, and likeness really--there are two different 
classes of student athletes that can really make money off of 
their name, image, and likeness. However, I do think all 
student athletes can benefit from the financial literacy and 
educational components, including financial literacy, how to 
brand themselves, how to create a brand, and how to brand 
themselves for after college.
    I think--I think there are two different set of athletes 
that would be affected by name, image, and likeness. However, 
all of them can benefit from it.
    The Chairman. Okay. Thank you for the answer. I am going to 
try to stick close to my 5 minutes to set a good example.
    Senator Murray.
    Senator Murray is voting. Is Senator Casey available?
    Senator Burr.
    Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all our 
witnesses today.
    I happen to be one of two scholarship--collegiate 
scholarship players in the U.S. Senate. I may not know much 
about this, but it entitles me to an opinion. And, I have been 
somewhat outspoken on the fact that I think this is a huge 
mistake and have expressed that to my colleagues and to the 
NCAA. Let me say to all of you that this is an issue that could 
not be reversed if we made the wrong move. There is no do-over.
    I would turn to you, Mr. Huma, and ask you, since your 
organization is predominantly funded by the United Steel 
Workers of America, what is their interest in name and likeness 
in this issue?
    Mr. Huma. Thank you for the question. We have had 
tremendous support from the steel workers since--of almost 20 
years now. And, as I mentioned, some of the progress that we 
have made over the years really could not have happened without 
their support. And, honestly, the steel workers--and I can't 
speak on their behalf, but they have demonstrated very clearly 
that they support our cause for college athletes; that really 
this issue is about workers who don't have workers' rights when 
trying to navigate that space. And, so----
    Senator Burr. So this isn't because they are great----
    Mr. Huma [continuing]. conversation or raising awareness--
--
    Senator Burr. They are not great fans of college sports; 
they--they are out promoting some type of equity that they 
think is being cheated.
    As a scholarship athlete, I am having a hard time--it is 
almost an out-of-body experience to figure out how a 
professional athlete that gets paid millions of dollars was 
cheated somehow in college because they got an education and 
now they have an opportunity at an income.
    I am going to turn to Chancellor Blank. I am sure that your 
school, like every school, when COVID hit and decisions were 
made not to have fall sports for some, athletic budgets were 
reviewed and you began to look at what the impact was going to 
be of losing the revenue from fall sports. Tell me, if you 
will, without specificity, because I don't want to ask 
something of Wisconsin or The Ohio State or Utah State that is 
proprietary. But, how would that have impacted non-revenue 
sports? Or how might it impact non-revenue sports, which are 
predominantly women's teams?
    Dr. Blank. Wisconsin, as in almost all universities, we use 
the revenue that comes in from our athletic program to support 
the entire athletic program. It is not unlike the rest of my 
university where I have certain units, like business or 
engineering, where they generate more income. But, they are not 
ships on their own bottom. I use some of that revenue to 
support first-class history and political science and language 
programs.
    Similarly, I--you know, we want to support a broad-based 
athletic program, and our revenue, all of which goes back into 
the students and into the programs, you know, it does that. So, 
when COVID hit, you know, we did cut athletic budgets. In fact, 
none of our teams are competing right now in the fall. As you 
know, the Big Ten has postponed its season because of health 
concerns. And, you know, all of the programs were equally 
affected by this, just to say all are equally benefited by the 
revenue that any team generates.
    Senator Burr. Coach Dennis, let me turn to you because I am 
sure you were privy to the budget calculations made at The Ohio 
State. How would that have impacted your track and field and 
cross country teams?
    Ms. Dennis. Senator, there is no way that we would have a 
track and field team if a pay-for-play kind of model existed 
where the majority of the revenue that--or the majority of 
money that could be paid to our high-visibility student 
athletes. It would not allow our non-revenue sports to fund--or 
even just team the--have the same number of student athletes on 
each team. Each team may have to reduce a number of 
participants, which would deny collegiate athletic experience 
for hundreds of students and/or sports would be dropped. You 
know, just recently, here in the Big Ten, Minnesota, due to 
COVID and the economic impact on their athletic budget, they 
had to drop their men's track and field team, and it is 
happening in some of the MAC conferences where teams are being 
dropped. So, it would have a really devastating effect on how 
programs would be able to exist.
    Senator Burr. And, last, to Director Hartwell. You are the 
athletic director. You are where the buck stops. You have to 
make the tough decisions. And, I think you said your athletic 
budget total was $36 million, which, to some degree, is dwarfed 
by many institutions around the Country. How would that have 
impacted specifically women's sports at Utah State if you lost 
your revenue sports, if significant changes happened in your 
revenue stream?
    Mr. Hartwell. Yes. We have had to spread the wealth, if you 
will, so our budget iterations have gone from thirty--for the 
current fiscal year have gone from 38 million to 35 million to 
27 million as a result of COVID-19. And, it has been a 
correction, if you will, in collegiate athletics.
    When this all started for us in March, the two priorities 
that we had to protect were sports and scholarships, and we 
compete at--in 16 Division I sports, which is the NCAA minimum 
to be at the FBS level, so that is really not an option for us. 
And, obviously, we want to protect our student athletes. So, 
everything else is on board and across the board. Whether it 
is, you know, men's or women's basketball or football or our 
Olympic sports, including all of the women's sports, have taken 
an equal share in trying to help us get to the other side of 
this pandemic.
    Senator Burr [Presiding]. I thank all of our witnesses and 
will take the Chairman's lead, and my time is expired.
    Senator Casey.
    Senator Casey. Thank you very much. I wanted to thank 
Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for this hearing 
today.
    I think we can all agree that the COVID-19 crisis has 
shined an even brighter light on the racial and economic 
inequities that continue to permeate our society and has made 
clearer than ever the urgent need to address them. Today, we 
are discussing a college athlete model that is in need of 
reform, and I think that is an understatement, to ensure that 
it justly benefits the athletes it is meant to serve. It is a 
system whose shortcomings disproportionately--it 
disproportionately affects athletes of color, who are 
generating enormous revenues for the colleges and universities 
they represent, whether it is playing football, basketball, or 
other sports.
    I think we have to keep in mind at least four broad goals. 
No. 1, to ensure that these revenues, the revenues generated by 
athletes, are more equitably distributed.
    No. 2, ensure that college athletes are kept safe and 
healthy and that best practices are not just talked about, but 
in fact implemented.
    No. 3, improve academic outcomes for college athletes.
    No. 4, ensure that athletes' voices are heard and that they 
have a say in decisions that affect their well-being and 
futures.
    We know that millions of Americans love college sports and 
love the players who proudly represent their schools. We have 
to make sure that the sports we love do right by those who play 
them.
    Let me start with a--I will have a question for the whole 
panel in the time that I have, but I wanted to start with a 
question for Mr. Huma.
    In your testimony, you describe how health and safety 
standards are not uniform across schools and are not enforced 
identically across schools. You have also spoken about how the 
issue is not that the information--or not that information on 
best practices does not exist, but that it is not being 
implemented. It is critical we do all we can to keep college 
athletes healthy and safe, as I mentioned, not just during this 
pandemic, but during the course of their regular competition.
    Can you speak in greater detail about player safety issues 
where best practices are known--known but not implemented--and, 
second, about the consequences for athletes regarding this lack 
of action?
    Mr. Huma. Sure, and thank you for the question.
    In 2001, there were three deaths in college football in the 
off-season, one of which was heat illness. There was also the 
death of Korey Stringer, a Minnesota Vikings offensive lineman, 
who also died of heat illness. And, the difference between the 
NFL and NCAA sports is that in the NFL, they implemented best 
practice guidelines and made them enforceable. In college 
sports, the NCAA refused to do so.
    I finished playing at UCLA. I had no idea that NCAA sports 
did not enforce health and safety standards, and to this day, 
it still does not. And unfortunately, there continues to be 
deaths related to heat illness and other preventative issues. 
And, you know, included in that is deaths related to sickle 
cell concussions. You know, even, you know, with all the 
different attention to concussions and CTE has received, to 
this day, it is not against NCAA rules for a football coach to 
force a player back in with a concussion on national 
television. The NCAA will not investigate. They won't come to 
anyone's rescue. As well as sexual assaults we have seen at 
many of these institutions. Those players have nowhere to go 
because the NCAA allows the schools to 'self-police.' So, it is 
a major ongoing problem.
    Senator Casey. In the remaining time that I have, just for 
the whole panel, and I know these answers will have to be 
short. But, we know the system has to be improved. We also have 
to work toward a system that treats athletes fairly and makes 
sure that we listen to the voices of these athletes.
    Here is a question for all the witnesses. What do you 
believe are the two or three most important changes we could 
make to the current model of college athletics to ensure it 
treats players both equitably and is responsive to their 
voices? Maybe we can go in order of testimony.
    Dr. Blank. Let me start in that case. I first just want to 
say that what Mr. Huma says is simply not true in the Big Ten, 
which is the group that I am most familiar with. We, for 
instance, have independent observers stationed at every game 
who can pull any player who is observed to have any concussion-
related illness, can override any coach decision. We care a 
great deal about safety and use best practices. I just found 
his statement wrong, and I need to start by saying that.
    Your question was what can they--you know, the main topic 
here is name, image, and likeness. The most important things I 
think that the Federal Government can do with legislation right 
now is to free up State laws; set some national standards for 
how name, image, and likeness should work; give us a narrow 
anti-trust exemption so that we can enforce those laws; 
safeguard the student status, that these are students and not 
employees; and help us address the Title IX issues so that 
name, image, and likeness doesn't get caught up in Title IX in 
a difficult way. Those are the things that I think we are 
asking for in terms of Federal legislation in the very near 
future.
    Senator Casey. Maybe the other answers could be by way of 
written submissions, if that is alright.
    Senator Burr. I thank Senator Casey for that. And all 
witnesses will have an opportunity to answer that in writing.
    Senator Paul is recognized.
    Senator Paul. You know, advocates of change are beseeching 
Congress for Federal regulation of college sports. Really? Be 
careful what you wish for.
    The history of government regulation is not a benign one. 
What starts as a soft touch may well ultimately morph into a 
heavy hand. What happens if the Democratic socialists of 
America win? Will universities become coops or communes? Will 
presidents' and secretaries' and coaches' and players' salaries 
be equalized? Be careful what you wish for.
    I think it is a terrible, rotten, no-good idea to 
Federalize college sports. The NCAA should promulgate their own 
rules. If the NCAA needs exception from anti-trust rules to 
create these rules, I can support that, but setting Federal 
rules for college sports is a huge mistake.
    Advocates of Federalizing college sports argue, oh, we will 
have a hodgepodge of rules and all the different States will 
have rules. We hear this from the business community, and I 
have opposed it steadfastly. Federalizing the rules is a 
mistake. You may start out with rules you like, but they may 
well morph into something that is intolerable.
    The argument also ignores that the NCAA is particularly 
poised to promulgate nationwide rules because losing membership 
in the NCAA is a significant cudgel to enforce a nationwide 
rule on name, image, and likeness. I would propose that the 
NCAA can do this on their selves, but we should not involve 
Washington. We should not involve Congress. It is a mistake to 
take this away from the NCAA and those who represent the NCAA 
from colleges.
    My argument is if you choose not to obey the NCAA rules and 
they kick you out of the NCAA, it is going to be hard to get 
players. It is going to be hard to have a Division I or an 
accepted program if you don't obey the rules. This should be 
left to the NCAA. I don't think anybody on the Committee agrees 
with me, so I won't ask any questions, and I will only take a 
couple of minutes. But, I would suggest if we do another 
hearing like this, we ought to get somebody on the Committee 
who actually thinks it is a bad idea to Federalize college 
sports, and that there is an argument that could be made for 
the NCAA doing this on their own.
    Thank you, and I yield back my time.
    Senator Burr. Thanks, Senator Paul.
    Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you to Senator Alexander and Senator Murray for bringing us 
here together today.
    I am a huge college sports fan, and I can't help but have 
noticed that this has turned into a $15 billion industry over 
the course of the last 15 years. In fact, in that period of 
time, it has gone from a $5 billion industry to a $15 billion 
industry. And, it is the only multi-billion-dollar industry in 
this Country where we allow for the employers to collude in 
order to fix the wages of the majority of their employees. That 
is what is going on here.
    We can say that, you know, the workers, the athletes, 
should be happy with the cost of tuition, but that is not how 
the free market works. And, to me, it is just pretty rich to 
listen to a coach who is making $5 million a year tell his 
athletes that they should be okay with simply the cost of 
tuition. For all of those in this body who believe in the free 
market, I don't know why we decide to keep it from athletes, 
who are producing an incredibly and increasingly valuable 
service.
    Now, the argument is that they aren't athletes, they aren't 
workers; that they are actually just students who happen to 
play a sport. The argument from Senator Alexander and others is 
that if they want to be pros, just go be pros. Right? You have 
a choice.
    I want to start with you, Mr. Huma, just to try to 
understand whether those two arguments hold up. And I want to 
make sure I have a minute remaining to ask one additional 
question of Chancellor Blank.
    Quick answers, if you could, Mr. Huma. Can a high school 
football player who wants to go to the NFL and make money, who 
is ready to do so, can they do that?
    Mr. Huma. No. They have to pass through college, and, so, 
college has a monopoly on college football, a big business. And 
even from there, just to say simply go pro, less than 2 percent 
set foot in the NFL. You have 90 percent--98 percent of people 
who never get that opportunity, who rightfully deserve their 
fair share of that industry. And, as we have shown in studies, 
this should be hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, easily. 
And, as we can prove, it would not require deleting non-revenue 
sports from the rosters and, you know, some of the scare 
tactics.
    Ohio State has $209 million. It cannot say that if they 
were to share some of that with some of the revenue athletes 
that they suddenly have to cut all sports when other colleges 
in the same division are footing all kinds of non-revenue 
sports. You will get that scare tactic even from the top 
producers. It is just not true.
    Senator Murphy. So, let's be clear. You do not have a 
choice as a high-value, high-school athlete. You can't just go 
to the NFL. In fact, you can't go to the NBA. You have to make 
a stop along the way in the big business of college sports 
because there are a lot of folks who make millions of dollars 
depending on it.
    Mr. Huma, are these students like all other students? How 
many hours a week are Power 5 football players spending on 
athletics? You know, if they are students and then on the side 
athletes, I would expect that they would, you know, be putting 
in, you know, 5, 10 hours a week on athletics. How many hours a 
week are some of these Power 5 students putting into athletics?
    Mr. Huma. When you ask about Power 5 football, the NCAA's 
own surveys show that the average FBS football player spends 44 
hours per week in their sport alone. And even when you come to 
the other athletes, you are talking about well over 30 hours 
per week. So, to pretend that academics is first--and these are 
athletes who have to schedule their entire majors and 
coursework around athletics, who oftentimes have some--have to 
miss games in many of these sports and prioritize their 
athletics. So, that is the true nature of college sports.
    Senator Murphy. So, they don't have the choice to go pro. 
They are athletes first and students second. Let's just be 
honest about that as we approach this conversation.
    Finally, in the minute that I have remaining, to Chancellor 
Blank, I have heard the argument from you and others that, you 
know, if you were forced to pay college athletes, at least in 
sports like football and basketball that make money, then you 
couldn't afford to run all the other sports. I think Mr. Huma 
did a pretty good job of explaining that, in fact, there are 
plenty of other institutions, from high school to Division III 
colleges, that manage to run sports programs without making any 
money. So, I am not necessarily sure why you couldn't adopt a 
model in which it is just a little bit less professional 
looking.
    But, let me make the argument to you that you don't have to 
actually reallocate money at all outside of your football 
program. Your head coach at University of Wisconsin makes $4 
million a year. What is the problem with just paying him, you 
know, the salary of the average Member of Congress and taking 
those additional dollars and divvying them up amongst those who 
play for him? That wouldn't affect the rest of your college 
sports, just reallocating money within the football program.
    Chancellor Blank. So, I actually have been quoted as being 
quite critical of the amounts of money that we currently pay 
coaches. I am an economist. It is a market out there.
    As I noted earlier, it is very hard to find people who have 
really top coaching skills, whether in college or in 
professional sports, and the market competes those prices up. 
We used to restrict college coach salaries in the NCAA. There 
was a lawsuit on antitrust grounds that we lost, and at that 
point, or since then, college coaches have simply been competed 
up by the market.
    I would be more than happy, and I have said this before 
publically, to consider an antitrust exemption that would allow 
us to restrict coaches' salaries. I think that is appropriate 
for college sports. I think it is somewhat outrageous that the 
highest paid employee in many States is their State university 
college coach.
    Senator Murphy. So, just in closing, you are not allowed by 
antitrust rules to be able to restrict the pay of college 
coaches, but you are allowed under current rules to be able to 
restrict the compensation of athletes. That just is patently 
absurd to me, and it is one of the reasons why this Committee 
has to be engaged with the Commerce Committee----
    Senator Burr. Senator's time----
    Senator Murphy--in some pretty broad reform. Thank you.
    Senator Burr. Senator's time has expired.
    Senator Cassidy.
    He may be having some technical problems.
    Senator Cassidy. Senator Burr, I am walking on the street 
right now, so I will defer until after the next set of 
questions.
    Senator Burr. I thank you, Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My 
concern about athlete compensation has been focused less upon 
the 2-percent that are going to go into the pros and who could 
make a lot of money. I know there is a sense of, gee, it is 
just not fair that these very, very top athletes are not 
getting paid their full market value. I recognize that. I 
appreciate that concern.
    My biggest concern has been the 98 percent who play on the 
football team or basketball team and are putting in as much as 
5, 6, 7 hours a day in practice and are never going to go onto 
the pros. And they are making an enormous sacrifice and are 
doing so for the love of the sport and probably for hope that 
they will be able to go onto the pros, and it seems unfair that 
they have to endure the kind of sacrifice that they carry out 
without the prospect of additional compensation.
    I have spoken with the NCAA about that matter, and they 
say, our challenge is that to provide any additional 
compensation to the members of these teams makes them 
effectively, under Federal law, employees, and therefore 
subject to employment law, which would mean they would be 
subject to age discrimination actions, wrongful termination. 
You could get cut by a team and sue the team.
    Mr. Huma, is your thought that these college athletes might 
appropriately be members of a union, join a union?
    Mr. Huma. Well, I think that, you know, if there are State 
laws and the NLRA that recognize they are--you know, what they 
do as employees, they should not be denied rights under labor 
law.
    But, in terms of different models of compensation, there is 
many out there. I mean, players can receive money directly from 
the media outlets, which has nothing to do with employee 
status. Even the conferences or the associations. There are 
ways to, you know, really look at this and consider all of 
those different aspects. So, again, I think that there are 
pretty realistic and easy models to consider that don't get 
into some of the more challenging issues. They may not have 
full support of Congress, but, you know, what they do, 
obviously, you know, they are there to provide money for the 
university. They spend a lot of time like workers, and so that 
could be a possibility, as well.
    Senator Romney. Yes. No, I think the point is that I have a 
sense as to why the steel workers is interested in this topic, 
which is this is the potential for some--a unionization of 
college athletes, which could be a real revenue-generator for a 
union. And this, I think, is the reason why----
    Senator Paul raised the question about why is the Federal 
Government looking at this. The NCAA has come to the Federal 
Government and said, look, we could solve this, but we run up 
against all sorts of Federal law and Federal regulation. We 
need to have help to understand what you want us to do and 
guidance through this labyrinth. Because obviously the colleges 
are not interested in having the athletes become union members, 
to be subject to employment law, wrongful termination, age 
discrimination. All the sorts of things that I think would make 
it very difficult to run an athletic problem.
    I guess my own inclination is that the right course here is 
to find a way to provide additional compensation to members of 
teams. For those that are the 2-percent, if you will, that--
either they might be able to get name, image, and likeness, but 
limit it to let's say $50,000 a year, no more than that, or 
allow them to go pro.
    You indicated that, well, they can't go pro. As Senator 
Murphy just indicated, gosh, they can't go pro in football, but 
my guess is that it should be easier for football to change 
that than--and to follow more like the baseball model than for 
us to come up with a new law.
    I wonder, are we--would we satisfy the concerns that you 
have if we indicated that, look, we are going increase the 
ability to compensate all the members of a team, not just the 
2-percent that go onto the pros, and that the very high-earner 
potential, the 2-percent, they might be able to get name, 
image, and likeness but limit it at something like $50,000 a 
year? Does that work?
    Let me ask Ms. Blank or Dr. Blank. Would a process of that 
nature work? And do you see the same concern that I am 
describing?
    Dr. Blank. I would oppose that type of thing because it 
becomes a pay-for-play system. You know, I am primarily an 
educational institution and I have 850 student athletes, and I 
run those programs because I want those students to develop the 
set of skills that may not be developed in other classrooms. I 
want them to learn self-discipline, self-confidence. The same 
thing I hope they are learning and other students are learning 
as they are coming to college. And, you know, that is about an 
educational process. As they say, the main benefits these 
students take away is their educational degree. It is not about 
coming here to earn money and to be an employee.
    I would not agree with you, but I think that is a good 
idea.
    Senator Romney. Okay.
    Ms. Dennis.
    Ms. Dennis. Senator Romney, thank you. Pro athletes--
football players can go pro in college. They can't go pro like 
Mr. Huma said from high school.
    But, we are not interested really in--for non-revenue 
sports, as well as I think for all of our student athletes, we 
are not interested in being professionals of a university. You 
know, we are interested in being student athletes who gain from 
the educational experience.
    If we started making all of our student athletes, you know, 
have them go pro, our Olympic teams are going to be decimated. 
You know, and I don't know if you have thought about, you know, 
the feeding system that college athletes serves as--for our 
Olympic teams.
    You know, in 2016, the road to Rio ran right through the 
university system. There were--80 percent of our student 
athletes comprised our Olympic team. And of that, there were 
555 members on the--on Team USA, and 436 of them came from--
they were either incoming student athletes, current student 
athletes, or former student athletes.
    I am not interested in that.
    Senator Romney. Alright. Thank you.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Okay. Thank you.
    Senator Murphy--Senator Romney, your time is up.
    Senator Romney [continuing]. our time. So, thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I return it to you.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Romney.
    Senator Murray.
    Senator Murray. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Huma, you were a college football player at UCLA, a 
large Division I program that brings in millions of dollars in 
revenue, but then you are also the executive director at the 
National College Players Association and you work with college 
athletes, men and women, participating in a very wide range of 
sports--those we see playing on TV and whose name we recognize, 
as well as the vast majority who play sports that are never 
aired on TV and whose names we may never know.
    I wanted to ask you, in your work with college athletes, 
what are some of the biggest health and safety concerns for 
players? Are these issues different between sports or across 
the three NCAA divisions?
    Mr. Huma. Thanks for that question. There are issues that 
are very common across all the divisions. And, again, the 
problem is because there are no health and safety standards 
that are enforced in NCAA--by the NCAA. But, there are life and 
death issues that continue to keep coming up. As I mentioned, 
heat illness. Some of you members may remember the death of 
Jordan McNair at Maryland just a couple years ago. That was 
completely preventable, and Maryland admitted negligence. And 
it will happen. You can set your clock to it. We don't know 
exactly when, but it will happen until there is enforcement of 
those kinds of rules.
    Sickle cell-related deaths, rhabdomyolysis from, you know, 
trainers and strength and conditioning coaches that really are 
not regulated in a way to make sure their workouts are safe.
    We mentioned the Big Ten. There are plenty of problems in 
the Big Ten. They have actually some of the worst sexual 
assault scandals in the history of college sports that are 
still actively being investigated. Those issues, you know, 
really go unaddressed across all these divisions because there 
is nowhere for these players to go.
    Traumatic brain injury, CTE. It is not just football. And 
actually, women's sports have higher rates of concussions in 
comparable sports. So, women's soccer players have higher rates 
than men's soccer players, and on and on.
    There are some things that are common, in contact sports 
especially, but it is really throughout the divisions.
    Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you. That is very concerning.
    I wanted to also ask you, the safe reopening of schools 
across the Country is a critical challenge for students and 
parents and staff, and for many colleges, college athletes, who 
are the first students to return to campus in order to 
participate in summer workouts and practices. Are there 
mandatory, enforceable protocols established by the NCAA for 
schools to follow?
    Mr. Huma. Well, when players started arriving on campus, 
there was absolutely nothing, and players began getting sick 
pretty much immediately in those workouts across the Nation and 
across various sports. The NCAA very late claimed to have said 
some things that were mandatory and that if there were 
problems, players would be able to call a hotline. But, if you 
go to the NCAA's webpage, they say if there are problems, call 
us and we will essentially ask your college and the conference 
to politely correct the situation. Not real enforcement.
    Truly, when you look at whether or not--the NCAA is very 
calculated on this. When they want to enforce rules like on 
compensation, they are there the whole--it makes national 
headlines. They are hammering schools and players. When it 
comes to health and safety, they pretend like things are 
mandatory, when in actuality, there are no punishments. So, 
there is no indication whatsoever right now that there is 
anything that is enforceable when it comes to COVID and NCAA 
sports.
    Senator Murray. Well, Dr. Blank, Coach Dennis, I want to 
follow-up with both of you on this issue. On August 11th, the 
Big Ten made the decision to postpone fall sports until 2021, 
but is now, a month later, revisiting that decision. And, like 
the college athletes in schools in my home State of Washington, 
I know that college athletes on your campuses also want to 
compete. But, I think we have to all agree that health and 
safety of these young people has to be a top priority. Has the 
NCAA or the Big Ten provided protocols to your schools in light 
of the coronavirus?
    Dr. Blank. Let me start. The most important policy that the 
NCAA has established and every school is following is that 
anyone who feels unsafe playing in an age of COVID can sit out 
this year. They will maintain their scholarship. They can 
return next year with no loss of eligibility and money. You 
know, we want anyone who does not feel comfortable playing to 
not be able to play, and we have communicated that very clearly 
to all of our athletes.
    Senator Murray. Actually, not--you say play or not. I was 
asking more specifically are there any protocols that have been 
provided in terms of safety and health?
    Dr. Blank. My understanding is the conferences are each 
setting their individual protocols, and that is why the Big 
Ten, for instance, has made different choices than the SEC or 
some of the other conferences.
    Senator Murray. Coach Dennis.
    Ms. Dennis. Senator Murray, thank you. There are some very 
strict protocol in place at The Ohio State University for 
return to play. Every student athlete is being tested, COVID 
tested. If they are found positive, then they are put into 
quarantine. They are contact tracing around them. There is a 
cardiac--a complete cardiology workup, including a cardiology 
MRI. If they are tested positive, then they cannot return to 
play until there is approval from the cardiologist after all 
the workups and the MRI that they are safe to be able to come 
back to practice.
    Senator Murray. Are those your school rules or are those--
--
    Ms. Dennis. That is at The Ohio State University. And I am 
going to tell you, the student athletes there, they--to me, 
they have 24/7 concierge medical attention. Our trainers are up 
at 3 in the morning if necessary. If they get a phone call, 
then they are being taken care of. So, I don't--I am sure there 
is some abuses around the Country, but in the Big Ten, for the 
most part, and at Ohio State, those abuses do not exist.
    To Mr. Huma's credit, yes, it has been some unfortunate 
occurrences with heat indices, the rhabdo situation at Iowa. 
But, I tell you, after those kinds of things happen, you--I 
just don't believe, and they are not--they are not taken 
lightly, and additional protocols have been taken--have been 
put in place.
    Senator Murray. Is that the NCAA, Big Ten, or private 
schools?
    Ms. Dennis. By Ohio State, as well as the Big Ten.
    Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time, so I will 
submit additional questions. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Murray.
    Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the Ranking 
Member, for holding this hearing.
    One of the things I love about this Committee is some of 
the elements of our work are issues I have cared about and 
thought about a lot over the course of my life, career in 
technical education, as an example. But, some are issues that 
even if they are important to me as a citizen, I haven't really 
thought that much about the public policy side of it, and 
today's hearing would be an example of that. I just haven't 
thought that much about the public policy side of collegiate 
sports.
    A couple of thoughts or questions because I want to be 
educated by the witnesses. In Virginia, the two largest 
schools, University of Virginia and Virginia Tech--actually, 
not largest, but two of our prominent institutions--are both 
part of the Atlantic Coast Conference.
    The Atlantic Coast Conference has decided to play fall 
football. Virginia Tech's first game was scheduled last weekend 
on September 12th against North Carolina State. That game had 
to be postponed because of an outbreak of coronavirus among 
North Carolina State players. Virginia Tech's second game was 
to be this weekend against University of Virginia. That game 
has been postponed because of an outbreak of COVID among 
Virginia Tech players. But, the ACC is still playing football.
    Why--if we have had to scrap the first two games, the 
Virginia Tech games, and obviously the other teams that were 
involved, I just would like to ask each of the witnesses, why 
are we working so hard to continue fall football if the results 
at least in the ACC are such that grave questions about the 
ability to do it safely are so obvious?
    Dr. Blank. I will jump into that. So, the Big Ten did 
decide to postpone its football season. It has postponed all 
its fall sports, and there were several main reasons for that. 
One was that we were uncertain that we could do the level of 
testing and contact tracing that we needed to keep athletes 
safe.
    Second, there was this growing evidence about heart-related 
myocarditis, and that evidence was uncertain and it wasn't 
clear what it meant, and we wanted to know more. There were a 
few other more minor reasons. But, you know, until we have 
answers to that, we will keep our season postponed. Once we 
have answers to that and to some of those issues and think that 
we have ways to deal with them effectively, we will try to plan 
a delayed season. But----
    Senator Kaine. Chancellor Blank----
    Dr. Blank [continuing]. I share those concerns. It is one 
of the reasons we delayed our season.
    Senator Kaine. Chancellor Blank, could I just ask you, some 
public reporting suggests that the Big Ten may vote this week 
to restore fall football. Are those reports accurate?
    Dr. Blank. I am not going to speak to that. You are going 
to have to let the Big Ten make that announcement when and if 
such a decision is made. When such a decision happens, your 
first question should be what has changed, and, you know, 
hopefully we will have answers to exactly the issues that I 
just raised.
    Senator Kaine. Do you know whether a decision of that kind 
is going to be a unanimous--would require unanimous vote by the 
college presidents or some lesser vote?
    Dr. Blank. I can't say what the vote is going to look like. 
Decisions within the Big Ten are largely majority-based 
decisions. But I will be honest, we almost always decide 
everything by consensus. We very rarely take votes.
    Senator Kaine. Is it not the case that at least two Big Ten 
presidents are epidemiologists or have expertise in public 
health, the presidents of both University of Michigan and 
Michigan State?
    Dr. Blank. That is true.
    Senator Kaine. How about others who want to answer that 
question? You know, if--why are we working so hard? I am just 
using the ACC as an example. Why are we working so hard to 
maintain a fall football season if Virginia Tech--just using 
Tech as an example--has had to postpone its first two games 
because of COVID?
    Mr. Huma. I would like to weigh in.
    Senator Kaine. Please.
    Mr. Huma. Really, it is very simple. It is big money and it 
is hard to pass up, and athletic directors and coaches have 
been pretty frank about that.
    Another thing I will point out, as much as people like to 
think that maybe a conference is going to do right, or somehow 
things are going to be okay, the National Athletic Trainers' 
Association just put out a survey yesterday, finding that 
throughout all the different divisions and schools, less than 
half of the coaches and athletic staff are complying with their 
own COVID guidelines. Less than half. And you see outbreaks all 
over the Nation. Like you see game postponements, season 
postponements, and no one is talking about anything that is 
going to fundamentally change that without some real 
enforcement that is uniform nationally. And that is--there is 
nothing anywhere close to that.
    The other thing that I will point out is that conferences 
really are not enforcement entities. When was the last time you 
saw a conference enforce anything? So, even if the conference 
puts out guidelines--you know, the PAC-12 players were told by 
Larry Scott that it is impossible to enforce uniform guidelines 
within the conference across 12 schools. And that is basically 
how conferences have approached health and safety. So, they are 
very much ill-equipped and pretty much unwilling to do what is 
right in terms of enforcement when it comes to COVID and other 
health issues.
    Senator Kaine. My time is up. I am going to have a question 
or two that I will ask for the record, but I appreciate the 
witnesses. This has been very enlightening. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
    Senator Scott.
    Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me 
okay?
    The Chairman. Yes, we can.
    Senator Scott. Okay. Excellent.
    Chancellor Blank, my question is a simple question. How do 
you preserve the amateur nature of collegiate athletics, while 
at the same time allowing student athletes to benefit 
monetarily from the use of their name, image, and likeness?
    Dr. Blank. That is exactly I think why we are concerned 
with the need for some Federal-legislated involvement in this.
    There are several things that I think we need to have in 
place in order to preserve collegiate athletics. When--if, as 
name, image, and likeness payments become allowable, we cannot 
let a hodgepodge of State laws be in place. That makes it 
almost impossible to compete on even playing fields. So, some 
Federal preemption of those State laws with establishment of 
national standards.
    We need a narrow trust exemption so that any rules that we 
set that, say, limit people from doing name, image, and 
likeness with the--within a--with a college gambling group, for 
instance, that we can enforce those sorts of laws.
    We need--I think that law should explicitly indicate the 
importance of student--of the student-athlete model, that 
students are not employees, that they are students as well as 
sports players.
    Then, finally, we have to address the Title IX laws.
    Those sorts of things will indeed preserve the college 
athletic model, while still allowing some payments for name, 
image, and likeness.
    Senator Scott. Chancellor, just a follow-up to that. Do you 
believe that it would be necessary in that Federal apparatus to 
have certain industries and/or areas of interest excluded from 
the list of places where a student athlete could use their 
name, image, or likeness?
    Dr. Blank. I do think there have to be guardrails around 
the ways in which student athletes can do here. There has to be 
transparency about who is paying them. They have to be able to 
show--we have to be able to show, and this is some regulatory 
process, that indeed they are receiving reasonable payments for 
what are genuine services; this is not a pretext for simply 
passing money under the table. Whether that is something you 
want to write into legislation is not clear to me. I think that 
is something that anybody that would be charged with regulating 
this law would want to establish those sorts of guardrails.
    Senator Scott. So, you would suggest that the Federal 
legislation and/or vehicle would create a broad outline, and 
then having a governing authority, maybe empowered by that 
legislation, decree the uniform standard would be consistent 
with the philosophy that you are echoing?
    Dr. Blank. Yes, absolutely.
    Senator Scott. Okay. Great. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Scott.
    Senator Rosen, we will go to you.
    Senator Rosen. Can you hear me okay?
    The Chairman. We can.
    Senator Rosen. Perfect. Thank you. We have been having some 
problems with our computer lately, so thank you very much. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and thank 
you to the witnesses for being here today.
    I want to touch a little bit and build upon what some of my 
colleagues have talked about on COVID-19 concerns because 
that--college athlete compensation, it is an important issue 
that is central to our discussion today, but we also cannot 
lose sight of an even more pressing topic--the risks college 
athletes face due to COVID-19 pandemic.
    Of course, we find ourselves in the opening school weeks of 
the year. The New York Times just this past Friday reported 
that in the prior week, there were 36,000 new cases of COVID-19 
across the Country, bringing the total number of cases for 
college campuses to nearly 90,000. That is pretty high if you 
ask me.
    Like the Big Ten, the PAC-10, the Mountain West 
Conference--so that is where UNLV and UNR play in Nevada--they 
postponed their games for the fall season, saying that the 
coronavirus just posed too many health risks. But, in a survey 
by ESPN, nearly half of the Power 5 conference schools declined 
to even provide data on the total number of positive COVID-19 
tests that college athletes--and almost one-third of schools 
chose not to disclose information about their safety protocols, 
and I find this lack of transparency particularly alarming.
    Back in July, in Commerce Committee, I called on the NCAA 
to issue nationwide guidance of COVID testing, and I was glad 
to see 2 weeks later that they had announced a comprehensive 
testing strategy. But, recent reports have me concerned that we 
are not following those guidelines.
    Let me ask the witnesses here today, do you make COVID-19 
information publically available? And, so, Dr. Blank, would you 
like to begin that?
    Dr. Blank. We have a dashboard that we update every day 
that provides information on our COVID-19 cases on campus, the 
positivity rates, how many tests we have run, all of the type 
of information that would allow you to track what is happening 
on campus. And, there is usually comments that are added to 
that to help people understand more about what we are seeing.
    Senator Rosen. And does everyone else on the panel--do you 
make COVID-19 information publically available? I would also 
like you to comment on what more needs to be done to be sure 
that every college is transparent about their COVID-19 testing, 
tracing protocols, and their positivity rates.
    Ms. Dennis. Thank you, Senator Rosen. At Ohio State, we 
also are in receipt of COVID-19 information on a daily basis. 
The information comes from our medical community, through the--
information through the CDC, and students--coaches are privy to 
that information every day.
    Senator Rosen. What about the parents and the students? Are 
they privy to that information so they know if it is a safe 
environment for them to be participating in?
    Ms. Dennis. I don't believe the information is private. It 
is on a website, so anything that is on a website to me has the 
ability to be transparent. And as far as--as far as I know, we 
are as transparent with our student athletes and our parent 
community because they are also very important. They are very 
important members of our Buckeye community.
    Senator Rosen. Well, I appreciate that. And, again, I guess 
to all the panelists, I just think about not just the student 
athletes, but the entire student community and those parents 
should be part of these conversations going forward because it 
is really important for everyone--the professors, all the 
people who work at your university, also have to make decisions 
based on the information that they find.
    I guess we can move on unless somebody has something else 
to say about that.
    Mr. Huma. I would like to say that there are a number of 
athletes that have no idea what the infection rate is in their 
sports. Their programs are keeping it quiet. And, also, even 
players who have tested positive, sometimes they are not 
getting a retest before being reintroduced back into workouts.
    I will also point out that even the conferences that have 
postponed football season, many players are still in workouts. 
Workouts still are not up to snuff when it comes to best 
practices on health and safety standards. So, even if there are 
not actual competitions going on, in some of these conferences, 
players are still working out in environments that they have a 
lack of information about. Even what a violation would look 
like, what the schools are even promising to do. And if they 
saw a violation, who do they call? The NCAA, which is just 
going to kind of ask politely for the schools to do something a 
little bit better, but there is not real enforcement.
    Senator Rosen. So, what do you think we should do in order 
to make this more uniform and protect not just our student 
athletes, all of our students and the staff, professors, and 
everyone who might be coming to our college campuses for 
whatever reason?
    Mr. Huma. There needs to be full transparency nationwide 
within athletic programs and on campuses. And when it comes to 
athletics, there needs to be a national, uniform standard that 
is actually enforced with the same figure that the schools and 
NCAA would enforce compensating college athletes.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I believe my time is up. I 
appreciate you all being here today.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rosen.
    Senator Jones.
    Senator Jones [continuing]. Chairman, and thanks to all our 
witnesses today for being here. It is a fascinating subject. It 
is a--it really gets into a lot of many, many different areas, 
and I don't think people fully appreciate, you know, until they 
dig down.
    For me, I have always believed that where we are headed for 
some type of compensation is a natural evolution of what has 
now become a huge, billions-of-dollar business in America and 
the economy. And, I also think we are leaving out some things, 
such as the ability to transfer back and forth a little bit 
easier than I think that these athletes enjoy right now.
    But, I would like to ask--I want to go in a little bit 
different direction on cost. To Chancellor Blank and Mr. 
Hartwell, we hear a lot, and I think it is appropriate to talk 
about the value that these athletes get from the universities 
with their tuition, with their room and board, with--you know, 
all of the things. That has a value. But, I also know and have 
seen some criticisms about this transfer pricing model. Now, I 
will admit that I am not an accountant, but there has been some 
criticism that some of these models are not really giving a 
full, accurate picture of the actual cost to the universities 
for these athletes. We hear a lot of big numbers, and that may 
be the retail cost.
    But, I would like for you to address the need for 
transparency in assessing this, because I think that what we 
are giving these athletes right now has to be weighed with what 
we ultimately do. But it needs to be transparent.
    I would like for you to talk about the value and how you 
calculate that value at your institutions and where we need to 
be looking going forward.
    Chancellor Blank. So, we are--we have a one-pager out that 
says here is all the things that athletes get. We actually use 
that both with donors, when we are asking them to support 
teams, as well as make it available to anyone else. You know, 
the tuition, books scholarship, as they say, is actually the 
lower end part of what students actually receive when you add 
in all of the coaching, the mental health, the free meals, the 
insurance coverage, plus the value of an education. And it is 
hard to cost some of those things out in a very clear way, so 
we tend not to have a full cost, all-in. We tend to talk about 
them separately.
    Senator Jones. Mr. Hartwell.
    Mr. Hartwell. Ours is similar in that there is a clear 
dollar value given each year to the grant and aid agreement, 
the scholarship agreement, that is signed annually by our 
student athletes, which at Utah State is about $36,000. That 
includes tuition, room, books, these--all of those things.
    But, in addition, there is so much more that is provided. 
The individual strength and conditioning coaching, the academic 
tutors and help with registering. All of those things. The 
mental health counselors, the nutritionist. All of those things 
that there is a value to. Although, you know, we don't drill 
down individually and say, hey, each student athlete gets 2 
hours of strength and conditioning individual training per 
week, or the medical care that is provided by our team 
physicians and sports medicine specialists. So, it is 
significantly more than that $37,000.
    I think another really key factor here, and I will speak 
from personal experience, is, you know, I can remember in my 
mid-thirties, which was quite a few years ago, talking to peers 
and colleagues, and they still had student loans that they were 
paying off. One of the great assets of being a collegiate 
athlete, not only do you get to play a sport you love, but you 
get to do it debt-free in a lot of cases for those that are on 
full scholarship. And again, the financial challenges that come 
up 8, 10, 12 years down the road for those still paying student 
loans off, a lot of collegiate student athletes don't have that 
debt to pay.
    Senator Jones. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, before I ask the next question--I have a 
little bit of time. This letter from Southeastern Conference 
Commissioner, Greg Sankey, is probably part of the record for 
this Commerce Committee, but with the--I am asking unanimous 
consent that we make this a part of the record for our hearing 
today, if that is okay.
    The Chairman. So ordered.
    Senator Jones. Mr. Huma, let me ask you one quick question 
in the limited time we have. One issue for a lot of these 
conferences, a lot of these schools, is liability--liability 
for athletes that have gone before them that have not been able 
to benefit from this. There have been different proposals 
there, and I would like to get your thoughts on whether there 
are safe harbor provisions you would support from a players' 
association, safe harbor provisions that would allow this to be 
implemented without subjecting these schools to liability from 
past--you know, past athletes, or any kind of alternative.
    My time is up, so just very quickly, please, sir.
    Mr. Huma. Just quickly, I don't think players should be 
denied--past players should be denied opportunities to access 
the legal system. I think when we get into these spaces, we 
talk about how to carve college athletes out of basic 
protections and even legal rights. I don't think that is an 
appropriate measure. And, I think if they bring suits and go 
try to pursue things, it will have to work itself out that way. 
Because if the NCAA was breaking the law for decades, there 
needs to be some kind of restitution, and I think the courts 
are well-positioned to rule on that.
    Senator Jones. Alright. Well, thank you. I may send that 
question around for the others to answer, as well, because I am 
sure we will potentially get different answers there.
    But, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of the 
witnesses. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Jones.
    Senator Hassan.
    Senator Hassan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and 
to you and Ranking Member Murray for holding this hearing. And 
thank you for the witnesses for being here to testify today.
    I am going to note before I get to my questions that I am 
concerned that there continues to be an inconsistent approach 
across colleges and universities and conferences to holding 
sporting events during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some sports and 
conferences are not playing, while others are moving forward, 
even on campuses with some of the highest rates of infection, 
and there are varying levels of safety measures in place. The 
health of--and safety of college athletes and their communities 
must determine when and how college sports continue during this 
pandemic.
    My first question is for Ms. Blank. As you know, decisions 
about how college sports will proceed are being made as 
infectious disease experts and researchers continue to identify 
and warn about the long-term health impacts of COVID-19, even 
on young, healthy adults. One recent study of college athletes 
in particular found that there are potential, long-term risks 
to heart health, even for those who recover from COVID-19.
    Chancellor Blank, I will ask you first, can you explain if 
your school has considered the potential long-term health 
impacts of COVID-19 on your athletes? And if so, how are you 
preparing to address these long-term healthcare needs for 
college athletes who may become infected with the virus?
    Dr. Blank. Thank you for that question. We definitely 
consider that. We have a group of medical experts, who have 
worked closely with our athletic department as they put 
together their procedures for how you do any training. As you 
know, the Big Ten has decided at this point to postpone its 
season. Part of its concern was exactly out of the unsettled 
evidence that we were getting on myocarditis and on heart-
related issues, and, you know, our continued consult that----
    The Big Ten also has a panel of experts from across our 
schools from all of the medical--our various hospitals and 
medical schools that are consulting with the Big Ten on the 
decisions that they are making. So, you know, our concern is 
that we do this according to the best science and the best 
medical advice possible.
    Senator Hassan. Well, it raises, too--thank you. It raises, 
though, too, this issue--and then I will ask Mr. Hartwell and 
Ms. Dennis to comment--on are you making plans to take care of 
health-related--health effects that could last for the rest of 
an athlete's life if they play?
    Will the university system, for instance, be covering those 
costs or somehow acknowledging that if you ask an athlete to 
take on the risk of playing during COVID that you have some 
responsibility for the long-term impacts of the health effects?
    Chancellor, do you want to----
    Dr. Blank. Oh, yes. I am happy to respond. I'm sorry. I 
thought you were directing that at the other two.
    Yes. We provide insurance to our--all of our athletes. At a 
minimum, we cover them for anything that happens to them while 
they are student athletes for up to 2 years after that. In a 
number of cases--you know, COVID is an interesting situation. 
Usually, we are talking about more, you know, physical damage 
injuries, which are generated on the field in some way. We 
have, in a number of cases, covered athletes much longer who 
had injuries that they needed help on far beyond 2 years. Our 
expectation is if we have someone who has serious COVID-related 
issues that they contract with while they are playing, we would 
cover them.
    Senator Hassan. Alright. Well, thank you for that. And I 
think I will go to another question to Mr. Huma and ask Mr. 
Hartwell and Ms. Dennis to respond to what I just asked the 
chancellor in writing at a later time.
    Because, Mr. Huma, I want to talk a little bit about 
concussions. I am introducing the bipartisan resolution with 
Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, 
recognizing this Friday, September 18th, as concussion 
awareness day to raise awareness of the impact of concussions 
and traumatic brain injuries.
    According to the CDC, there are between 1.6 and 3.8 million 
sports-related concussions each year, and our current data 
sources may only account for a small percentage of the total 
instances of concussions. Concussions and traumatic brain 
injuries are an important health concern for children, teens, 
and adults, including many college athletes, and we need to 
improve research, diagnosis, overall understanding, and 
management of concussions.
    Mr. Huma, what is your organization doing to work with 
college athletes to raise awareness of the long-term effects of 
concussions? How should we consider these long-term health 
risks specific to college athletes when we talk about 
compensation, including benefits like healthcare and 
employment-related disability?
    Mr. Huma. First, I would just like to thank you for the 
work that you are doing. It is an important issue.
    Health and safety is our top priority, and traumatic brain 
injury is one that has gone unaddressed in college sports, 
unfortunately, and raising awareness among athletes is a top 
priority, and how that can lead to CTE, chronic traumatic 
encephalopathy. That has been found in college athletes. They 
have committed suicide and found to have had CTE in their 
brains, as well.
    In addition, part of what we do with college athletes is to 
get them to realize as much as possible they have to be their 
own advocates because, again, the National Athletic Trainers' 
Association, it is very consistent. Athletic staff lean on 
trainers, they pressure trainers, to return players with 
concussion to the same game. That has been going on for quite 
some time. So, those are the very important issues.
    I forgot. What was the second part of your question?
    Senator Hassan. Well, it was really--and I am running out 
of time, so I will follow-up with you in deference to the 
Chair. But it was really about what kind of long-term 
disability plans or planning should colleges and college 
athletes engage in, and whose financial obligation is it. So, I 
will follow-up with you on that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
    I want to thank the witnesses for a very illuminating 
hearing today, and the Senators for their broad participation 
and good questions.
    Before we wrap up, Senator Murray, do you have additional 
comments or questions?
    Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I did want to ask 
unanimous consent to include in the hearing record a number of 
supplemental documents that were submitted by Mr. Huma as part 
of his testimony.
    The Chairman. So ordered.
    [The following information can be found on pages 59-189 in 
the Additional Material]
    Senator Murray. I appreciate that. And I want to thank all 
of our witnesses, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this 
important discussion today.
    As I said in my opening statement, you have a long history 
on this Committee of leading bipartisan conversations on 
important issues. Today was no different.
    I think it is clear that college athletes are being 
exploited, and while NCAA officials and coaches make millions, 
they don't. Congress needs to look at this and address these 
injustices and finally ensure that college athletes get, at a 
minimum, a fair share of the revenue generated from their own 
name and image and likeness, and their voice should be heard in 
the decisionmaking. But, also, that they are protected by 
enforceable health and safety standards and have access to 
affordable healthcare and receive a quality education.
    I think we have a lot work ahead of us, and I look forward 
to working with all of you. And, again, thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray. And I want to 
thank you and your staff for working with us to create this 
opportunity today. We will--we are coordinating with the 
Commerce Committee, which has principal jurisdiction over this 
issue and the comments and the testimony today will be helpful 
to the Commerce Committee as it considers what action Congress 
should take.
    I would like to ask one last question before we wrap up. 
Assuming that Congress were to act to provide--create an entity 
who had the job of writing rules for compensation for name, 
image, and likeness, what should that--who should that entity 
be?
    Chancellor Blank.
    Dr. Blank. So, I would be willing to talk about a variety 
of options here. I think the worst choice would be to create a 
new regulatory body, which will only expand its role over time 
in ways that probably will not be helpful to anyone.
    My first choice would be to let the NCAA do this. They have 
the most expertise and, as you pointed out, have the ability to 
do this.
    There may be other existing government agencies that would 
look attractive to some people on this Committee. That would be 
fine, too.
    The Chairman. Ms. Dennis.
    Ms. Dennis. Senator Alexander, I am not really sure which 
governmental agency would this fall under. What I am sure of is 
that, as a coach, I have got enough challenges, and I don't 
want to navigate my way through a labyrinth of different laws 
during the recruiting process because everything I do is 
challenging enough without having to try to figure out from 
which perspective this law is going to affect my recruiting 
efforts, as well as all of our--as coaches, our recruiting 
efforts.
    I would just hope that the Committee will consider 
something that is more uniform, something that is more standard 
and central; a set of rules that could guide coaches through 
the next phase of this movement to hopefully create some manner 
of compensation for our student athletes.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hartwell, who should--what entity should 
write the rules?
    Mr. Hartwell. Senator Alexander, I believe it should be 
Congress and Federal legislation that writes the rules, working 
in close conjunction with the NCAA. Because the worst thing 
that can happen for collegiate athletics and for prospective 
student athletes is to have 50 different iterations at the 
various State levels of rules and regulations regarding NIL. I 
think a consistent, national package in conjunction with the 
NCAA would be optimal.
    The Chairman. And Mr. Huma, who--what entity should write 
rules if there are rules to be written?
    Mr. Huma. I don't think it should be the NCAA. The NCAA has 
absolutely failed in these areas when it comes to college 
athletes' rights, and that is why we are here. I think that if 
it was an entity, it should be completely independent from the 
schools because they are--at the core of the problem is the 
conflict of interest that schools have. The NCAA is an 
association of schools, and it is run primarily by athletic 
directors in terms of, you know, direction. And the schools 
just have a conflict of interest, so there needs to be a 
neutral third party. And I think players need to be 
incorporated in that, whether it be former players, current 
players, but players need to be primarily in and around areas 
when it comes to college athletes' rights. A big--another big 
reason why we are here is because players have never really had 
that opportunity.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and thanks to all four 
of you for--I know all of you are busy, have important 
responsibilities, and you have given us a big chunk of your 
time.
    My own view, which I stated in my opening statement, is 
that Congress should act and that it should authorize an entity 
to be safe from litigation to write the rules about name, 
image, and likeness. And, my recommendation would be that 
entity should be the NCAA.
    The alternatives are much worse. I mean, the alternatives 
are to create a new entity, and I have had some experience in 
watching new commissions created by the Federal Government. It 
takes a long time to do that, for one.
    Second, an entity like the Federal Trade Commission would 
have no expertise in higher education or student athletes, and 
no responsibility really for higher education.
    I think the worst thing would be for the Congress itself to 
write the rules. I mean, if anybody has watched 15 or 20 
Senators try to agree on a press release, imagine what 535 
Member of Congress would be like trying to write detailed rules 
in an area.
    What Congress should do, in my opinion, is authorize an 
entity to write the rules, and then Congress should do what 
Congress does best, which is aggressive oversight to put the 
spotlight on what is happening and then change whatever needs 
to be changed.
    My recommendation for the entity would be the NCAA. It is 
not supposed to be run by athletic directors. It is supposed to 
be run by presidents and chancellors of institutions. And, if 
they are not, they are not doing their job; and if it needs to 
be reformed, it ought to be reformed. And, while the NCAA is 
not perfect and is controversial, any entity, as I said 
earlier, who writes rules for intercollegiate athletics is 
going to be controversial.
    My own view, as expressed earlier, on this is that while 
there are a number of things I would like to see the NCAA do, 
such as take increased television revenues and make sure they 
go for the benefit of student athletes and their programs and 
their academic support rather than higher salaries for coaches 
and administrative tasks.
    I don't really want to see individual athletes have an 
opportunity to profit while they are student athletes from 
their name, image, and likeness. They may want to be rewarded 
for their name, image, or likeness, but in my view, those 
dollars, like other endorsement dollars at most institutions, 
should be distributed for the benefit of all the student 
athletes at that institution.
    If an individual athlete prefers to keep the money that he 
or she might earn from a name, image, or likeness that the--
that that person should go professional. I think that is much 
better than jeopardizing the entire tradition of student 
athletes.
    I like the direction in which Major League Baseball and the 
NCAA have taken baseball players. I mean, programs like 
Vanderbilt and Virginia and others, as well, are really of 
minor league quality. I mean, the Vanderbilt baseball team is 
at least Triple A most of the time, and some of its players, as 
we mentioned earlier, could have gone directly from high school 
into professional leagues. They chose not to. They chose to 
take the undergraduate experience, the 4-year degree, the 
coach--the education from coaches, who are among the best 
teachers in the Country, and the other support and stay for at 
least 3 years in undergraduate school, and then go on to have 
highly successful professional careers.
    That direction, those sorts of choices, seem to me to be 
right. It does not restrict any high school student's ability 
to be a professional. They can go do that if they wish. But, if 
they want to be a student athlete for a period of time, say, 3 
years in the case of baseball, then they must play by the rules 
of student athletes and by that tradition, which is well 
engrained, and which millions of Americans have benefited from.
    The hearing will remain--the hearing record will remain 
open for 10 days. Members may submit additional information for 
the record within that time if they would like.
    Our Committee will meet again on Thursday, on September 17 
at 10 a.m. for a hearing on higher education entitled ``Time to 
Finish Fixing the FAFSA.''
    As all of the witnesses know well, the Federal aid 
application form is filled out every year by 20 million 
families. For 6 years, Senator Murray and I and our Committee 
and various Members, including Senator Jones, Senator Bennet, 
Senator Collins, and others, have been working to reduce the 
number of questions, decrease the flexibility, so that we can 
increase the number of students who take advantage of Federal 
aid for a higher education. We have taken some important steps 
toward that. This hearing is about finishing that job.
    Thank you for being here today. The Committee will stand 
adjourned.

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    At a time when Congress is knee-deep in more urgent issues, 
two Federal bills have been proposed to limit the right of 
college athletes to monetize their names, images and likenesses 
(``NIL''). A bill from Senator Marco Rubio is simple, while one 
sponsored by the ``Power Five'' Conferences is complex, but 
neither should be taken up this year. This is a great time for 
Congress to follow the political equivalent of the Hippocratic 
Oath--first, do no harm. These issues are not suited to a quick 
fix by a Congress focused on bigger things, and may not need 
congressional intervention at all.

    For background, all citizens have the right under state 
laws, to profit from, and to stop others from profiting from, 
their talents and fame. But college athletes cannot exercise 
this right because the NCAA demands that they be ``amateurs''--
athletes who don't get paid. Of course, a college athlete with 
a Nike shoe contract or a profitable Instagram account is not 
being paid by his or her university, but the NCAA still says 
no. You may recall that similar amateurism concepts once 
controlled the Olympics, international tennis and golf, all of 
which jettisoned amateurism decades ago, but the NCAA clings to 
it, keeping the athletes as amateurs, the leading coaches as 
multi-millionaires, and the top teams earning many millions 
from football and basketball.

    NCAA NIL prohibitions have been long criticized, but public 
debate heated up when state legislatures took up the issue last 
year for athletes in their states. California overwhelmingly 
passed a groundbreaking bill requiring its colleges to allow 
athletes to profit from NIL.

    [Full disclosure: I testified in support of that bill and 
consulted with its sponsors.] Colorado and Florida followed 
suit, and two dozen other states have bills pending. The 
support is bipartisan, as Democrats led the charge in 
California and Republicans in Florida. To be clear, none of the 
bills authorized salaries for college athletes, just NIL 
rights.

    The NCAA was initially quite hostile to this state 
activity, opposing each bill. then threatening to sue the 
states, but ultimately it blinked, appointing a prestigious 
Working Group to address the issues. In April the Working Group 
recommended substantial reforms, which are scheduled to be 
acted upon by the three NCAA Divisions (larger, medium-sized 
and smaller athletic programs) at a January Convention. Opinion 
is split, with some college athletic officials supporting major 
changes, others urging moderation, and others opposing any 
change. With the Convention in January and the Florida bill 
becoming effective in July 2021, many believe that significant 
reform is around the corner. They may be right--unless Congress 
screws it up.

    This brings us to the two bills. The one from Sen. Rubio 
audaciously proposes that Congress should instruct the NCAA to 
do something about this soon, and wipes out all state laws, 
passed or pending, while blocking any Federal or state court 
from addressing the issue. Of course, if you tell the NCAA no 
one can touch them, they are far less likely to do anything 
constructive. But Sen. Rubio would make them the King who, by 
definition, can do no wrong. It is hard to imagine a worse 
plan, or a worse time to try to sneak it through Congress.

    The bill sponsored the Power Five--75 of the 1,100 colleges 
in the NCAA, but the ones with the largest and most revenue-
generating sports programs--includes some specific NIL rules 
that Congress would adopt. The details would apparently be 
filled in by the schools, or possibly the Federal Trade 
Commission, a Federal agency with no experience in this area. 
Like Rubio's bill, the Power Five bill would preempt all state 
laws and all litigation on the subject.

    The problems with this bill are too numerous to address 
here, but the biggest one is that--even if Congress were the 
right entity to govern NIL, it cannot possibly hear from 
interested constituencies and make good decisions before it 
adjourns. Jill Bodensteiner, Athletic Director at St. Joseph's 
and a member of the NCAA Working Group, said that NIL was the 
most complex issue she'd ever worked on, ``hands down,'' 
including her legal work on billion dollar corporate mergers. 
But he Power Five want Congress to resolve it right now.

    Leaving aside the complexity, the bill seems wrong in 
several places. It would prohibit a Yale rower from getting a 
sponsorship contract with a rowing club if the rowing club had 
made a contribution to the Yale Athletic department in the last 
5 years. Why? It would prohibit any athlete at Duke from 
entering into any NIL contract arrangement with Nike, because 
Duke has an endorsement contract with Nike, but also prohibit 
him or her from contracting with an competitor of Nike. So you 
can have NIL, but not from the places most likely to give it to 
you. This bill is a mess, and it would take months for Congress 
to learn the subject matter and find the solution. I have 
attached an Appendix which identifies some of the problems with 
the bill as written.

    Finally, this bill is an attack on state sovereignty, and 
Congress has no business telling states how to run their 
universities. Many NCAA schools are state universities, which 
are run lock, stock and barrel by the states. But these bills 
would tell the State of Florida that it can't tell the 
University of Florida how to treat its students. By what right? 
Couldn't Florida pass a law requiring rigorous concussion 
protocols for athletes at those universities? How is this 
different? (Admittedly the Florida bill also covers private 
universities, but nearly the same question is presented--why 
can't Florida tell the University of Miami that it must respect 
the NIL rights of its athletes?)

    Congress should stand down, and focus on other pressing 
issues. Let the NCAA have its January Convention and let's see 
if this works itself out. If not, a new Congress can consider 
whether it wishes to dictate to the states on this issue next 
year.

              APPENDIX TO COMMENTS OF PROFESSOR LEN SIMON

    Primary Concerns with Power Five Bill [These views are 
personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ramogi 
Huma or the National College Players Association]

    1. Prohibition on NIL contracts with persons or entities 
who have contributed any money to the University's athletic 
department in the last 5 years is grossly overbroad. It would, 
for example, prohibit a modest contract for a Div. III athlete 
with a local business that contributes $250 per year to the 
college. That is exactly the kind of NIL contract that a (non-
scholarship) athlete is likely to get, and need. Section 
3(b)(iii).

    2. Permission to obtain payment for legitimate hourly work 
should be expanded to include earnings from legitimate non-
hourly work, such as profits from creating a summer camp for 
young athletes. Section 2(e)(vi)

    3. The prohibition of NIL contracts in the first semester 
should be modified to permit NIL contracts to be negotiated 
once the athlete registers for and attends class. Recruiting is 
over by then, and some students need the extra assistance to 
get by. Section 3(b)(ii)

    4. The prohibition on NIL contracts with businesses that 
have endorsement contracts with the university is unduly harsh, 
and should prohibit only those contracts that directly conflict 
with the university's contract, as provided in the California 
bill (in language proposed by the NCAA). If Duke had a Nike 
contract, this bill would prohibit a Duke cross-country runner 
(possibly non-scholarship or partial scholarship) from having a 
small apparel deal with Nike. Why? It doesn't make much sense 
even when applied to a basketball player with a full 
scholarship, since he gets nothing out of the university 
contract except some equipment, but it sweeps so broadly that 
it is obviously wrong. Section 3(b)(iv)

    5. Similarly, the potential prohibition (at the option of 
the university) on contracts with businesses competing with 
those that have contracts with the university is indefensible 
and anticompetitive. Now our cross-country runner at Duke can't 
have a small apparel deal with Adidas or UnderArmor. Why? She 
gets even less out of the Nike deal with the university. 
Section 3(c).

    6. The role of the FTC under the bill is puzzling and 
likely to frustrate all concerned. The agency has no experience 
with NIL, nor should we expect its Commissioner or Staff to 
have any interest or expertise in the area. Asking the FTC to, 
among other things, develop and administer a test for 
certification as an agent, or to advise college athletes on 
entering NIL contracts, is unfortunate to say the least. 
Further, Federal agencies can at times be entirely stymied by 
the politics of nominations and lack a quorum or a working 
majority. NIL rules should come from the NCAA, the conferences, 
the universities, the states, or if absolutely necessary, from 
Congress itself. Section 5.

    7. Neither antitrust immunity nor state law preemption 
should be considered for NCAA NIL provisions unless and until 
rules are in places that are fair and reasonable. Section 6.

    8. Section 6(b), by prohibiting states from regulating NIL 
at universities in their state violates the sovereignty of 
those states, and their plenary authority to govern state-
sponsored universities. Thus, for example, under this bill 
Florida could not instruct the University of Florida, Florida 
State and other state universities to allow their students 
broader NIL rights than the NCAA permits, even if they withdraw 
from the NCAA and form their own conference with like-minded 
states. That is an unprecedented overreach in our Federal 
system. Section 6(b).
                                ------                                

    [Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                   [all]