[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






 
 A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: COLLEGE ATHLETES' RIGHTS TO THEIR NAME, IMAGE, 
                              AND LIKENESS

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

                             HYBRID HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMMERCE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 30, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-50
                           
                           
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                         
                           


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                            ______                       


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 53-737PDF             WASHINGTON : 2023 
                      
                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Staff Director
                 WAVERLY GORDON, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
            Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce

                        JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
                                  Chair
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                  Ranking Member
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts           FRED UPTON, Michigan
JERRY McNERNEY, California           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
TONY CARDENAS, California, Vice      LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    Chair                            NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             GREG PENCE, Indiana
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois             DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York           CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota                   (ex officio)
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, opening statement.................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Florida, opening statement............................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10

                               Witnesses

Cami March, Captain, Women's Golf, Washington State University...    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Mark Emmert, Ph.D., President, National Collegiate Athletic 
  Association....................................................    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   108
Ramogi Huma, Executive Director, National College Players 
  Association....................................................    25
    Prepared statement...........................................    27
    Answers to submitted questions \1\
Linda Livingstone, Ph.D., President, Baylor University...........    54
    Prepared statement...........................................    56
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   115
Jacqie D. McWilliams, Commissioner, Central Intercollegiate 
  Athletic Association...........................................    60
    Prepared statement...........................................    62
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   117

                           Submitted Material

Letter of September 30, 2021, from Representatives Emanuel 
  Cleaver and Colin Z. Allred to Ms. Schakowsky, et al., 
  submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....................................   101
Statement of Representative Anthony Gonzalez, September 30, 2021, 
  submitted by Mr. Bilirakis.....................................   103
Letter of September 23, 2021, from Evan Conley, University of 
  Louisville, et al., to Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Mr. 
  Bilirakis......................................................   105

----------

\1\ Mr. Huma's reply to submitted questions has been retained in 
committee files and is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
IF17/20210930/114076/HHRG-117-IF17-Wstate-HumaR-20210930-SD001.pdf.


 A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: COLLEGE ATHLETES' RIGHTS TO THEIR NAME, IMAGE, 
                              AND LIKENESS

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
  Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:34 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. 
Jan Schakowsky (chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Rush, Castor, 
Trahan, McNerney, Clarke, Cardenas, Dingell, Kelly, Soto, 
Pallone (ex officio), Bilirakis (subcommittee ranking member), 
Upton, Latta, Guthrie, Bucshon, Dunn, Pence, Armstrong, and 
Rodgers (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Schrier, Carter, and Duncan.
    Staff present: Katherine Durkin, Policy Coordinator; Lisa 
Goldman, Senior Counsel; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director 
and General Counsel; Daniel Greene, Professional Staff Member; 
Tiffany Guarascio, Staff Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Ed 
Kaczmarski, Policy Analyst; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director, 
Outreach and Member Service; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital Assistant; 
Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; 
Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Andrew Souvall, Director of 
Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; Caroline Wood, 
Staff Assistant; C.J. Young, Deputy Communications Director; 
Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, 
Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce, 
Energy, Environment; Tim Kurth, Minority Chief Counsel, 
Consumer Protection and Commerce; Brannon Rains, Minority 
Professional Staff Member, Consumer Protection and Commerce; 
and Michael Taggart, Minority Policy Director.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and 
Commerce will now come to order.
    Today, we will be holding a hearing entitled ``A Level 
Playing Field: College Athletes' Rights to Their Name, Image, 
and Likeness.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, Members can 
participate today in the hearing either in person, or remotely 
via online video, via video--video conferencing. Members who 
are not vaccinated----
    Mr. Rush. Madam Chair, you are muted. Madam Chair, you are 
muted.
    Ms. Schakowsky [continuing]. And participating in person 
must wear a mask and be socially distant. Such Members may 
remove their mask when they are under recognition and speaking 
from a microphone.
    Staff and press who are not vaccinated and present in the 
committee room must wear a mask at all times and be socially 
distanced.
    For Members participating remotely, your microphone will be 
set on mute for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members participating remotely will need to 
unmute your microphone each time you wish to speak.
    Please note that, once you have unmuted your microphone, 
anything that is said in Webex will be heard over the 
loudspeaker in the committee room and subject to be heard by 
the livestream.
    Since Members are participating from different locations at 
today's hearing, all recognition of Members, such as for 
questions, will be in the order of seniority on the 
subcommittee--subcommittee seniority.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Ed Kaczmarski at 
the email address that was provided to your staff. All 
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of 
the hearing.
    At this point, the Chair now recognizes herself for 5 
minutes.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    College sports bring joy to Americans in every State, in 
every congressional district, and can provide life-changing 
opportunities and friendships for college athletes. I know our 
colleagues--for example, Congresswoman Trahan--and others of 
you who participated in college athletics have personally 
experienced this.
    College sports have also created enormous wealth to the 
tune of $14.4 billion per year for colleges and universities, 
but, unfortunately, that wealth has not been equitably 
distributed for decades and led to systemic exploitation of 
athletes in service of the amateurism mythology.
    This exploitation has denied those who most are responsible 
for the creation of this wealth--that would be the players--
from their fair share of the pie. And, if that were not bad 
enough, we have seen athletes saddled with contracts our 
subcommittee would clearly identify as unfair and deceptive. 
Such contracts have in the past included restrictions on 
transferring to another school and loss of scholarships in the 
case of injury, which for too many means halting their 
education entirely.
    In 2015, Northwestern football players, who I have the 
privilege of representing in my district, actually began a 
union drive. And I was proud to stand with those courageous 
athletes fighting for their rights. Regrettably, Northwestern 
employed classic union-busting tactics, and the effort failed.
    Since then, we have recognized--I would say finally--
pervasive, systemic inequality--inequities in the ways that the 
NCAA manages, funds, and treats male versus female athletes. In 
August, an independent investigation concluded what many 
already knew, that the NCAA has not lived up to its standard 
commitment to, quote, ``diversity, inclusion, and gender 
equity--and gender equality--among its student athletes,'' 
unquote.
    For years, Congress was told by the NCAA and others to let 
them govern themselves. However, in the wake of the 
proliferation of name-image-likeness laws in States around the 
country that--and not to mention also Supreme Court cases, 
today, they are coming, asking us to intervene.
    And the Energy and Commerce Committee is where many of 
these debates are going to take place, and we are ready to have 
those debates on fair contracting; health and safety; name, 
image, likeness; recruiting practices; and labor rights. But I 
can assure you that we will only move forward in a way that 
puts players first.
    That said, I look forward to engaging with Ranking Member 
Bilirakis, Members on both sides of the aisle on our 
subcommittee, and all key stakeholders as we correct past 
injustices and move forward in an equitable way that does put 
players first.
    I want to thank our witnesses for attending today.
    And, with that, I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Jan Schakowsky

    On any given fall Saturday on college campuses all over 
this nation, students, alumna, and others gather College sports 
bring joy to Americans in every state, in every Congressional 
district, and can provide lifechanging opportunity and 
friendships for college athletes. I know our colleague 
Congresswoman Trahan, and others of you who were college 
athletes, have personally experienced this.
    College sports have also created enormous wealth, to the 
tune of $14.4 billion for colleges and university, but 
unfortunately that wealth has not been equitably distributed 
for decades and led to systemic exploitation of athletes.
    This exploitation has denied those most responsible for the 
creation of this wealth, the players, from their fair share of 
the pie. And if that weren't bad enough, we have seen athletes 
saddled with contracts this subcommittee would clearly identify 
as unfair and deceptive in service of the amateurism mythology. 
Such contracts have in the past included restrictions on 
transferring to another school and loss of scholarship in the 
case of injury, which for many meant halting their education.
    In 2015, when Northwestern football players, who I have had 
the privilege of representing in my district, began a union 
drive. I was proud to stand with those courageous athletes, 
fighting for their rights. Regrettably, Northwestern employed 
classic union-busting tactics, and the effort failed.
    Since then, we have recognized pervasive systemic 
inequities in the way the NCAA manages, funds, and treats male 
versus female athletes. In August, an independent investigation 
concluded what many already knew: the NCAA has not lived up to 
its stated commitment to ``diversity, inclusion, and gender 
equity among its student-athletes.''
    For years, Congress was told by the NCAA and others to let 
them govern themselves. However, in the wake of the 
proliferation of Name-Image-Likeness laws on the state level, 
not to mention a Supreme Court case, today they come to us 
asking us to intervene. The Energy and Commerce Committee is 
where many of these debates are going to take place, and we are 
ready to have those debates on fair contracts, health and 
safety, Name-Image-Likeness, recruiting practices, and labor 
rights, but I can assure you we will only move forward in a way 
that puts players first.
    That said, I look forward to engaging with Ranking Member 
Bilirakis, Members on both sides of the aisle of this 
subcommittee, and all key stakeholders as we correct past 
injustices and move forward in an equitable way that puts 
players first.
    I thank the witnesses for attending and recognize for 5 
minutes the Ranking Member, Mr. Bilirakis.

    Ms. Schakowsky. And now the Chair--I am honored to 
recognize Mr. Bilirakis, the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Consumer Protection and Commerce, for 5 minutes for his 
opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so very much, Madam Chair. I 
appreciate it.
    Good morning to everyone, and welcome to the subcommittee 
hearing.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, again, for holding this hearing, 
and thank you to our witnesses for your testimony on this very 
important matter. I am eager to hear each of your perspectives.
    I also want to thank Congressman Anthony Gonzalez for his 
tireless bipartisan effort to give student athletes the 
opportunity to receive compensation for their name, image, and 
likeness, or NIL.
    It is not too often a Florida Gator and a Ohio State 
Buckeye can come together in the name of amateur sports, but I 
am glad to be working with him on this and remaining very 
hopeful we can get bipartisan legislation to the end zone this 
Congress.
    Now, of course, we have other sports besides football that 
we are going to discuss.
    Madam Chair, I would also like to ask unanimous consent 
that a statement from, again, Congressman Anthony Gonzalez be 
entered into the record, and I have that right here, Madam 
Chair.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection.
    [The statement appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
    To that end, I think we need to have realistic expectations 
for what our committee should focus on when legislating to 
allow collegiate athletes the opportunity to capitalize on 
their NIL. It is the only way we can get this done for 
students, and I--we all agree, Madam Chair, on the NIL. And I 
have it in my statement, but it is so very necessary that we 
have preemptive legislation here.
    Currently, 30 States across the country have their own laws 
allowing college athletes to monetize off their NIL, including 
my home State of Florida. Unfortunately, this is not the first 
time a patchwork of State laws has caused potential confusion 
and crippling--crippled fair competition.
    We are currently seeing this same scenario play out with 
consumer privacy laws, so I am hopeful this hearing highlights 
the need for Congress to establish a national preemptive 
framework for NIL and create a true level playing field for all 
students and educational institutions across the Nation.
    If Congress fails to enact legislation preventing a 
patchwork of State laws, we will likely see States competing 
with one another to create the best incentives for students to 
come to their schools, and you know that is going to happen.
    Again, while I know young people want to come to the great 
State of Florida, preferably University of Florida, we must be 
fair to the hundreds of other universities and colleges across 
the country that may be a better fit for student athletes. We 
have a lot of Members here on both sides of the aisle who 
represent different schools and different conferences.
    To be clear, what I am suggesting is not an approach to 
side upon the NCAA and various conferences but, rather, by 
collegiate athletes themselves.
    I recently received a letter from 15 collegiate athletes 
from the ACC that emphasized this point, and I want to quote 
these students if that is OK, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Sure.
    Mr. Bilirakis. ``It is clear we need a Federal baseline,'' 
is what they say, ``that re-levels the playing field, and we 
need one soon.''
    The students also explained the most important factor in 
legislating on NIL is to protect all collegiate athletes, 
especially those outside the big revenue-generating sports like 
football and basketball, stating, and I quote again: ``Congress 
would do a disservice to student athletes, sports culture, and 
American society in general if it passes a bill that diminishes 
educational opportunities that leave schools no choice but to 
reduce scholarships or cut programs due to budget 
reallocation.''
    I couldn't agree more.
    Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that I enter this 
particular letter from the ACC college athletes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection.
    [The letter appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
    So I think these students know what they want. I really do, 
Madam Chair. And, again, if you read--I am not going to read 
the names of the schools because I don't have time, but these 
are very, very credible universities that represent these--and, 
again, these athletes represent those universities. If we 
exceed the focus of this debate as well as go far outside the 
bounds of our committee's jurisdiction, I feel we will end up 
hurting the college athletes and their chances of succeeding on 
and off the field.
    I also want to point out that these students didn't ask for 
healthcare mandates or guaranteed scholarships or for private 
rights of action. The risk of such factors will result in 
cutting the very sports programs we are working on to protect. 
After all, there is a difference between being a representative 
of a school and being a full-time employee of a school.
    I agree wholeheartedly with these students. College 
students should be able to compete and work hard to receive NIL 
benefits, and that is what our committee should focus on.
    And I really look forward to hearing the witnesses and 
getting more input.
    So thank you very much, Madam Chair, for giving me the 
opportunity. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bilirakis follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis

    Good morning everyone and welcome to today's Subcommittee 
hearing.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing, and thank 
you to our witnesses for your testimony on this important 
matter. I am eager to hear each of your perspectives.
    I also want to thank Congressman Gonzalez for your tireless 
bipartisan efforts to give student athletes the opportunity to 
receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness, or 
NIL. It's not too often a Florida Gator and an Ohio State 
Buckeye can come together in the name of amateur sports, but 
I'm glad to be working with you on this and remain very hopeful 
we can get bipartisan legislation into the endzone this 
Congress.
    To that end, I think we need to have realistic expectations 
for what our Committee should focus on when legislating to 
allow collegiate athletes the opportunity to capitalize on 
their NIL. It is the only way we can get this done for 
students.
    Currently, 30 states across the country have their own laws 
allowing college athletes to monetize off their NIL, including 
my home state of Florida. Unfortunately, this is not the first 
time a patchwork of state laws has caused potential confusion 
and crippled fair competition. We are currently seeing this 
same scenario play out with consumer privacy laws, so I am 
hopeful this hearing highlights the need for Congress to 
establish a national preemptive framework for NIL and create a 
true level playing field for all students and educational 
institutions across the nation.
    If Congress fails to enact legislation preventing a 
patchwork of state laws, we will likely see states competing 
with one another to create the best incentives for students to 
come to their schools. While I know young people want to come 
to my great state of Florida, we must be fair to the hundreds 
of other universities and colleges across the country that may 
be a better fit for student athletes.
    To be clear, what I am suggesting is not an approach 
decided upon by the NCAA and various conferences but rather by 
collegiate athletes themselves. I recently received a letter 
from 15 collegiate athletes from the Atlantic Coast Conference 
that emphasized this point. The students say, ``It's clear we 
need a federal baseline that re-levels the playing field--and 
we need one soon.''
    The students also explain the most important factor in 
legislating on NIL is to protect all collegiate athletics, 
especially those outside of the big revenue generating sports 
like football and basketball, stating, ``Congress would do a 
disservice to student-athletes, sports culture, and American 
society in general if it passes a bill that diminishes 
educational opportunities that leave schools no choice but to 
reduce scholarships or cut programs due to budget 
reallocations.''
    Madam Chair, I ask for unanimous consent that this letter 
be entered into the record.
    I think these students know what they want. If we exceed 
the focus of this debate as well as go far outside the bounds 
of our Committee's jurisdiction, I fear we will end up hurting 
the college athletes and their chances of succeeding on and off 
the field. I also want to point out that these students didn't 
ask for healthcare mandates, or guaranteed scholarships, or for 
private rights of action. The risk of such factors will result 
in cutting the very sports programs we are working to protect. 
After all, there is a difference between being a representative 
of a school and being a full-time employee of a school.
    I agree wholeheartedly with these students: College 
students should be able to compete and work hard to receive NIL 
benefits, and that's what our Committee should focus on.
    Thank you again, Madam Chair, and to our witnesses for 
being here, and I yield back.

    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chair of the full 
committee, for his 5 minutes for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky.
    The devotion, sacrifice, and efforts of college athletes 
has helped make college sports one of the most popular and 
lucrative brands in sports entertainment in the country. These 
athletes deserve a system that protects their interests and 
well-being.
    For years and despite criticism and many court challenges, 
the National Collegiate Athletic Association, its member 
schools, TV networks, athletic-wear companies, and others have 
earned massive revenues. At the same time, the college athletes 
have been stuck in strict amateur status that prohibited them 
from earning compensation on their name, image, and likeness.
    It wasn't until the Supreme Court's decision this summer 
finding the NCAA in violation of antitrust law that the NCAA 
finally felt enough pressure to begin making changes to this 
unfair system.
    For far too long, collegiate athletes missed out on 
opportunities that other students have been able to take 
advantage of. The rules prevented things like swimmers, tennis 
players, and golfers from using their names and pictures to 
advertise lessons in their sports to make extra money. After 
the rule change, young athletes are already capitalizing on 
many of the opportunities that were previously not available to 
them. But, while this rule change is a step in the right 
direction, collegiate athletes continue to face additional 
hurdles that other students do not.
    With fewer than 2 percent of collegiate athletes reaching 
the pros in their sports, education is vital to success after 
graduation, yet many college athletes are forced to dedicate 
more than 40 hours per week to practices and other training, 
leaving little time for study. Collegiate athletes have a 
graduation rate 18 percent lower than nonathletes. And, more 
starkly for Black athletes, the graduation rate is between 20 
and 30 percent lower than their peers.
    So today's hearing is focused on name, image, and likeness 
rights, but we cannot ignore other issues that face college 
athletes, issues such as gender equity for college athletes, 
short- and long-term safety and healthcare are just as 
important. And just yesterday the National Labor Relations 
Board announced that certain college athletes must be treated 
as employees, rightfully giving them protections that come with 
that classification.
    So I thank you for having this hearing, Madam Chair, and I 
look forward to hearing the testimony of all the witnesses and 
the unique perspectives you all provide, but I would like to 
yield the remainder of my time to Congresswoman Trahan.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    The devotion, sacrifice, and effort of college athletes has 
helped make college sports one of the most popular and 
lucrative brands of sports entertainment in the country. These 
athletes deserve a system that protects their interests and 
well-being.
    For years, and despite criticism and many court challenges, 
the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), its member 
schools, television networks, athletic wear companies, and 
others have earned massive revenues. At the same time, the 
college athletes had been stuck in a strict amateur status that 
prohibited them from earning compensation on their name, image, 
and likeness. It wasn't until the Supreme Court's decision this 
summer, finding the NCAA in violation of antitrust law, that 
the NCAA finally felt enough pressure to begin making changes 
to this unfair system.
    For far too long collegiate athletes missed out on 
opportunities that other students have been able to take 
advantage of. This is not just about big sponsorship or 
endorsement deals for big-name football and basketball players. 
The rules also prevented things like swimmers, tennis players, 
and golfers from using their names and pictures to advertise 
lessons in their sports to make some extra money.
    After the rule change, young athletes are already 
capitalizing on many of the opportunities that were previously 
not available to them. But while this rule change is a step in 
the right direction, collegiate athletes continue to face 
additional hurdles that other students do not.
    With fewer than two percent of collegiate athletes reaching 
the pros in their sports, education is vital to success after 
graduation. Yet, many college athletes are forced to dedicate 
more than 40 hours per week to practices and other training, 
leaving little time for study. Collegiate athletes have a 
graduation rate 18 percent lower than non-athletes. More 
starkly, for Black athletes, the graduation rate is between 20 
and 30 percent lower than their peers.
    Today's hearing is focused on name, image, and likeness 
rights, but we cannot ignore other issues that face college 
athletes. Issues such as gender equity for college athletes, 
short and long-term safety and health care are just as 
important. And just yesterday, the National Labor Relations 
Board announced that certain college athletes must be treated 
as employees, rightfully giving them protections that come with 
that classification.
    Thank you for having this hearing, Madam Chair, and I look 
forward to hearing the testimony of all of the witnesses and 
the unique perspectives you all provide. Thank you for being 
here today.
    I yield the remainder of my time to Congresswoman Trahan.

    Mrs. Trahan. Well, thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
    And I am grateful to you and Chairwoman Schakowsky for 
calling this important hearing. As a former Division I 
volleyball player, this issue hits home. Like many former 
college athletes, I wouldn't be where I am today without that 
scholarship.
    My family didn't have a lot of money. My dad was a union 
ironworker, and my mom picked up jobs where she could. They 
worked hard to give my sisters and me every opportunity to 
succeed, but there is just no way we could have afforded that 
tuition at Georgetown without the volleyball scholarship.
    I am the first person in my family to graduate from 
college, and I am forever grateful for the opportunity and the 
doors that were opened for me after graduation. However, it is 
through that experience that I became familiar with how the 
NCAA conferences and colleges used amateurism, or at least the 
guise of it, to build a multibillion-dollar industry on the 
backs of dedicated, talented, and often poor college athletes.
    When I was in school, I couldn't coach a summer camp for 
young girls in my hometown of Lowell because it would have 
jeopardized my amateur status. That was wrong then, and it has 
been wrong for every athlete after me who was forced to 
navigate complex rules designed to keep us amateurs while 
coaches and executives pocketed millions.
    The association's recent NIL policy change is long overdue, 
and I believe yesterday's NLRB memorandum on college athletes' 
employment rights is as well. For the purposes of today's 
hearing, it is clear that years of reluctance to embrace the 
inevitable shift on NIL means athletes are now operating in a 
patchwork of State laws governing their rights.
    Any Federal action we take to deliver for the people who 
have always been what matters most in college sports--and that 
is the athletes--that means guaranteeing them the maximum 
freedom possible to be compensated for the use of their name, 
image, and likeness in the way they choose, whether it is 
teaching the next generation of athletes, entering a group 
licensing agreement, or something else.
    So I look forward to continuing our work to achieve that 
goal and certainly the discussion today.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. And I yield back as well, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair 
now recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, the ranking member of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you, Chairman Pallone, for bringing us all together 
today on this important subject.
    I appreciated Congressman Anthony Gonzalez'--what is going 
on, buddy? It is Cougs. Go Cougs. OK. OK. I appreciated the 
Congressman--Congressman Anthony Gonzalez when he testified 
before our Member Day on the topic of name, image, and 
likeness. And it was an important reminder, I think, to this 
subcommittee that we need to address this issue, and it needs 
to be done in a bipartisan fashion.
    I know today's hearing is not on a specific legislative 
effort, but I certainly appreciate the legislative commitment 
that Congressman Gonzalez, Congressman Cleaver have made here, 
as well as the efforts of Congresswoman Trahan and our 
subcommittee chair, Jan Schakowsky.
    The Supreme Court has been clear on its rulings. They have 
made clear on the fact that the NCAA, as well as other schools 
and their respective conferences, were overly restrictive on 
the ability of their athletes to seek compensation for their 
name, image, and likeness. We should now work towards a 
national standard so the rules are clear or athletes, schools, 
and all other parties involved in the ecosystem of amateur 
athletics.
    There is a lot of consensus on how these athletes may seek 
their rewards for their commitment to excellence. Take, for 
instance, the case of Cameron, Cami March--I am pleased that 
Cami is testifying here today as part of the esteemed panel. Go 
Cougs.
    Cami is a student at Washington State University, captain 
of the golf team, and an app developer. And her ability to 
compete would be in jeopardy if overall restrictive NIL rules 
were in place.
    That said, she and other young people still need a clear 
set of rules and understandable guidelines. This will ensure 
that her entrepreneurial spirit is rewarded and her passion to 
market the app she developed is not hindered by a lack of 
uniform rules as she works to lead the Cougars to a successful 
golf season.
    Now, I know there are many commendable topics that may not 
deal directly with NIL per se, but considering the pressure 
placed on these young athletes, it is important that we 
consider their ability to seek counseling on financial and 
mental well-being. We have seen where athletes and students can 
be taken advantage of, and there is extraordinary pressures 
that they are under in this super-connected world.
    However, an overly proscriptive solution to this dilemma 
can have a detrimental impact on these student athletes, 
smaller schools with fewer resources, and those schools that 
are not generating revenue for the institutions. These are also 
important considerations to take into account so female 
athletes aren't disadvantaged or treated unfairly.
    In fact, I could see small schools dropping programs 
altogether, which means that many scholarships would disappear, 
and so will the chance for a first-generation, unless 
privileged, students receive a college education. Every one of 
us takes great pride in the universities and colleges in our 
home States. Our positions have provided us the opportunity of 
getting to know these athletes, and I am sure that brings 
immense pride to all of you, as it does me.
    Let's not take that pride lightly as we consider solutions 
to give clear standards to colleges and universities. We should 
give these amateur athletes every chance to succeed in life and 
in sports, to help them win the future. I urge this committee 
not to get riddled with issues that have stalled other efforts 
that we have worked on, like privacy.
    Again, thank you for the witnesses for appearing before us 
today. I am very much looking forward to this discussion in how 
we take the next steps in legislating a set of rules that works 
for everyone.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    Thank you, Madam Chair and for Chairman Pallone's interest 
in this subject as well. I appreciated when Congressman Anthony 
Gonzalez testified before us on the topic of ``Name Image 
Likeness'' at the Member Day hearing. It was an important 
reminder this is an action this subcommittee can work together 
on.
    I know today's hearing is not on any specific legislative 
efforts, but I certainly appreciate the legislative commitment 
that Congressman Gonzalez and Congressman Cleaver have made 
here, as well as the efforts of Congresswoman Trahan and our 
subcommittee Chair Schakowsky. The Supreme Court has been clear 
on its rulings.
    They've been clear on the fact that the NCAA, as well as 
the schools and their respective conferences, were overly 
restrictive on the ability of their athletes to seek 
compensation for their Name, Image, and Likeness. We should now 
work toward a national standard so the rules are clear for 
athletes, schools, and all those parties involved in that 
ecosystem of amateur athletics.
    There's a lot of consensus on how these athletes may seek 
the rewards for their commitment to excellence. Take for 
instance the case of Cameron ``Cami'' March. I'm so pleased 
that Cami is testifying here today as part of this esteemed 
panel. Go Cougs!
    Cami is a student at Washington State University, captain 
of the golf team, and an app developer. Her ability to compete 
would be in jeopardy if overly restrictive NIL rules were in 
place. That said, she and other young people still need a clear 
set of rules and understandable guidelines. This will ensure 
that her entrepreneurial spirit is rewarded and her passion to 
market the app she developed is not hindered by a lack of 
uniform rules as she works to lead the Cougars to a successful 
golf season.
    Now I know there are many commendable topics that may not 
deal directly with NIL per se but considering the pressure 
placed on these young student athletes, it is important that we 
consider their ability to seek counseling on financial and 
mental well-being. We have seen where athletes and students can 
be taken advantage of, and the extraordinary pressures they are 
under in this super connected world.
    However, an overly prescriptive solution to this dilemma 
can have a detrimental impact on the athletes themselves, 
smaller schools with fewer resources, and those sports that are 
not generating revenue for their institutions. These are also 
important considerations to take into account so female 
athletes aren't disadvantaged or treated unfairly.
    In fact, I could see small schools dropping programs 
altogether, which means that many of the scholarships will 
disappear, and so will the chance for first-generation and less 
privileged students to receive a college education. Every one 
of us takes great pride in the universities and colleges in our 
home states.
    Our positions have provided us the opportunity of getting 
to know these athletes, and I'm sure that brings immense pride 
to all of you as it does to me. Let's not take that pride 
lightly as we consider solutions to give clear standards to 
colleges and universities. We should give amateur athletes 
every chance to succeed in life and in sports.
    To help them win the future, I urge this committee not to 
get riddled with issues that have stalled our other efforts we 
have worked on--like privacy. Again, thank you to the witnesses 
for appearing before us today. I am very much looking forward 
to this discussion and how we take the next steps in 
legislating a set of rules that works for everyone. I yield 
back.

    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall 
be made part of the record.
    And I now would like to introduce our witnesses for the 
first panel--for the panel at today's hearing.
    Cameron March, the college athletic--athlete in women's 
golf at Washington State University; Dr. Mark Emmert, president 
of the National Collegiate Athletic Association; Ramogi Huma, 
the executive director of the National College Players 
Association; and Dr. Linda Livingstone, who is president of 
Baylor University; and--one more--and Jacqie McWilliams, the 
commissioner of the Central Intercollegiate Athletic 
Association.
    At this time, the Chair will recognize each witness for 5 
minutes to provide their opening statements.
    Before I do, I just want to make sure that I can explain 
the lighting system. In front of our witnesses is a series of 
lights. The lights will initially be green. The light will turn 
yellow when you have 1 minute remaining. Please begin to wrap 
up at that point. And the light will turn red when your time is 
up.
    And, for those remotely, there is also a clock. You should 
be able to see the clock for those who are remotely presenting.
    So I want to thank you, Dr.--nope. I am wrong. OK. Let me 
begin, then, with Ms. March.
    You are now recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENTS OF CAMI MARCH, CAPTAIN, WOMEN'S GOLF, WASHINGTON 
   STATE UNIVERSITY; MARK EMMERT, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 
    COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; RAMOGI HUMA, EXECUTIVE 
     DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COLLEGE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; LINDA 
LIVINGSTONE, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, BAYLOR UNIVERSITY; AND JACQIE D. 
  McWILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC 
                          ASSOCIATION

                    STATEMENT OF CAMI MARCH

    Ms. March. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Pallone, 
Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, Chairwoman Schakowsky, and 
Ranking Member Bilirakis. My name is Cami March. I am a senior 
at Washington State University located in Pullman, Washington, 
working to complete my bachelor of science degree in digital 
technology and culture in 2022.
    Thank you for the opportunity to represent my fellow 
student athletes at WSU before the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee today 
regarding the ability of student athletes to utilize our name, 
image, and likeness.
    This designation of student athlete is presented to 
prospective students as something that is of benefit to them, 
an opportunity to pursue both their academic and athletic 
aspirations on a dual track that gives them stability and 
community. However, through my process of developing my app, I 
have found that, because of the NCAA's regulations, this title 
sometimes acts in hindrance to a student's aspirations that 
don't fall so squarely in the distinction of student or 
athlete.
    I found myself at a disadvantage to nonathletes on campus 
who had similar entrepreneurial pursuits because their 
developments were allowed to exist outside of the context of 
what they contribute to the school.
    I understand that this is a nuanced conversation and that 
there might be a concern for how the loosening of these 
regulations could cause corruption, dishonesty, and an unfair 
advantage for colleges who can offer more immediate incentives 
than others. However, I urge those on this committee today to 
not view the pursuits made by the name, image, and likeness 
bill as a final victory for student athletes, but, instead, 
view it as a jumping-off point towards a larger goal of 
protecting and fostering them.
    In tandem with the financial policies that are implemented, 
it is important to discuss how to support all athletes within 
whatever new system exists. In much of the discourse I have 
heard about the changing landscape of name, image, and 
likeness, both the public perception and political questions 
seem to be centering around the stars of the collegiate sports 
world--namely, football players, basketball players, and mostly 
men. The concern here is that the lesser lucrative sports are 
getting lost in the conversation, and, by extension, so are the 
players.
    Our unique perspectives, opportunities for sport 
participation, and passions outside of the sport are just as 
relevant and important as our counterparts in the typical 
revenue-generating sports. I know this too well as a female 
athlete of color currently playing women's golf, a sport that 
isn't the most lucrative or visible.
    This is why I feel as though it would be wishful thinking 
to believe that someone like me would ever be on an equal 
financial playing field as a star quarterback. That is why it 
is important to view the evolution of this conversation on a 
parallel path with the supplementary support and development of 
the student athletes' business acumen.
    One of the only ways someone like me can equal the playing 
field is by marketing myself, essentially building the 
uniqueness of my circumstances as a female golfer of color into 
a valuable brand. I also think that the student portion of a 
student athlete's identity should be better catered to with 
more of an emphasis on business, financial, and economic 
literacy so they are better prepared to make decisions and 
advocate on their own behalf.
    Washington State has been so helpful in this area by 
providing resources in student athlete development, personal 
branding, financial literacy, and even offering a for-credit 
entrepreneurship course catered to the elements of name, image, 
and likeness. But it is important that this is something that 
is required on a more universal level so that every athlete, 
regardless of circumstances, can receive the support that they 
need.
    In closing, I share my experience today in the hopes that 
you will appreciate that the opportunities afforded student 
athletes with the use of our name, image, and likeness impacts 
all student athletes, whether we are entrepreneurs creating 
apps or the starting quarterback.
    Having a standard that will support all student athletes is 
important, and I hope that today I can provide a unique 
perspective as I experienced the new NIL opportunities from an 
athletic and entrepreneurial vantage point.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share my story.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. March follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Ms. March.
    And, Dr. Emmert, you are recognized now for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF MARK EMMERT, Ph.D.

    Dr. Emmert. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, before I begin my formal remarks, I do have to comment 
that, while my attention is usually focused on younger and 
perhaps slightly more athletic athletes than took the field 
last night, I wanted to congratulate you all on a very 
successful game last night. I----
    Ms. Schakowsky. Oh, come on.
    Dr. Emmert. It was reported to me that there were no 
ambulance calls or any emergencies. It was--it actually was a 
very exciting game for all of you. A lot of scoring, a lot of 
offense. Defense could use some work, but it was--it was 
terrific.
    And I think the most important point is that, in a moment 
of high tension in Congress and in the Nation, in order to 
relax for a moment and enjoy each other, you took to a baseball 
field. You played a sport. You competed with each other and had 
a good time. And I think that, in so many ways, is the essence 
of what college sport is all about and what we aim to 
successfully together support going forward.
    Having said that, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member 
Bilirakis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank 
you for this opportunity today to talk with you about the 
issues around name, image, and likeness, or NIL.
    I want to be very clear about one thing upfront, and that 
is that the NCAA and its schools fully support the right of 
every college athlete to benefit from the use of their name, 
image, and likeness, and we firmly believe that there is an 
urgent need for Congress to enact a Federal framework that 
supports national NIL legislation for all of our college 
athletes. This framework needs to put college athletes first. 
On that, we all agree.
    While it has been exciting for me and others to see college 
athletes exploring new financial options in the recent months, 
we are also seeing many challenges and concerning trends. These 
concerns, if not addressed soon, may be very difficult to 
reverse.
    They include a lack of a uniform protection for college 
athletes across the country around these deals, an increasingly 
uneven playing field for athletes exercising their NIL 
opportunities, and a lack of transparency around NIL agreements 
that can negatively impact both the present and future 
prospects for college athletes.
    Protections, such as education on the basics of contract 
law and financial counseling, vary across the patchwork of 
State laws today. Not every college athlete will be approached 
by professional service providers and third parties with good 
intentions. Without a uniform standard to educate or protect 
them from bad actors or exploitative agreements, many athletes 
will sign deals that are clearly one-sided and perhaps even 
harmful.
    Additionally, some athletes are unlikely to be aware of the 
tax potential implications of these arrangements and may find 
themselves saddled with unanticipated tax bills that they may 
be unable to pay. Other students who receive Pell grants or 
other student financial aid tied to financial need could 
unknowingly lose their eligibility for aid due to the income 
they receive from NIL deals. We want every college athlete to 
have baseline protections and uniform educational information 
at their disposal so they can make informed NIL decisions.
    The patchwork of State laws has left college athletes 
subject to different standards than their peers in neighboring 
States. As of today, 35 States have passed laws, introduced 
legislation, or issued executive orders to govern name, image, 
and likeness. These statutes and proposed policies have 
disparate provisions.
    In some cases, they attempt to legislate well beyond the 
issue of NIL and turn college athletes into paid professionals 
of the school. Even those laws that appear to have similar 
intent are written differently and can be interpreted and 
enforced differentially depending upon the State.
    In these early months, we have seen no effort to structure 
or enforce the laws that are in place to guide others in one 
direction, leading college athletes to navigate an unequal 
playing field depending on where they go to school. While some 
NIL-related deals have been disclosed by third-party providers, 
there is not a single entity that has a complete picture of the 
NIL deals and the parameters that they have been made around.
    Similarly, because no mechanism exists to allow for a 
transparent disclosure of transactions, there is no way to know 
if the arrangement is legitimate or simply a pay-for-play 
scheme disguised as NIL.
    Further, campus authority and decisionmaking seem to be 
shifting away from compliance administrators and others in 
athletic departments, making disclosure and monitoring even 
more difficult at the local level.
    Because we are not seeing the transparency and enforcement 
promised by many State laws, these worrisome trends may be 
difficult, if not impossible, to reverse without quick 
congressional action. A Federal framework must include a 
transparent clearinghouse mechanism, not the NCAA, to disclose 
NIL transactions while ensuring student privacy as well as the 
integrity of the college sports model.
    We share the committee's interest in providing all college 
athletes with an equal chance to benefit from these 
opportunities, if they choose to do so. But we worry that, the 
longer this patchwork of laws becomes rooted in college sports, 
the more difficult, if not impossible, it is to establish a 
national framework that ensures equal treatment of college 
athletes regardless of what they play or where they go to 
school.
    Because of the current legal environment and multiplicity 
of State laws, the NCAA alone cannot address this. We need to 
do it together.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my perspectives on 
this critical issue. We remain very, very proud of the 
opportunities that college sports provide to our student 
athletes.
    To reiterate, as we move forward, we seek three fundamental 
notions. One, we need a Federal solution that sets the baseline 
of protections for college athletes. Two, we need a law that 
provides national uniformity so that schools and students know 
what the rules----
    Ms. Schakowsky. Your time is way over, so please quickly--
--
    Dr. Emmert. I beg your pardon, ma'am.
    And we want to ensure transparency that preserves the 
integrity of college sports.
    I apologize for being over.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Emmert follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. The gentleman yields back.
    And now I want to recognize Mr. Huma for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF RAMOGI HUMA

    Mr. Huma. Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member Bilirakis, 
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
testify today. My name is Ramogi Huma. I am a former UCLA 
football player and the executive director of the NCPA, the 
National College Players Association.
    The NCPA was a cosponsor of the California NIL law that was 
a catalyst for NIL changes nationwide and has served as the 
primary advocate in support of NIL laws in over a dozen States. 
And, Chairwoman Schakowsky, I would like to thank you for your 
continued support for college athletes' rights and for 
introducing broad-based reforms, including the College Athletes 
Bill of Rights last year.
    College athletes nationwide now have NIL freedoms, so there 
is not a need for Congress to act on this issue, but it is 
imperative that any Federal law include broad-based reforms, 
and the NIL portion of such legislation should not reduce 
athletes' NIL freedoms in pursuit of a level playing field that 
has never existed.
    Federal courts have concluded multiple times that a level 
playing field did not exist under NCAA rules that banned NIL 
pay. Colleges with the most revenues and wealthiest boosters 
have the largest recruiting budgets, hire the best coaches, 
build the best of facilities. And, in turn, they land the best 
recruits, win the most games, and score the richest TV deals, 
allowing them to continue their dominance.
    Instead of reducing athletes' NIL freedoms so the NCAA can 
pretend competitive equity exists, Congress' NIL efforts should 
focus on establishing an entity responsible for the national 
certification of athlete representation, preventing conflicts 
of interest by restricting colleges from representing their 
athletes or arranging NIL deals, and informing college athletes 
about issues surrounding NIL.
    And any reasonable restraint of trade, like prohibiting NIL 
deals from being used to recruit prospective college athletes, 
should be done directly by Congress rather than putting the 
NCAA above the law with an antitrust exemption.
    And, as hard as the NCPA has fought for decades to ensure 
college athletes' NIL freedoms, NIL pay is of little importance 
compared to other pressing issues. The Energy and Commerce 
Committee has jurisdiction in matters of public health and 
should act to protect college athletes.
    In 2002, I testified before this subcommittee to sound the 
alarm about the lack of NCAA enforcement of health and safety 
standards after the 2001 deaths of college football players 
from Northwestern, Florida, and Florida State. The NCPA asked 
Congress and NCAA to protect college athletes, but they didn't.
    Between 2000 and 2018, 85 college athletes have died from 
college sports activities. In the following years, NCAA and 
athletic trainer surveys found 50 percent of Division I 
athletic trainers have admitted to returning players with 
concussions to the same game and said they were pressured by 
coaches to do so.
    There have been devastating accounts of suicides among 
college athletes who were later determined to have chronic 
traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. It is still not against NCAA 
rules to force an athlete with a concussion into the same game. 
And, shamefully, it is not against NCAA rules for athletic 
personnel to sexually abuse a college athlete.
    What I didn't know at the time of my 2002 testimony was 
that hundreds upon hundreds of college athletes were being 
sexually abused by trainers and doctors at Ohio State, 
Michigan, Michigan State, and other schools. College 
administrators covered it up, and the athletes had nowhere to 
go.
    College athletes still have nowhere to go. Just last week, 
the U.S. DOJ reported that a team trainer from San Jose State 
sexually abused 23 female college athletes over the course of 
years.
    This Congress must prioritize college athletes' health and 
safety. Inaction on this issue would guarantee a lifetime of 
paying for too many college athletes abused by sexual predators 
and will be a death sentence for others. Just ask Mark McNair, 
whose son, Jordan McNair, died during a football workout in 
2018 that the University of Maryland president admitted was 
negligent.
    In addition to the lack of physical and mental health 
protections, NCAA sports blatantly discriminates against female 
athletes. The NCAA has been exposed for denying female athletes 
equal health and safety provisions, nutrition, and training 
facilities, among other things. And, despite the enactment of 
title IX almost 50 years ago, there are 18,000 more male 
athletes in Division I than female athletes.
    The $7 billion revenue boom in Division I over the last 16 
years was a great opportunity to add female sports. Instead, 
athlete participation increased by only two athletes, while the 
number of coaches exploded by 1,577. This discrimination 
against female athletes in NCAA sports must not be ignored or 
allowed to persist.
    And, unfortunately, college athletes are too often stuck 
with sports-related medical bills, while Black athletes, who 
make up the majority of athletes in sports that make up the 
most revenue, suffer the lowest graduation rates. Yes, college 
sports is in crisis, but it is not because athletes are given 
NIL freedoms.
    If Congress moves Federal NIL legislation, the NCPA is 
asking they not ignore abused, broken, and dead bodies, the 
discrimination against female athletes, and other important 
matters.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Huma follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Huma. The gentleman yields 
back.
    And now I would like to welcome Dr. Livingstone for your 
presentation.

             STATEMENT OF LINDA LIVINGSTONE, Ph.D.

    Dr. Livingstone. Thank you very much.
    I am sorry. I didn't turn on my mike.
    Thank you, Chair Schakowsky, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and 
members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify on 
the issue of name, image, and likeness rights for student 
athletes.
    As the president of Baylor University, a former Division I 
student athlete myself--I am married to a former Division I 
student athlete, the mother of a former volleyball player, much 
like Ms. Trahan--and who is now a coach at the college level, I 
have a--I am deeply invested in making sure the college 
athletic experience is a positive one for all student athletes.
    At Baylor, we are deeply committed to prioritizing our 
student athletes as students first across all 19 of our sports. 
We have over 500 student athletes achieving remarkable success 
on and off the field, winning national and conference 
championships, and consistently leading the Big 12 Conference 
in graduation rates. As an institution, we invest over $80,000 
per fully scholarshipped student athlete in the form of 
tuition, room, nutrition, medical care, and training services.
    We also have implemented health and safety protocols that 
prioritize our student athletes and a 4-year program to help 
them with financial literacy, business education, career 
planning, personal branding, leadership, and social 
responsibility.
    I believe this is a critical time for college athletics as 
we are having to rethink the status quo of recent decades due 
to numerous changes and challenges, including the Supreme Court 
decision in the Alston case, conference realignment, and 
changes in State laws.
    The current patchwork system of 30-plus State laws is very 
confusing for institutions and students and is not transparent. 
It will raise conflict of law issues and create risks for 
student athletes and institutions who suffer as a result of the 
disparity. Such a legal landscape should not be permanent.
    I am eager to engage at the NCAA and conference level 
regarding these issues, including as a member of the NCAA 
Constitution Committee and vice chair of the board of the Big 
12 Conference. Now is the time to recommit and reshape college 
athletics to better serve the future needs of our students and 
our institutions.
    Congress has an important role in shaping the future of 
college athletics and should establish a uniform national 
standard to address the many challenges becoming evident around 
NIL legislation.
    In our discussion today, I will consistently go back to 
three principles that I believe should be the foundation to any 
Federal NIL legislation.
    The first is that all laws governing NIL for student 
athletes should treat them as students first and foremost. More 
than 98 percent of student athletes will not compete 
professionally, and we must remember we are talking about more 
than high-visibility sports like football and basketball.
    The second principle is that Federal legislation should 
support the current mission of broad sport offerings for a 
diverse group of student athletes made possible by revenue 
shared from higher-visibility sports and avoid the creation of 
inequities in the treatment of men and women under an 
employment model.
    The third principle is to ensure each institution's mission 
is preserved and unique circumstances are recognized, 
appreciating that different schools have different resource 
levels. For example, we know Baylor athletics is vastly 
different than those of hundreds of smaller institutions.
    I appreciate the interest of the committee that is giving 
this timely issue. As Congress contemplates Federal 
legislation, I encourage you to seek a national standard that 
includes the following priorities.
    First, Federal legislation should preempt all current and 
future NIL State laws, which would guarantee that all student 
athletes have the same NIL rights regardless of where they live 
or study.
    Next, the legislation should include clear definitions of 
NIL as commercial activity between student athletes and third 
parties, not between student athletes and universities. It 
should prohibit pay-for-play models operating solely as an 
incentive to enroll or remain at an institution as a student 
athlete.
    Also, Federal legislation should seek to enhance the 
student athlete experience and preserve diversity in sport 
offerings for men and women and ensure student athletes can 
seek qualified advice about the use of their NIL.
    Finally, the legislation should include a narrow safe 
harbor for entities that comply with the law. Otherwise, 
institutions at risk of endless--are at risk of endless 
litigation that could threaten our core missions.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the 
subcommittee today. I look forward to working with you on this 
important issue.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Livingstone follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Dr. Livingston.
    And now, Ms. McWilliams, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF JACQIE McWILLIAMS

    Ms. McWilliams. Thank you.
    Good morning, Chairwoman Schakowsky and Ranking Member 
Bilirakis, and members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Jacqie McWilliams, and I am in my 10th season as 
the commissioner for the CIAA, one of four HBCU conferences, 
with the first and oldest conference founded right there in DC 
in 1912 and four--in Hampton, Virginia Union, Shaw University, 
and Lincoln, PA. We are one of 23 NCAA Division II conferences 
comprised of 12 HBCU full-time members, six private, six 
public, one associate member headquartered here in North 
Carolina.
    The CIAA plays a significant role historically and 
holistically in this country. They are the third-largest 
basketball tournament event in the country that values a rich 
legacy of our past, provides leadership in our communities to 
bridge the gap in our communities through our championships, in 
which our resources support 90 percent of Black and Brown 
athletes that tend to be first-generation students who love 
their institutions and the CIAA.
    I appreciate this invitation to testify today about a topic 
that has consumed our industry at all levels. All of us are 
benefactors of what we see and don't see weekly on national TV 
and platforms. Athletic programs help define our institutions' 
culture, reputation, visibility, and revenue potential from 
donors and sponsors.
    The success and failures of athletic programs impact our 
ability to build and sustain without compromising the academic 
programs which are primary to the foundation, particularly for 
HBCUs, where sports have been the avenue to an education for a 
majority of our Black and Brown students.
    My concerns today as a former female student athlete and 
professional for almost 30 years in this industry is a loss of 
the innocence of sports being compromised by revenue that is 
not the reality of a majority. This is a transformative moment 
in college history where our students can use their NIL as 
athletes.
    I spent 9.5 years as a member of NCAA championship staff 
serving all three divisions. I worked in the membership at both 
Division I and II levels and part of the association serving on 
several committees, to include the Board of Governors for NIL 
and currently the NCAA Gender Equity Task Force.
    I can assure you that our challenges of--are diverse--of a 
diverse membership is a task by itself, so I understand the 
concerns, the public scrutiny, and the challenges we have as 
leaders to protect the integrity of college sports.
    Currently, the CIAA has students who reside in five 
different States with different NIL laws. Although the doors 
are wide open for these athletes to explore the market, the 
laws are inconsistent, with no uniform guidelines to regulate, 
enforce, or support the interests of our students.
    I want to ensure you that 3,000 young people--I want to 
ensure that 3,000 young people I serve every day, 12 presidents 
I report to, and coaches who have committed their lives to 
young adults, and administrators who are doing their best to 
give these athletes lifetime memories at their institutions are 
more concerned about the athletic achievement, health and 
safety, and academic opportunities afforded and less concerned 
about the inequities that are presented because of the 
inconsistencies of laws we cannot control.
    Our students' visibility may be different than what you see 
weekly, but the aches, pains, desire to win, mental health 
concerns, academic goals, and dreams to be leaders and 
entrepreneurs are the same.
    So I ask that we pause just a moment to understand the 
differences of who we are amongst our institutions and 
conferences, that the CIAA and majority of us do not have the 
same level of resources. I agree that the enormous revenue and 
high financial gains for the most high-profile and visible 
institutions and their benefactors are concerning. Those 
scenarios are not the reality in most of our conferences and 
institutions.
    I believe that is why we are in this position. Resource 
disparities already exist amongst our institutions. Thus, any 
Federal bills that attempt to legislate on financial resources 
outside of NIL will negatively impact Division II. And, 
honestly, any additional financial constraints could 
potentially eliminate our athletic programs and our 
conferences.
    I support giving our students the best opportunity to use 
their talent. I wish I had the same opportunity as a student 
athlete. So let me be clear: Most of us have no interest in 
mandates that hinder the opportunities, but only a framework 
that provides a level playing field to support their 
intercollegiate experience and to give our coaches and 
administrators a fair advantage to recruit, educate, address 
title IX implications, and to support their educational and 
entrepreneurial experience, which is the foundation to who we 
are specifically at HBCUs.
    I pray, in the continued dialogue, we don't compromise the 
beauty of why I chose to work in this industry, why I love to 
work for the CIAA. We thrive best with fair rules and 
guidelines, and, in this case for college sports, we need to 
prohibit pay-for-play, guardrails for collegiate recruiting, 
and protections for standards of higher education and title IX.
    It is quite disappointing that we are in this place of not 
being able to legislate and govern ourselves as an 
organization, but now here we are. I hope that the concerns I 
have shared leading a smaller conference with HBCU institutions 
will create opportunities that will be in the best interests 
for all and not just for a few.
    As a Division II conference, we need a level playing field 
so we are not behind once again.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. McWilliams follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Ms. McWilliams.
    We have now concluded with the witness opening statements.
    At this time, we will move to Member questions. Each Member 
will have 5 minutes to ask questions of the witnesses, and that 
includes their answers.
    And I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. I 
want to begin with--I have a bunch of questions, so, if you 
could keep your answers somewhat brief, I would appreciate it.
    But, Mr. Huma, I want to ask--I think I know your ultimate 
answer, but I would like you to discuss, is there a fundamental 
power imbalance between the collegiate athletes and the 
universities, conferences, and athletic institutions that may 
make players vulnerable to exploitation?
    Mr. Huma. Thank you for that question.
    Absolutely. And I think that is why we are all here at the 
end of the day. Those people--those constituents you have 
mentioned, the stakeholders, have basically colluded, used 
their monopoly power, cartel power to leverage themselves in a 
way that denies those athletes freedoms and rights under the 
law. And that notion was upheld by the Supreme Court 9-0. So, 
at the core, much of the exploitation is--are antitrust 
violations that were made possible by the illegal collusion 
amongst the conferences and the schools and the NCAA.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Let me also ask you, beyond limitations on 
entering into name, image, and likeness, NIL, agreements, how 
has this power imbalance--how has this power imbalance affected 
college athletes?
    Mr. Huma. Even down to their health and safety. You know, 
the power imbalance is a lot of--is caused in a lot of ways--
for so many athletes who are being abused over years and years 
who don't have a way to speak up, there has been no viable way 
for them to get justice as well as actual compensation.
    You know, I think the general counsel at NLRB made very 
clear that college athletes have not been permitted by the 
school and have been handled by the school in the way they 
direct them away from their labor rights under labor law, 
which, you know, the laws of the country designed to give 
people a voice in the workplace--and college athletes--the 
combination of the collusion, the money interests that are 
there, the conflicts of interest, and the lack of labor rights 
have kind of created these problems.
    So, absolutely, the college athletes need intervention. 
Congress can do that, and we want to make sure that they 
don't--Congress does not look past the more critical issues.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I want to--I have another one 
for you that--in your testimony, you suggested that Congress 
should look beyond focusing only on NIL issues legislation. So 
what other protections should we be considering for college 
athletes?
    Mr. Huma. Well, I know there is a lot of disagreement on 
some of the financial issues, but I think that everyone in 
Congress should agree that college athletes should not be 
subject to harm.
    So we need real health and safety enforcement in college 
sports from a third party. We need to make sure that college 
athletes aren't being stuck with sports-related medical 
expenses. We need to make sure that female athletes finally 
achieve equality in college sports. We need to protect 
scholarships as far as academics.
    As I mentioned, $7 billion pledged into a system: Why isn't 
some of that money being redirected to make sure college 
athletes actually complete their degrees and have health and 
safety enforcement and scholarship protections?
    You still have a situation in NCAA sports where a player 
can lose their scholarship if they are permanently injured. A 
school can choose to not renew that scholarship.
    So there are a number of issues that strike at the core of 
NCAA sports that should not be ignored.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Thank you so much.
    Dr. Livingstone, we all know about title X that prohibits 
discrimination. Will the NIL deals have an effect on equity in 
college athletics when it comes to men and women?
    Dr. Livingstone. I do think that there are some real risks 
and impact potentially on women in college athletics depending 
on how this plays out.
    In some ways, the way NIL is playing out now for women 
athletes is more like it is really intended to be. We know 
women oftentimes are actually more active on social media than 
male students, both the student athletes and regular students. 
And so they are really benefiting in the ways that we intend, 
as you heard Cami talking about in her conversation.
    Where we are seeing those that are questionable, pay-for-
play, are really with football and basketball, the more high-
profile sports.
    I think, over time, where you also will see the greater 
impact and a greater potential negative impact on women 
athletes is if we move to more of an employment model. And, if 
you start moving resources to those individuals that generate 
the revenue, that revenue in those high-revenue sports is what 
supports our women's sports. It supports our nonrevenue male 
sports as well.
    And so, if we reallocated resources away from those--to 
those two sports that generate the most, we will run the risk 
of seeing cuts in those sports or reductions in the number of 
both men's nonrevenue sports and then, ultimately, potentially 
women's sports, and I think a move to potentially offer fewer 
sports if we start talking about reallocating revenue in 
certain ways, even far beyond the impact on NIL.
    Ms. Schakowsky. That is worth a conversation.
    And my time has expired, and now I recognize Mr. Bilirakis, 
the subcommittee vice chair--excuse me, I always do that--I 
always want to make him----
    Mr. Bilirakis. I am just the ranking member.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, yes. The ranking member for 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
    Yes, this is really good testimony. Thank you all for your 
testimony today.
    I am concerned the longer Congress continues to stall, the 
integrity of college athletes will diminish. And I am really 
concerned about that. And student athletes will end up being 
hurt by the lack of clear standards. I think everyone, 
basically, testified to that. We all agree on that. So, you 
know, we need to pass a bill as soon as possible, in my 
opinion.
    But, Dr. Emmert, do you believe the current patchwork of 
State laws with inconsistent NIL reporting and disclosure 
requirements threaten the viability and integrity of college 
athletics?
    Dr. Emmert. Well, thank you, Ranking Member. Yes, I believe 
it most certainly does predominantly because of the issues that 
were described earlier around the potential for the--several 
things to occur. First, that students are being treated 
differentially right now across the landscape. They don't know 
what the rules of engagement are, they don't know what their 
rights and opportunities are.
    Secondly, we know that because there is not any enforcement 
mechanism or clear definitions, some of the arrangements that 
are being made appear to be moving over toward more of a pay-
for-play model aimed solely at recruitment of athletes from one 
institution to another. That leaves both individual athletes at 
schools in a disadvantaged state and it also competitively 
advantages or disadvantages other schools based upon their 
geography and a variety of other factors.
    And then the last piece is that, as these arrangements move 
more and more toward institutionally based rather than third-
party based, they do in fact run the risk of converting student 
athletes into employees. And all three of those things are very 
serious threats to college sport.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
    Next question is for Ms. McWilliams. As a former college 
athlete yourself, you have the unique understanding on how 
student athletes want clearer standards and want to maintain 
the current integrity of collegiate athletics, I believe, 
especially for nonrevenue-generating sports. If Congress 
legislates in a manner that changes the current college 
athletics model, will this impact certain athletes more than 
others? And do you have thoughts you would want to share on the 
important distinction between being an employee of a school 
versus a representative of the school?
    Ms. McWilliams, please.
    Ms. McWilliams. Yes. Thank you for the question. 
Absolutely. I think there will be impact on nonrevenue sports. 
I mean, if you think about the 1,100 schools that exist in the 
NCAA, only 25 are revenues. Most of our schools, Division II 
and Division III, we are not even exceeding our expenses each 
year. So there are concerns.
    We need to make sure that whatever is put in place, that it 
is in alignment with our budgets and the resources that we have 
at our institutions. I am concerned that if we don't, you know, 
our schools won't be able to handle and manage the expectations 
of covering additional healthcare or covering additional pay 
and covering all those other things, that that is just not what 
we were designed to do.
    I also believe that our institution's revenue allows for 
championships and all the things that we do, football and 
basketball that you see and heard our President Livingstone 
say, that those resources support all of our other sports that 
are [inaudible].
    And so the distinction between, you know, the employee and 
the representative--I was given access to an education and I 
don't believe that is commonly defined as employment as a 
student athlete. I think going to college is a choice and an 
opportunity that we have, but I think as administrators we have 
a responsibility to give the best access and opportunity to 
succeed. An NLI is a great opportunity for our students to use 
their name, image, and likeness, and to build upon that. And as 
administrators and leaders, we need to give them the right 
framework and the opportunity to be successful.
    We are asking 18-year-olds to manage, to be entrepreneurs, 
asking them to do things and create deals for themselves with 
no guidelines. And so I think pay-for-play is a concern for us, 
but I definitely think the opportunity to help these young 
people to be successful as student athletes and not employees 
is in the best interest for college athletics.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Livingstone, as more and more college athletes are 
approached to receive compensation for their NIL--I know this 
is already a feature of Florida's law--but do you think 
universities should provide educational tools or classes to 
help students understand the dynamics of signing contracts and 
what that means for their future? And can you give us a sense 
of what you are providing to your student athletes?
    Dr. Livingstone. Absolutely. It is really critical, because 
this is putting another level of pressure on our student 
athletes that many of them are not prepared for. In the State 
law in Texas, it does require 5 hours of financial literacy 
training, and schools are required to provide that for our 
student athletes. At Baylor, we have a very comprehensive 
program in place. Even prior to NIL, we had a program we called 
Baylor Built that had principles related to career development, 
leadership development, community service, and we have been 
added to that now that we have these NIL responsibilities.
    So we kind of have three pillars in that program. The first 
one is really a monitoring system in helping students report to 
us. The Texas law also requires that students report to us what 
they are doing, and we want to make sure that, as they do it, 
it is in compliance with the State law, with Federal law, and 
make sure that they stay eligible to participate at the NCAA 
level. So we have to educate on that level.
    We also have to help them navigate the financial aspects of 
it and give them back kind of an education, that personal 
branding, how do you position yourself well. We have got a 
wonderful program that helps student athletes know how to build 
their personal profile on social media to actually enhance 
their value.
    And then we do a lot of work on financial literacy. We have 
a program that combines work from our law school, our business 
school, our entrepreneurship program, where we help students 
understand what they need to do to get the right legal advice, 
the right financial advice, and so on to be successful.
    So we already had a framework for that, and then we have 
built upon that for NIL. But there are a lot of institutions in 
this country that do not have the resources to build out that 
kind of program. I do think it is an opportunity also for there 
to be--if there is a national NIL law that provides some 
consistency in what is expected, then there could also be sort 
of national educational programs that would be accessible to 
all institutions, regardless of your resource level, and it 
wouldn't rely as much on the actual resources an individual 
school had to be able to provide that support.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Well, thank you very much for that. I 
appreciate it. Very informative. Thank you.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The ranking member of the subcommittee 
yields back.
    And now I recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 
Pallone, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky.
    The blood, sweat, and tears of college athletes, along with 
their commitment and quests for greatness, has fueled college 
sports into becoming one of the most watched and profitable 
sports industries in the country, but until now, the athletes 
have been excluded from profiting from their efforts.
    So I want to begin by asking each of the witnesses a just 
yes-or-no question. Do you believe that Congress should 
establish a Federal framework granting college athletes the 
right to earn compensation for the use of their name, image, 
and likeness?
    Just yes or no, and I will just start with Ms. March and go 
through the list.
    Ms. March?
    Ms. March. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    And then, Ramogi Huma?
    Mr. Huma. And I am sorry it is a little longer, but yes, if 
it is attached to broad-based reform.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Dr. Emmert?
    Dr. Emmert. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Pallone. Dr. Livingstone?
    Dr. Livingstone. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. And I didn't get to Jacqie McWilliams.
    Ms. McWilliams. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. I think that was everybody. Well, 
thank you.
    Then let me go to Ms. McWilliams. College athletes are also 
supposed to be college students. How do we open financial doors 
for athletes but also ensure they get a meaningful education 
that will equip them for careers, which for most will be 
outside of professional sports?
    Ms. McWilliams. That is a great question. I think that is a 
role that we play in intercollegiate athletics anyway, 
particularly in our conference or most of our conference, is to 
make sure that we are setting up our students, not just as 
athletes, but we are setting them up to be prepared beyond 
that.
    You know, as a former coach and also administrator on 
campus, you recruit students because you want to give them the 
best opportunities to succeed and to play the game that they 
love. I think about myself as a former student athlete. I chose 
to go to Hampton for that same opportunity, but during the 
whole entire way, I was guided and given resources to help 
support the opportunity to be prepared to be in this seat right 
here.
    I have never paid for college, and that is a blessing not 
to have to do that and put that burden on my family that 
couldn't afford to do so. I often say that I used Hampton as 
maybe people will say that Hampton, or colleges use our student 
athletes and make money off of that for them. I think it is a 
two-way street in how we look at this. And the blessing is that 
I got prepared in the best way, career opportunity, connections 
outside the community, community service, that we all want our 
student athletes to be a part of. Opportunities for student 
athletes are so grand and broad-based. Those stories are not 
often told that you don't hear.
    And so I hope that as we continue to lead in this industry, 
that we provide these opportunities for our students to have 
NLI, but we also give them the support they need so that they 
can be successful entrepreneurs beyond playing the game.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Mr. Huma, can you please share your thoughts? In 
professional sports, there have been countless horror stories 
of unsuspecting players entering unfavorable NIL deals or being 
financially exploited by unscrupulous actors. You know, I just 
was going to ask you to comment on that, if you would.
    Mr. Huma. Sure. And that is one of the risks with the 
freedoms that have been opened up, and they are risks that even 
the pro athletes are not immune from. I think that when you 
have freedoms like this, there is always going to be that risk.
    Most States have in their laws that athlete agents have to 
be certified by their State. So that is one protection. But, 
again, if included with broad-based reform, I think the Federal 
legislation would be positive to include standards for agent 
representation and some representation contracts.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    And, Dr. Livingstone, are you concerned that college 
athletes may be financially exploited by unscrupulous actors?
    Dr. Livingstone. I think it is certainly a very likely risk 
in this kind of a situation. You have young people, many of 
them from backgrounds where they don't have that kind of 
experience. They may not have families that have lawyers and 
attorneys that they can turn to, and very likely there will be 
people in the industry that want to take advantage of them.
    One example I heard--and this might not even be 
unscrupulous--but you could have a young female student athlete 
that gets $5,000 for promoting some brand when she comes to 
college. She ends up being an all-American volleyball player. 
She has got this long-term agreement on her name, image, and 
likeness that she didn't know any better to do when she moved 
to college. And then when she graduates, she can play in the 
Olympics, she could go play professionally in Europe, and her 
name, image, and likeness might be worth a lot more money, but 
she made a bad deal as a freshman in college and didn't get 
good advice.
    So I think we have to be very, very careful, and there 
needs to be good guidance around how student athletes pick 
agents or lawyers or accountants, attorneys, but also 
protections that--maybe even some screening mechanisms for who 
can even be working with these student athletes, that we know 
that they are legitimate actors and are really looking out for 
the best interest of their clients.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I now recognize the ranking member of the 
full committee, Mrs. Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Cami, I want to thank you again for sharing your 
experiences with us. It is great to see you as a Washington 
State student athlete finding success both on and off the golf 
course. I want to just ask if you would elaborate a little bit 
on the NIL rules and what a level playing field will mean to 
you as far as helping you succeed as captain of Washington 
State University's women's golf team, but also as an app 
developer and your entrepreneurial aspirations.
    Ms. March. Yes. Thank you so much, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, 
for your question. I think a level playing field is really 
important. When I was going through my recruiting process, 
there were a bunch of factors that I was thinking about, 
whether it be location, who would give me the best education, 
the best program for me to succeed at, and I think adding 
another layer when it comes to NIL is just hard to navigate. A 
lot of athletes are recruited before they are 18, so having to 
make that type of decision so young is just so hard.
    So I think a level playing field really will help students 
navigate that process and choose the best institution for them 
athletically and for their educational pursuits.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Would you just speak a little bit 
more to just where we are today? Because now we are--you are 
free to pursue these opportunities, but you were talking about 
the importance of a set of rules to be beneficial to you and 
your peers around the country as you think about pursuing your 
passions to be entrepreneurial, but then not running afoul of 
rules based upon what might be going on in a particular State.
    Ms. March. I feel as though, when I was going through my 
process of developing my app, there were a lot of hurdles that 
I had to navigate compared to my other fellow students who had 
the same entrepreneurial mindset. So there are waivers that I 
had to go through with NCAA, a bunch of different things that I 
felt like made my process a little bit more difficult. So I 
think this standard and level playing field will really be 
helpful to student athletes who have aspirations of doing 
something entrepreneurial.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Very good.
    Ms. McWilliams, I wanted to ask you, recognizing that over 
half the States right now have some kind of NIL law or 
executive order that has taken effect allowing college athletes 
to have compensation for their NIL, I also note that there's 
additional States that are working on NIL legislation in their 
State legislatures. You bring a lifetime of perspective to this 
issue, both as an athlete and then also in your current 
position.
    Would you speak to how you see this playing out for student 
athletes when there's differing incentives for recruitment?
    Ms. McWilliams. Yes. Thank you for that question and just 
the acknowledgment of being in the industry. We are seeing it 
now. We have three athletes currently in our conference that 
have taken advantage or had the opportunity to sign a deal, two 
in North Carolina and one in Virginia, and we are excited for 
them. But what I can say is that I can see that there could be 
some recruiting wars here with the different State laws and 
accesses and opportunities based on the different laws in our 
different States. It is in five States right now, and in the 
five States, I think we have one of our States has not--their 
legislature hasn't gone through yet, another State does not 
have anything quite yet, and the other three do.
    I think the inequities that this could cause and the 
opportunities for recruitment and how student athletes will 
seek the better opportunity to go to one State or another or 
one school or another based on what is available for them to do 
right now. And that is what we don't want to see. We already 
see the inequity across all of our divisions. And there is 
inequity just because we got small schools, large schools, but 
we want to make sure that there is evidence-based law--baseline 
laws that keep at least a level playing field in a way that our 
students are not competing--or recruiting is not competing, and 
they don't have to make choices because they think they are 
going to have a better advantage and opportunity from one State 
to another.
    So, again, we applaud the opportunity for this to happen. 
But there is some concern if there's no guardrails to protect 
the recruiting and the integrity, but also the star student 
athletes who need it as they are trying to build their own 
entrepreneurship.
    I hope I answered the question.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. That was good. An important 
insight, I think, especially for female and minority athletes, 
if you wanted to add anything in particular?
    Ms. McWilliams. Yes. I mean, I--again, you know, I serve 
underserved institutions. We have less resources, but somehow 
we still make access and opportunity available for our students 
through our sponsors, through our championship. And to give 
them access and opportunity on this front, I think is great. We 
want our Black and Brown students at our HBCs and across the 
world to do well. I think we have our own challenges, the most 
difficult to compete with some of our majority institutes in 
our States. And so whatever we can do to make, again, a level 
playing field for women and for our men, that is important to 
me.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Thank you, everyone, for being here. I have more questions, 
but I will save them for another time.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding back.
    And now it is my pleasure to yield to my colleague from the 
State of Illinois, Congressman Bobby Rush, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rush. I really want to commend the witnesses--can you 
hear me?
    Ms. Schakowsky. You are on, but it is very soft, so speak 
up.
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Madam Chairman. Can you hear 
me?
    Ms. Schakowsky. Yes.
    Mr. Rush. All right. I want to thank you for this 
outstanding hearing. And I want to commend the witnesses all 
along for your extraordinary testimony.
    Mr. Huma, your riveting testimony and your very, very 
profound perspective is commendable. And I just want you to 
address the issue of inducements to lure high school recruits 
and college transfers to a particular university or 
institution. What can we as Congress do to prevent NIL 
agreements from being used as inducements at the high school 
level and at the college transfer level?
    Mr. Huma. Sure. And thank you for that question. And, you 
know, following some of the pro models, it is kind of a 
parallel with free agency, right? In the pro leagues, if there 
is a free agent, teams have to compete, but they cannot arrange 
name, image, or likeness deals or endorsement deals as a part 
of an offer. So it is standard practice to not allow that to 
happen, and it is also a restraint of trade to not allow that 
to happen.
    And in my testimony, I mentioned that that could be a 
reasonable restraint of trade, and that if Congress wanted to 
get involved, it can prohibit that directly as a matter of law 
rather than give the NCAA an antitrust exemption to do so.
    The NCAA should not operate above the law whatsoever. The 
NCAA is a chronic antitrust violator and has been harming 
college athletes over this issue for many years. It cannot be 
trusted with powers like that to operate over the law. So 
Congress can implement that. That is being done. And, actually, 
I believe every single State that has passed a law or an 
executive order, that is already in place on those States' 
legislation.
    Mr. Rush. I want to also ask you, can you elaborate on why 
you feel as though the NIL doesn't really go far enough to 
protect the health, safety, and welfare of student athletes? Do 
you have any more to add? Can you elaborate on it?
    Mr. Huma. Sure. NIL is an important economic milestone, and 
I think it has helped bust through some of the cartel 
practices, the illegal practices economically. But there is 
going to be a relatively few percentage of athletes that 
actually are able to capitalize that on any meaningful way, but 
they deserve equal freedoms, you know. For all the advocacy we 
have had, we have always said every athlete deserves equal 
freedoms. It doesn't mean they are going to be guaranteed an 
NIL deal.
    But when you look at athletes--you know, the NCAA was 
punishing athletes over these issues. You sign an autograph, 
you get punished, you get suspended, you get demonized. But if 
those same athletes were to die in a hazardous workout or be 
sexually assaulted, we have gone--we have called on the NCAA 
for decades to address it, and they have not.
    Health and safety is a top priority. Chronic sports 
injuries is a real thing. There's been surveys done. Over 50 
percent of Division I athletes across all sports will have a 
chronic college sports injury with no support. NCAA sports is 
not helping pay for medical expenses for players who are broken 
up down the line. There are many more pressing issues, and 
these issues should not be ignored by Congress.
    Mr. Rush. I certainly can attest to that. Back in 2010, 
when I was the chairman of the subcommittee, we had a 
roundtable, and we had an athlete from the University of 
Oklahoma who was injured, lost his scholarship. His poor family 
was saddled with the medical costs, and the university washed 
its hand of the whole incident, and now the athlete and his 
family are still suffering economic duress. So I really 
appreciate your testimony.
    Dr. Emmert, I want to ask you a question. I am concerned 
about the impact of Eastwood on our Nation and our Nation's 
sports future. Do you have any thoughts about how Eastwood 
would impact the NCAA and college sport and organized sports in 
general?
    Ms. Schakowsky. So Mr. Rush is out of time, but if you 
could quickly answer his question, I will let you go.
    Dr. Emmert. Yes. I think if I understood your question, 
Congressman, properly, I think one of the most important 
elements of college sport than what we can provide for young 
men and young women is indeed to prepare them for their future 
life and their future professional careers. And we must make 
sure, whether it is their physical and mental health and well-
being or their academic preparations, they are prepared for 
that future.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And now, Mr. Latta, I recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And 
thanks to our witnesses for being with us today. Really 
appreciate it.
    Modernized rules are needed to meet the reality facing 
today's student athletes. The new media landscape has 
transformed these students into social media influencers that 
are seeking to utilize their name, image, and likeness in paid 
advertising. While the United States, including my home State 
of Ohio, has set up a framework of name, image, and likeness 
rules, a Federal standard is necessary.
    A patchwork of State laws creates the very real possibility 
that student athletes in different States will be governed by 
different rules that relate it to their NIL. This means that 
colleges in certain States have advantages over their 
counterparts across the Nation. All college athletes have and 
should have an equal chance to benefit from these 
opportunities, regardless of the size of their school or the 
sport that they play. It is also vitally important that we 
preserve the collegiate model and integrity of recruiting 
process.
    Dr. Livingstone, thanks again for being with us today. In 
your testimony, you mentioned that NIL should not be used as an 
incentive to attend one school over another, and as I 
mentioned, especially when you think about from our very large 
institutions to medium to small colleges and universities.
    What guardrails would you suggest that should be put in 
place around booster or other third-party activity when it 
comes to recruitment?
    Dr. Livingstone. I think where we have to think about the 
guardrails is maybe less about who is doing it but what they 
are paying student athletes to do. Because I think when you 
start thinking about boosters, we certainly want to be careful 
who is doing it and why they are doing it, but I think it is 
more about what we are paying them to do.
    And, you know, like Cami's app, that is a perfectly 
appropriate activity. It is really unrelated in many ways to 
her role as a student athlete, whereas in other circumstances 
we are seeing situations where every member of a sports team is 
getting paid X dollars just for being on that sports team. 
Well, that looks very much like an inducement to actually play 
sports at that institution, because if they leave that 
institution, that name, image, and likeness payment will not 
follow them. They only get it because they are at that 
institution.
    Now, does it matter that that payment came from a booster 
versus it came from a nonbooster? Probably not. What matters 
is, you know, the intent behind what they were doing. Now, that 
is harder to legislate, I know, but I think it is something 
that we have got to give some careful consideration to.
    We have seen situations where, allegedly, a company was 
paying for name, image, and likeness for a student athlete in a 
smaller market at a smaller institution, and they are 
encouraging that student athlete to transfer to a school in a 
larger market so they will be more valuable to the person that 
is paying them. Is that company a booster of that larger 
institution? It might be, which would, you know, be 
challenging. It might not be. It might just be for them----
    Mr. Latta. Can I interrupt you just for a second because 
what you just said there. So if you are transferring, let's 
say, from a smaller institution to a--let's just say you are 
going to a large Division I school, and this student has 
already paid or has been paid for that NIL in a contract for 
having been at the smaller school, but then what you are saying 
then is that that larger institute--or are they going to go to 
the large institution, whoever paid them for it, is going to 
make a lot more money out of that likeness than earlier, as we 
have heard from some of the other testimony before?
    Dr. Livingstone. Potentially. And then maybe pay that 
student athlete more if they move to the larger institution. So 
there's some really clear incidents happening now that look 
very much like pay-for-play that we need to find ways to put 
parameters.
    And then the other piece of it is the enforcement piece of 
it. Because right now, many of the State laws do not have an 
enforcement mechanism in them. So they say you can't do pay-
for-play, but there is no enforcement mechanism when these 
kinds of issues arise to be able to look at them to see if they 
actually violate pay-for-play. So that is the other reason a 
national standard and some national enforcement mechanism would 
be important, so that there is not just consistency in the 
standards, but there is also consistency in the enforcement.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.
    Dr. Emmert, now that these State laws have been implemented 
and student athletes in all sports have entered into million-
dollar NIL contract agreements, you mentioned in your testimony 
that these agreements have the ability to provide a long-term 
positive impact on the students; however, it is important that 
these students are given the tools to ensure they aren't taken 
advantage of by these exploitive agreements.
    Could you speak to some of the conversations you have had 
to achieve that end?
    Dr. Emmert. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I think the most 
important issues are those that Dr. Livingstone was just 
talking about: that there is clarity about what the 
relationship is, that there is education underneath--that 
undergirds all of this so that students know what to look for 
and not look for, what a model agreement should look like, what 
they are committing themselves to, the time span of that 
commitment, the flexibility of that commitment. We need to have 
those policies in place so that they can be uniform across the 
country rather than having to have different ones in each of 
the various States.
    Secondly, we need to make sure that there is sufficient 
transparency, not a deal-by-deal arrangement, but transparency 
so that there is an understanding of the kinds of arrangements 
that are being made so that you can get at a better 
understanding of who is doing what, when, and where to the 
points that, again, Dr. Livingstone was just making.
    If we have those two things in place, plus some 
standardization of the structure that Congress could put in 
place, it would go a long, long way to supporting young men and 
young women in doing these deals.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
    Madam Chair, my time is expired, and I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And now I recognize Congresswoman Castor for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chair Schakowsky, for calling 
this hearing. Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing 
today.
    On July 1, the State of Florida's name, image, and likeness 
law went into effect. It joined about 14 other States, and 
there are many more on the way. Florida's law states that 
compensation may not be provided in exchange for athletic 
performance or attendance at a particular institution and may 
only be provided by a third party unaffiliated with the school.
    I want to see if you all think that is the right approach. 
I am very interested in the discussion about abuses in 
recruiting that Ms. McWilliams highlighted as recruiting wars 
and in Representative Rush's question talking about 
inducements, and Mr. Huma weighed in on that and, Dr. 
Livingstone, your last explanation.
    I would like to ask Ms. March, as a student athlete, what--
is that the right approach? And how do you think this could be 
used to benefit students? But give us some advice on how to 
avoid those recruiting abuses.
    Ms. March. Yes. Thank you for your question. What I think 
of the new NIL, I think of how now entities have access to us. 
I have seen on my Instagram and various social media accounts 
how people and different companies are asking me to post things 
and be a part of their brand.
    So, for me, my concern is more about access to the 
students. They don't know how to navigate those conversations, 
how they could potentially find themselves in a situation that 
is less than ideal. So, hopefully, that answers.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you.
    And, Dr. Livingstone, how do we ensure that third parties 
are truly unaffiliated?
    Dr. Livingstone. Well, you would have to have a clear 
definition of what it means to be affiliated. I know we talk 
within the NCAA guidelines, we actually have definitions of who 
a booster is. And it is very clear. You know, there is really 
clear guidance about who a booster is and what they can and 
can't do in association with dealing with student athletes, and 
that is something we have to monitor and pay attention to.
    So I think you would have to have--and I don't know whether 
the Florida law provides any guidance on that. That portion of 
the law sounds like the direction you would like to see 
something go on a national level, but I think you would have to 
have a clear affiliation on what it means to be affiliated. 
Really, it goes back to the question earlier about is it OK for 
boosters and supporters of an institution. I think you need to 
understand what you think an affiliated organization is or an 
individual, and then make it really clear what that is, and 
then--so that student athletes and institutions know--and then 
have the right enforcement mechanisms in place to help keep 
everybody kind of within those guardrails.
    Ms. Castor. That is back to who should enforce this.
    Dr. Livingstone. Right.
    Ms. Castor. And, Mr. Huma, you heard Dr. Livingstone say, 
OK, we need some kind of national enforcement entity, 
something. What is your view on that?
    Mr. Huma. Again, I think as apparent, a broad-based reform, 
including NIL, would be what we would support. And if there is 
going to be--the type of enforcement that is needed would be 
third party, not the NCAA, again. I think the legislation would 
have to direct--guide directly.
    But in terms of boosters, getting back to my opening 
remarks. You're saying boosters are paying for the best 
coaches, best facilities in order to win recruiting wars. There 
is already a recruiting war. So, you know, that was my point. 
They are already competing--or if it is an unlevel playing 
field. You know, Florida International makes about $30 million, 
$32 million in revenue. Well, the University of Florida has 
about $140 million in revenue, and they are both in that FBS 
division, and they are competing, but it is very lopsided. That 
was long before NIL.
    And the boosters can be a particular sort of revenue for 
the athletes. The money is flowing in order to win recruits 
anyways. That is what they have been doing. That is what they 
are doing to boost the program. So to draw the line in the sand 
and say, wait, we are not going to let athletes benefit because 
of competitive level playing fields and competitive equities or 
we are going to allow the boosters to go ahead and tip the 
scales anyway by paying out, you know, the biggest coaches, 
best coaches, and having the best facilities in order to 
attract those recruits is something that I would advocate 
against.
    I worked very closely in Florida with Chip LaMarca. We 
tried to get that out, but the legislature implemented that in 
Texas----
    Ms. Castor. Thank you.
    I have one final quick question for Dr. Emmert. There are 
many college athletes who are international students. They are 
on F1 visas, but these visas prohibit student athletes from 
NIL. Does the NCAA have a position on this?
    Dr. Emmert. Well, we certainly--first of all, we recognize 
the problem that that can create. If an F1 visa individual is 
now being considered an employee rather than a student, does 
that change their status? And one of the issues that would need 
to be addressed in Federal legislation is clarification around 
that.
    From my own personal perspective, I would like to see a 
model where those international students could participate in 
NIL opportunities just like national students do, but they 
would have to be very, very careful. That also is one of the 
bits of confusion in all of this that needs to get fixed.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlelady yields back.
    And now I recognize Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate 
it. And thanks for being here today.
    And I know we are talking NIL, but, you know, I am glad 
that we are doing the cost of attendance for players. If you 
are an athlete, you can't work. A lot of students work to have 
walking around or pocket money, and if you are an athlete, you 
can't. And if you don't come from a family of means, I mean, 
you can't even go home for other sides. So that was a good move 
moving forward.
    And I will tell you, the University of Kentucky, who makes 
more money in football than they do in basketball, actually 
uses--is now using athletic money to fund other academic 
programs. So it is not just--when you say all this big money 
going to athletics, it is not going for profit, it is going in 
to spend other parts of the universities, and we have to 
configure that.
    And then Northwest University, I can tell you almost to the 
penny, but I will tell you, it is north of $250,000 for a full 
ride scholarship for 4 years. So, I mean, that is not small 
change either. But NIL--and I want to--Dr. Emmert or Dr. 
Livingstone, since you are here in front of me, but we are 
talking about pay-for-play. Here is a scenario. Say I am Brett 
Guthrie Barbecue in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and I want to hire 
the five Western Kentucky basketball starters to come on Monday 
night to talk about the week ahead or the week past and the 
games. Coaches do that all the time and sign deals to do that.
    They come to my restaurant. They get to come to my 
restaurant because they are a starter for Western Kentucky 
University. That is the value their name brings, and the value 
they bring to my business is that they are the starters for 
Western Kentucky University. They fill up my restaurant. So it 
is absolutely name, likeness, and image in the purest sense of 
form, but some people are going to say that is pay-for-play. 
Because let's say I used to play for Western and want to go to 
Lexington or UK, and I will say, ``Well, I don't have a 
restaurant in Lexington, our contract is over with.'' I mean, 
how do you define--I mean, we are having all these big 
principles, and I know the NCAA all year was trying to put 
something together and it gets to how do you define this stuff.
    So how would you define pay-for-play? If your name, 
likeness, and image is valuable because you are the starting 
quarterback for Alabama so somebody wants to pay you a million 
dollars for that, is that not pay-for-play? And is that wrong 
because this young man can bring in a million bucks because he 
is a great athlete and he is at the school that is valuable to 
the brand? I mean, how do you police this?
    Dr. Emmert. It is a very important question, Congressman. I 
think there's two elements to it that can allow sensible 
enforcement. The first is this notion of transparency, 
understanding what that relationship is so that you know--you 
don't need to know all the business details of it but you know 
what that relationship is and whether it is the institution or 
this third party that we have been talking about that Congress 
could establish to do just that. That gives you, first of all, 
some understanding of the transaction so that everybody----
    Mr. Guthrie. But doesn't that just open you up to--let's 
say Western Kentucky says, you know, ``I gave you $500,000 last 
year, but I am going to hire these players so I am not going to 
give you any money this year because I would rather spend it on 
players.'' Because if I do, then I am subject to some kind of 
transparency or litigation or something like that, even though 
you are doing it all for the right reasons.
    Dr. Emmert. Yes, I understand. And I agree with you. So it 
could be, first of all, transparent. And then, secondly, to 
what Dr. Livingstone was saying a bit earlier, it needs to be 
clear what the relationship is. What is the student athlete 
delivering? Are they legitimately delivering something of 
value?
    In the scenario you just described, I would not see that as 
pay-for-play. I would see that as a student athlete providing a 
perfectly good business utilization as you would with anybody 
else who is promoting your particular product or restaurant, 
and they are bringing in customers, and it is a straightforward 
business deal. So I think you can differentiate there where it 
is--where it is simply tied to an individual who you don't have 
any relationship with there. They are someone who is not doing 
anything for you; they are just playing ball for you and they 
are getting that quarter million, half a million dollars. Then, 
you would say, well, there is no transaction here, that was 
just being paid to play that position.
    Mr. Guthrie. So you know we now have a patchwork of laws. 
Kentucky has an executive order. Florence, I think, Alabama had 
a special set or something in legislature because they didn't 
want to get behind on it.
    So what have these States passed? Because we have to get to 
the specifics of it. So what have you seen, the two of you or 
anybody, that a State has passed that we should not have in a 
Federal law? What should we preempt? I know we need preempting 
because we need consistency, but what element do you think one 
State did it and this is just bad? What is that?
    Dr. Emmert. I think there's several elements. There is at 
least one State that I know of that, in fact, allows and, 
indeed, encourages the universities themselves to be the 
broker, the person who arranges for these relationships, and 
that, I think, is straightforward pay-for-play in that context. 
So I think that is one problem.
    I think the second problem is there is no requirement for 
any form of transparency, no reporting requirement, no 
understanding, even at the institutional level.
    And then third, there is no enforcement mechanism or even 
an attempt at trying to create some enforcement model around 
those things. I think those are the core elements in some State 
laws that are most challenging.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK.
    Dr. Livingstone. Could I add one item?
    Mr. Guthrie. As long as she will let you, yes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. His time has expired.
    Mr. Guthrie. Chair, appreciate it.
    Ms. Schakowsky. And now our student athlete, past student 
athlete, Congresswoman Trahan, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the 
witnesses for testifying today.
    Dr. Emmert, it is great to see you again, and not 
surprisingly my questions are for you. I wish I could actually 
aggregate all my colleagues' remaining time and just ask all my 
questions. But I think it is fair to say that for a long time 
the main argument against allowing college athletes to be 
compensated for the use of their NIL was that it would 
effectively end college athletics as we know it.
    But based on what you have seen as president of the NCAA in 
the past 3 months since the association's new NIL policy went 
into effect, do you believe that college athletics are on the 
verge of extinction?
    Dr. Emmert. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I 
think, first of all, the resistance among the schools--and it 
is the schools, of course, that make all of the rules of the 
NCAA. The resistance and concern of the schools were all those 
issues that we are discussing here and all the potential for 
this to go awry. If we can, in fact, have a framework that 
creates the guardrails we are talking about here, I think quite 
the opposite of being the end of college sports, I think it can 
be a wonderful educational adjunct for students.
    Mrs. Trahan. Yes. I agree. I mean, look, if deals started 
to take the shape of resembling pay-for-play, which has been 
discussed today, it just highlights what we have known for 
years, and that is that there is a market for paying college 
athletes. And while NIL is only part of the solution, it is why 
we need to be really honest, that athletes do work for 
universities and deserve the same rights as employees across 
other industries, especially as it pertains to striking that 
balance with academic experience versus athletics, their health 
and safety, which has been raised, and certainly equity.
    Dr. Emmert, you already stated for the record that a 
national standard is necessary on NIL. Do you also agree that 
the national standard should be as pro-athlete as possible?
    Dr. Emmert. I am sorry?
    Mrs. Trahan. The national standard should be as pro-athlete 
as possible?
    Dr. Emmert. I do. I think that, again, these are 
opportunities, as we have just heard from Ms. March, that 
students can take enormous advantage of, they can build 
lifelong skills, they can generate some revenue, whether it is 
modest or large. I think that is all very, very helpful and 
healthy if we can do it in an appropriate fashion.
    Mrs. Trahan. And so have you or the NCAA's legislative 
bodies identified what you believe to be necessary restrictions 
on athletes' NIL? I know some of them have been shared, but is 
there any other outstanding that you would like to share with 
the committee as we sort of think about this legislation?
    Dr. Emmert. Well, we have, and, in fact, the membership of 
the NCAA, the schools spent nearly 2 years trying to craft 
specific legislation that was about to go into place when the 
State laws were triggered. And so we would be happy to provide 
the committee with the proposals that the membership was about 
to agree on last June.
    Mrs. Trahan. Terrific. We would love that. In fact, 
typically, what happens, you know, when we, Congress, work on 
large, long-overdue issues like this one, there is a temptation 
and, frankly, it is pretty common for power brokers, you know, 
like the NCAA, to withhold their priorities and work behind the 
scenes against bills viewed not as in their favor. As you know, 
Senator Murphy and I have legislation that is central around 
protecting the value proposition for college athletes.
    Would you commit to working with members of this committee 
to craft a legislative fix that prioritizes college athletes? 
And, if so, would you also pledge not to dispatch your 
lobbyists to sink a package that has the support necessary for 
that legislation to become law?
    Dr. Emmert. Well, I most certainly will agree to work with 
this committee or any other committee, and I have done so for a 
good while now, especially around this issue. And I want very 
much to make sure that legislation supports and protects our 
student athletes and it works to their advantage.
    I am a lifelong educator. I know most people know me as 
president of the NCAA, but I was first a professor and the 
university president for three decades. I have spent my life in 
that cause, and so, of course, I would work to that end.
    Mrs. Trahan. Well, I appreciate it. As you might expect, 
Dr. Emmert, I appreciate that commitment, and you know I am 
going to hold you to that.
    My final question as, you know, as I mentioned, or as has 
been mentioned, I think we are all encouraged by the efforts 
from individual institutions--Chapel Hill, Washington State, it 
sounds like Baylor as well--that have proactively provided 
support to college athletes with respect to their NIL rights. 
Do you agree that in those instances they should also be 
required to provide the same level of support to all athletes 
in their program regardless of their race, their gender, the 
sport they play?
    Dr. Emmert. I do.
    Mrs. Trahan. Great. Thank you. This is a much longer 
conversation, and we didn't get a chance to talk on some of the 
bigger issues in terms of the structure of college athletes, 
but I really appreciate getting your input on getting the NIL 
legislation to a place that we can all be proud of. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Those people who may have extra time, if you want to yield 
to Congresswoman Trahan, I would recommend it.
    Next, Mr. Armstrong is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    College athletics is undergoing significant change. I think 
Congress' priority should be to do no harm and be cautious of 
unintended consequences.
    And, Dr. Livingstone, can you provide us with student 
athlete sports played in teams at Baylor?
    Dr. Livingstone. I am sorry. What was the question, how 
many student athletes we have in sports?
    Mr. Armstrong. How many student athletes do you have at 
Baylor?
    Dr. Livingstone. We have about 525 student athletes across 
19 sports.
    Mr. Armstrong. And, roughly, how many of the Baylor student 
athletes play in revenue sports?
    Dr. Livingstone. Men's basketball and football are our two 
revenue sports at Baylor. All of our other sports require 
reallocation of resources in order to support them.
    Mr. Armstrong. And, Dr. Emmert, can you provide the same 
figures for the NCAA?
    Dr. Emmert. Yes. There is roughly a half a million student 
athletes that play across in total over 19,000 different teams, 
1,100 different schools. Most of those--all of those programs 
have basketball programs and football programs, but for the 
great majority of those 1,100 schools, none of them are 
revenue-producing sports. There is an aggregate when you look 
at the total revenue minus expenses of schools, there is well 
less than 50 of those 1,100 schools that we would describe as 
cash flow positive or profitable, but where they are, that 
revenue is grossly disproportionately coming from football and 
men's basketball and, in some cases, a few other sports: 
women's basketball, in a few cases, ice hockey, in the case of 
North Dakota and, you know, a handful of others.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. And I think those numbers 
indicate that there is a significant majority of student 
athletes that participate in nonrevenue sports. And there is a 
Senate proposal that would require institutions to pay 50 
percent of revenue from certain revenue-generating sports, 
minus expenses, to a fund that would be distributed to all 
athletes in that specific sport.
    Now, Dr. Livingstone, it is my understanding that many 
institutions use funds generated by revenue sports to sustain 
nonrevenue sports. Is that correct?
    Dr. Livingstone. That is correct. So when we look at our 
overall athletics budget, all of that revenue goes into one 
pool, so to speak, and then we use that to support all of our 
sports programs, all of the support services that we provide 
across sports programs. And it would be very challenging for 
even an institution like Baylor or institutions in the Power 
Five conferences to support as many nonrevenue sports as we do, 
as many women sports as we do, if you had a model like that. 
And then if you think about those institutions who do not have 
profitable programs, even in men's basketball and football, 
doing some kind of reallocation would be even more devastating 
to those kinds of institutions.
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes. So if we assume that covered sports for 
this provision are likely to be men's football and basketball, 
and in UND's case probably men's hockey, we are benefiting 
athletes of those sports at the cost of other sports and 
student athletes. Will their sports even exist at the 
collegiate level without those funds?
    Dr. Livingstone, what challenge would an institution face 
if its revenue sports were no longer funding nonrevenue sports?
    Dr. Livingstone. Well, we would have to make some very, 
very difficult choices. You would either have to decide to 
either fund those other sports at a much, much lower level, or 
you might have to decide to reduce the number of sports you 
offered, or you would have to make a determination to 
reallocate resources from other aspects of your university to 
then support those sports programs that used to be supported by 
athletics revenue.
    And so--and that is very challenging in higher education. 
We try to do everything we can to make our athletics programs 
self-sustaining and not have to use resources from other parts 
of the university to support our athletics programs. And that 
is challenging given the small number of institutions that 
actually have athletics programs that generate excess revenue.
    Mr. Armstrong. And, Dr. Emmert, has the NCAA studied this 
proposal? Would it have ramifications on female collegiate 
athletics?
    Dr. Emmert. Well, the majority of women sports are 
nonrevenue-producing sports, so therefore they are dependent 
upon the revenue sports within that institution, or direct 
subsidies from the schools either in the form of student 
athletic fees or targeted donations or just transfer of money, 
as Dr. Livingstone said, from the rest of the university.
    There are very, very few schools of those 1,100 who operate 
without some level of subsidy at this point. So you would have 
to make the kinds of tradeoffs and decisions that Dr. 
Livingstone was just describing.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thanks. I see my time is expired. I 
appreciate it.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the gentleman.
    And now I recognize Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair, and I thank the 
panelists. It is an interesting discussion.
    In general, I have heard clearly that uniform NIL 
regulations are needed, as well as a level playing field, so we 
will take that as a sort of starting point.
    To Mr. Huma, my State of California was the first to pass 
the college athlete NIL bill, the Fair Pay to Play Act. The 
laws made it possible for these athletes to earn compensation 
through endorsements, autographs, signings, and more. It also 
allowed college athletes to enter into group licenses, 
permitting a coalition of athletes to collectively enter into 
licensing deals with a company.
    Mr. Huma, how could licensing deals like this benefit 
college athletes?
    Mr. Huma. Well, thanks for the question. Group licensing is 
an important part. Actually, it was pretty exciting, earlier 
this year, EA Sports announced the return of college football 
in their video games. And for their athletes to be--they used 
to put their athletes in there and not pay them because of NCAA 
prohibitions, which are illegal, but now that that has opened 
up, there is an opportunity for players to actually be in the 
game and be paid. And, traditionally, how that is done is EA 
Sports pays the athletes in the form of a group license to use 
all of their rights, and the players get to be in a great game 
that they love to play, and they receive a few bucks and get 
some money, as well as trading cards. There is other areas as 
well, but every dollar--especially in some of the sports that 
are predominantly Black, like football, basketball, women's 
basketball--every dollar can matter to many of these athletes 
who are from low-income backgrounds. And so that is something 
California got right, which we are proud of as a cosponsor of 
that bill.
    Mr. McNerney. So is there some altruism involved in that? I 
mean, some players are going to be less likely to get the bucks 
for their endorsements and so on, and so the more prominent 
athletes have to agree to give up a little bit? Am I 
interpreting that correctly?
    Mr. Huma. Typically, in those agreements, the athletes get 
an even amount, an even distribution, whether they are the 
third-string offensive lineman or the starting quarterback. So 
it is something, a way for athletes who, many of them, again, 
who aren't going to get an NIL deal of any kind of 
significance, have a chance to earn a few bucks.
    Mr. McNerney. Ms. March, have you and your fellow athletes 
discussed the possibilities of group deals, maybe for the whole 
golf team? And, basically, how much interest is there with this 
approach among your friends and teammates? Do you feel there is 
a widespread interest in this sort of arrangement outside of 
your group and your university?
    Ms. March. Yes, thank you for your question. On my team 
specifically, we have six ladies that are international 
students. So, given the new NIL rules, they aren't allowed to 
participate in these deals at this moment. So on my team, we 
have not discussed group deals. I bet on other teams that there 
probably are--have been some discussion. But with me, 
personally, we have not. I have not discussed this.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Ms. McWilliams, in your written testimony, you discuss the 
importance of understanding resource disparities among 
institutions. My district is the home of the University of the 
Pacific, it is a Division I school, as well as the San Joaquin 
Delta College, it is a community college. Both possess highly 
successful athletic programs but bring in far less revenue than 
other high-profile institutions.
    How can we ensure that lower-revenue-generating schools and 
programs are all able to offer the same NIL opportunities to 
their athletes?
    Ms. McWilliams. Yes. I mean, I think, again, you know, with 
the baseline framework of legislation that allows at least that 
start of everyone having access of the same thing. I mean, even 
with the group licensing fees, there are institutions who 
currently have resources to have access to third parties to do 
that. I can tell you that my institutions are still working on 
what that could look like for there because we don't have those 
extensive resources to bring in a third party quite yet. And 
though we need to, that is still in discussion for each of our 
institutions.
    I think, you know, the ability for us to continue to--we 
fundraise. We do all these things for our student athletes, 
honestly. I mean, I want our student athletes to be successful 
in this NIL piece, and the level playing field is never going 
to be level playing field. It is never going to be the same 
equity across all of our institutions and divisions, Power 
Five, HBCU. It never has been. But at the end of the day, what 
can we do individually at our institutions to make sure that we 
have whatever resources we have to make these opportunities 
great for our students and not to put legislation in that is 
going to impact us even more?
    We can't afford. My school will close athletics. We will 
lose programs if there are rules and laws in place that are 
going to require us to do more than we are currently doing. So 
you could help us by not putting in laws that are going to put 
more strain on us.
    Mr. McNerney. Thanks for that nuanced answer.
    And I am going to yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And now I recognize Congresswoman Clarke for 5 minutes.
    You are muted. Yvette, we can't hear you. You are muted.
    Ms. Clarke. Got that.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank our expert witnesses 
for joining us for this important hearing.
    Today's college athletes in the aggregate generate millions 
of dollars in revenue for the NCAA athletic conferences and 
universities. These record revenues have led to lucrative 
coaching contracts, lavish gold-plated athletic facilities, and 
seemingly exponential increases in recruiting funds.
    But the athletes, overwhelmingly students of color, who put 
themselves at risk of injury to compete, particularly in the 
highest revenue-generating sports, are often responsible for 
covering the costs of their health insurance, out-of-pocket 
expenses from injuries suffered during their time as student 
athletes.
    Dr. Emmert, do the current policies governing healthcare 
coverage effectively protect the health, safety, and welfare of 
collegiate athletes, and does that coverage extend beyond the 
time period when their efforts are being televised and 
monetized by the NCAA?
    Dr. Emmert. Well, thank you for the question, 
Congresswoman. I think the area of the healthcare and health 
concerns of student athletes is something that we always have 
to keep in the front of our mind. NCAA was created 115 years 
ago specifically around those issues and concerns.
    The policies today require that student athletes all be 
covered by health insurance, either that of their--themselves, 
if they are an adult and independent, or their families, or the 
university or college itself.
    In the case of the high-revenue sports and high-revenue 
schools that are those that you see on TV, the vast majority of 
those provide that healthcare directly. Many, but not all, 
provide healthcare to continue beyond the time that they have 
competed when their eligibility expires. And should they have 
injuries that are catastrophic injuries that continue into 
their years beyond eligibility, the NCAA itself has a 
catastrophic insurance policy that can protect them throughout 
their life.
    There has been and continues to be active debate about 
whether or not that is adequate, and I think those are 
important questions.
    Ms. Clarke. Well, thank you. Dr.--excuse me--Mr. Huma, do 
you agree with that assessment?
    Dr. Emmert. I beg your pardon?
    Mr. Huma. I would say----
    Dr. Emmert. Oh, OK.
    Mr. Huma. I would say most of it is not accurate in terms 
of what you are asking.
    The catastrophic injury insurance policy, virtually no 
athlete qualifies for. You have, as I mentioned, about 50 
percent of college athletes with chronic college sports 
injuries after they are done, and virtually none of them 
qualify for that fund.
    In terms of even the big schools, typically they require 
players to have their own insurance, and many of them, if they 
don't, they require the athlete to purchase the school's health 
insurance plan. They don't simply provide it. It is actually--
actually, at my alma mater, it was right there in the handbook. 
They actually garnish your scholarship check in order to pay 
for it.
    So lots of disturbing trends.
    Ms. Clarke. So, Mr. Huma, would the health, safety, and 
welfare of collegiate athletes improve if institutions of 
higher education were required to cover all costs of medical 
insurance and any out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the player 
for college sports-related injuries? And what about if the 
schools had to cover long-term care related to injuries that 
occur while the player is competing for the school?
    Mr. Huma. Absolutely. And I think that the reality is that 
for the schools that can afford it, absolutely. We suggested 
trigger language. Schools in, say, Division III and II that are 
struggling a lot more, it might be a bit much. But when you hit 
$20 million in athletics revenue, you can pay for out-of-pocket 
expenses. When you hit $50 million, you can pay for full 
coverage and out-of-pocket expenses for up to 4 years.
    And that $7 billion I mentioned in revenue explosion of the 
last 16 years can be used for a fund. Put some of that in a 
fund for players who, long after they are done, some of those 
athletes I mentioned among the 50 percent who have chronic 
injuries, where they can go and get help for surgeries and 
treatment that they still need.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well.
    Dr. Livingstone, I know we all want to ensure the students 
are properly taken care of. Why don't schools already cover 
these expenses?
    Dr. Livingstone. Well, I think that the level at which 
schools cover these expenses varies pretty significantly based 
on the financial resources that that school has access to. We 
certainly provide medical support and care for our student 
athletes. We provide mental health support and care for our 
student athletes.
    We have even--we provide support for them for the first 
couple of years after they leave if they have mental health 
support they need to continue and they don't have their own 
means to cover that from an insurance perspective, or from a 
physical injury. We have even provided care for student 
athletes in extended-care addiction recovery programs or mental 
health facilities when they needed that and it was something 
that was going to help them continue their education to be 
successful.
    So I think where the challenge becomes--and Ms. McWilliams 
might be able to speak to this even better than I can--for 
institutions that do not have athletics programs that generate 
excess revenue, the impact of having a significant burden of 
requiring some of these benefits could be quite challenging for 
them. We all care deeply about the health and well-being of our 
student athletes. I think how to manage that and how to pay for 
that is a real challenge.
    Ms. Clarke. I yield back. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back.
    And now I recognize Congresswoman Dingell for her 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, and thank 
you for holding this hearing, and to all of you that are 
testifying today.
    As a member who represents a Big Ten school and the 
University of Michigan--go Blue--and a mid-American conference 
school at Eastern Michigan University, as well as being a 
graduate of Georgetown University, this is a subject I have 
deep interest in and have already been spending a lot of time 
talking to coaches, athletes, and university administrators.
    And I am really pleased to see the bipartisan attention on 
this issue and that the committee is taking the time to dig 
into the topic and examine all the different ways to support 
our student athletes.
    A crucial part of this conversation has been ensuring that 
student athletes are able to achieve both their educational and 
their personal goals. Many of you have suggested that student 
athletes are students first and foremost.
    In contrast, Mr. Huma, in your testimony, you suggested 
some student athletes have been pushed to pursue less rigorous 
subjects or majors in order to devote more time to their sport, 
which would be anti-ethical to that goal--or antithetical to 
that goal. Long-term educational attainment is inextricably 
linked to our conversation about a student and athlete's 
ability to monetize their name, image, or likeness.
    Dr. Livingstone, as a university president and former 
college athlete, how can a Federal NIL framework or other 
policies being considered today ensure that students are not 
facing a tradeoff between their participation in collegiate 
athletics, monetization of NIL, and educational attainment, 
which for many has long-term financial ramifications for these 
athletes beyond their postsecondary years? Do you have 
recommendations for specific policies that Congress or other 
authorities should implement to protect college athletes' 
education goals?
    Dr. Livingstone. No, I really appreciate that question, 
Congresswoman. And I think one of the points I made is that any 
national legislation on NIL has to make sure that the student 
portion of the student athletes' experience remains the highest 
priority for them. We know, as we have said, 98 percent of 
these student athletes will never have a professional contract. 
Many of them, their NIL will be less valuable after they 
graduate, and so it is very, very important that they get an 
education.
    So I think we have to continue to ensure that there are 
requirements for attendance in college to progress towards a 
degree, that we encourage and incentivize them to be successful 
and to get a college degree. So I think any Federal legislation 
needs to continue to make that a high priority.
    I think it is why an employment model becomes more 
challenging, because once someone's an employee of the 
university, the question becomes, is your highest priority for 
that individual as an employee or as a--probably--potentially a 
part-time student rather than a full-time student?
    So I think any legislation has to ensure that the student 
portion of that individual's experience remains of the highest 
priority in the context of their ability to take advantage of 
their name, image, and likeness, and continue to be--perform 
effectively as an athlete.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    Mr. Huma, I am going to ask you to provide an answer to 
that for the record, but I am down to a minute and 28 seconds, 
and I am really worried about women's sports that doesn't often 
receive the same support, promotion, recognition, or attention 
that men's sports programs do.
    And title IX requires equal opportunities for men and women 
in college athletics, and NIL presents a potential avenue to 
give women new opportunities at making money for the use of 
their likeness.
    So, Ms. McWilliams, in the time we have left, is there any 
concern that Federal NIL legislation could exacerbate these 
inequalities, or are there benefits in which thoughtful NIL 
policy might help promote women's sports programs and bridge 
these disparities in treatment? What policies should we 
consider in crafting this NIL legislation?
    Ms. McWilliams. Thank you. I think all the things that we 
have discussed today and the responsibility that we have as 
leaders to protect title IX, these student athletes, our 
missions and our goals are why we are in higher education and 
why we have athletics in the first place.
    I do agree that we are out of whack here. I mean, this is 
a--it is a sad day to be having this conversation, working in 
this industry and then being an athlete, trying to figure out 
or having conversations that the NCAA hasn't done its job. I am 
the NCAA. I am a member of the organization, and gender equity 
is extremely important to me.
    So as leaders, every one of us that walk in the room, we 
have a responsibility to make sure it doesn't get lost. 
Whatever policy that is, whatever conversation that is, that is 
our responsibility as leaders and around this table to ensure 
those conversations don't get lost and overbeared by what we 
believe is the highest priority of making sure that all these 
dollars are being made and student athletes are not benefited 
from it.
    We all should be benefiting and we all--we are benefactors 
for sports, and so we have a responsibility to make sure that 
title IX never gets lost, that the conversations are real and 
honest, and that every woman and every student athlete has an 
opportunity to see, and policies are in place to make sure that 
happens.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair, with 
more questions for the record.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back.
    And now I recognize Congresswoman Kelly for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chair Schakowsky, for holding this 
hearing today.
    One thing we can all agree on is collegiate athletes 
deserve a system that protects their well-being and interests 
both on and off the field, but even the best-designed 
frameworks will fail to achieve their objective if not properly 
enforced.
    Mr. Huma, as Congress considers establishing a Federal 
framework to protect collegiate athletes, what enforcement 
mechanisms should we consider?
    Mr. Huma. Well, I think, again, I think it needs to be 
third party. It should not be in the hands of the NCAA or 
conferences or the schools. And I think that a lot of it would 
be overseeing what the schools do and don't do, in terms of 
whether or not they are getting involved in representing 
players, arranging NIL deals, using NIL deals as inducements. I 
think those are some of the things that I believe everyone 
probably agrees on.
    I also believe that there are certain freedoms that are in 
place that should be protected, such as making sure that 
athletes can secure representation that aren't just limited to 
NIL. All representation. Legal representation. Some of the 
States have restricted that.
    Some of the States have prohibited colleges from allowing 
to co-brand, meaning use their logos in a third-party 
agreement. The logos are a win-win for the player and the 
school, and it doesn't have to be arranged by the school. A 
third party comes in and brokers a deal. And if it is initiated 
by the third party, then that is great.
    Any kind of disclosures, which, you know, from our 
perspective, don't need to happen, but if there is a--too much, 
you know, that a bill wouldn't pass, that there were 
disclosures, it should be kept private. These aren't things 
that should be public information.
    You know, there are a lot of deals--and I would imagine, 
you know, again, if you are an app maker, Cami, you know, if 
you have some things that are maybe industry secrets, you don't 
want even your school knowing, really, because oftentimes your 
ideas can get stolen.
    So there has to be maximum safeguards for the athletes. And 
anything--if there's conflicts, the school should not have the 
ability to, you know, have control of whether or not a player 
can get into a certain deal. That should be third-party 
regulated, mandated by Congress, the parameters of Congress.
    Ms. Kelly. All right. Ms. McWilliams, care to share your 
thoughts?
    Ms. McWilliams. Yes. I somewhat disagree with that. I think 
there is--if you are in a higher education or you are in a job, 
there is conflict of interest. All of you find conflict of 
interests, I am sure. So as student athletes, you have the 
opportunity to use your name, image, and likeness. Whether you 
disclose what you are doing or not, there has to be some 
protection or guardrails.
    And we have compliance and governance, people on our staff 
that do this work every single day. They are the ones who are 
burdening the bear, and they have to burden and bear managing 
this day to day. And so, if they are going to have to do it and 
we want to make sure that these student athletes are doing 
their due diligence, they are having the opportunities, the 
guardrails are to make sure that there is no conflict of 
interest with the university.
    I work for the CIAA, and though I love the NIL, I don't 
want to see a student wearing CIAA making money off of CIAA, 
right? So there is a commitment on both sides that we all have 
to make to make this work for all of us.
    Ms. Kelly. Let me--someone suggested a new independent 
entity should be charged with monitoring and ensuring 
compliance with laws, governing names, image, and likeness 
compensation for collegiate athletes.
    Dr. Livingstone, do you think there should be--do you think 
there should be a new [inaudible] NIL issues? And if so, do you 
think a new entity should be established, or is there an 
already existing entity that could take on that role?
    Dr. Livingstone. Uh-huh. I do think that an independent 
body could be very effective in doing this. I do think we have 
to be careful that it is not a political body that has sort of 
political influences in how it makes that decision.
    I am just going to use a specific example. One of the 
things we struggle with at colleges and universities is the 
title IX legislation, which has had a huge impact on women and 
college sports. But as each administration changes, our title 
IX policies have to change. And so there is a deep 
inconsistency in--from administration to administration in what 
we do with regard to enforcing title IX.
    And so I think we need to make sure, if it is an 
independent body, it is truly independent, it has people on it 
that understand college athletics and NIL issues, and that it 
has a fair mechanism for enforcement on a national level.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
    Ms. March, do you feel like you have sufficient resources 
to ensure your concerns in health and safety are being met?
    Ms. March. Yes. Here at Washington State, I feel as though 
they are athletes first, and we are a community of people that 
are meant to help each other. So I feel here at Washington 
State, my experience has been just great with my health and 
safety, and we--and they offer us protection for our 
eligibility and thereafter for health reasons.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you to all the witnesses.
    And I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman--gentlewoman yields back.
    And I recognize now Mr. Soto for 5 minutes for questioning.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    There has been two telltale stories we have read in papers 
and seen in newscasts in Florida over and over, and it seems to 
repeat itself with a lot of our amazing college athletes in 
Florida.
    One is the bizarre story of a top athlete being involved in 
a theft case, whether it is at a grocery store, at a retail 
establishment, someone who is gracing our television screens on 
Sunday or during great, amazing games during the week. And we 
see other--a repeat story over and over of an early death of a 
former major college star, whether it be by a health issue as 
early as their late twenties or early thirties or even by 
violence as they get back home and maybe have to even turn to 
crime.
    And it shows all these themes that come up. A lot of 
athletes are coming from poor families. They don't have health 
insurance, some of them. They--many of them--or some of them 
aren't graduating. They are surrounded by great wealth all 
around them. And in spite of their fame, they are living 
without the funds needed to be able to live their normal lives, 
and so they turn to these bizarre situations that have happened 
over and over and over again.
    Those are telltale stories that tell us that we--we must 
have some changes. We have seen it in Florida with a new law 
allowing college students to be paid for their name, image, and 
likeness, the NIL we have talked about a lot today. NCAA, we 
see as moving forward on a similar rule, which we appreciate.
    And under the Florida law, it mandates financial training 
and life skills workshops to athletes twice during their 
college career. And we have heard about that today, about the 
importance of having proper legal representation, proper 
financial training as we may be dealing with major financial 
decisions.
    My main two questions--and we will do them in tandem for 
all of our witnesses--is, do you believe that the NCAA and our 
college system will be able to come together to have a standard 
guarantee of health insurance for all college athletes and a 
living stipend so that they are not living in poverty 
surrounded by wealth and get into these situations?
    We will start with President Dr. Mark Emmert, and from 
there I will call on a next witness.
    Dr. Emmert. Well, first of all, thank you, Congressman. The 
two questions really are at the center of what is constantly 
debated and discussed within the NCAA and the rulemaking 
structure that the universities participate in. There has been 
a constant improvement in the healthcare support that is 
provided to student athletes, as we just heard from one of our 
student athletes.
    The biggest differentiator that causes me concern is 
between those schools who have abundant resources and those 
that don't. There is--and Commissioner McWilliams was talking 
about this. There are schools that struggle with providing all 
of those amenities that a school like Baylor or another Power 
Five school can provide, and I worry greatly about those two 
distinctions on both ends of the continuum. And we need to 
collectively find solutions to that.
    Mr. Soto. And I want to turn next to Ms. Cameron March on--
for the same question, how important it is to have a guarantee 
of health insurance and a reasonable living stipend for college 
athletes.
    Ms. March. I believe it is very critical to have--for the 
health and well-being for student athletes, and I hope that we 
all can come together and do that.
    Mr. Soto. Next, Ramogi Huma, the same question, the 
importance of standardizing health insurance access and living 
stipends.
    Mr. Huma. I think it is important to not only standardize 
it, but to actually pay for it, that the schools and the NCAA, 
with the post revenue--postseason revenues [inaudible] division 
with the college football playoff begin to actually direct some 
of that money into meaningful ways so that players don't have 
to pay out of pocket.
    And some of the players whose--who are required to be on 
their own insurance, their parents are paying for them to be on 
that premium, so they are shifting the burden and 
responsibility for otherwise very healthy athletes to the 
families, many of whom come from poor backgrounds.
    I don't think NCAA sports is going to truly ever come 
together and pay players any kind of affordable stipend, 
because every single stitch of progress has been made through 
the courts on that issue, including one of the stipends that 
finally we won to just cover the cost of attendance. So any 
kind of a change in those areas, I think, will be outside of 
NCAA sports, unfortunately.
    Mr. Soto. And just as a close, we see Major League Baseball 
do profit sharing among all sorts of baseball teams, among 
other private-sector leagues, so this is something that could 
be brought together.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And now, Mr. Carter, you have been patiently waiting to 
waive on to this committee, and I recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Dr. Emmert, earlier, Mr. Huma was talking about the 
catastrophic insurance, and I believe you wanted to expand upon 
that, about the insurance that is offered to the students--
student athletes.
    Dr. Emmert. Simply want to make clear that student athletes 
across all of our divisions are required to have either 
provided by their family because of employment relationships or 
the institution to have health insurance. They all have 
insurance through their time as a student athlete.
    And should they have injuries while they are a student 
athlete that exceed the limits of those--of that insurance 
coverage, then indeed there is a catastrophic injury policy 
that the NCAA pays millions of dollars for every year that 
covers those athletes. And we have had student athletes be 
covered for significant amounts, $100,000 and more a year for 
their entire lifetime, to cover the costs of their injuries.
    Mr. Carter. OK. All right. Thank you.
    Let me ask you, Dr. Emmert--I want to go back to one of my 
colleagues, Representative Guthrie, had mentioned the pay-for-
play, and that seems like such a slippery slope in the sense 
the difference between pay-for-play. A couple of questions.
    First of all, what happened in the school out West where 
the school actually arranged the agreement for a company to 
give scholarships or to give the--to give money or whatever to 
pay for each of the 123 players on the football team to get the 
equivalent of tuition. How can that not be pay-for-play?
    Dr. Emmert. Well, I believe, Congressman, that is part of 
why we are here today, is that we need standardized definitions 
across the country about what is and what isn't an appropriate 
relationship around name, image, and likeness. Today, we don't 
have that. We need some continuity so that both the 
universities themselves and the athletes know and those who 
enter into those kinds of arrangements know what the rules of 
the game are.
    It is indeed a slippery slope. And as we have been 
discussing here today, one of the keys is, first of all, having 
those relationships be transparent so that people know they are 
going on, and then there is consistency about whether or not 
the student athlete, him or herself, is providing something of 
value in exchange for those resources rather than just showing 
up and playing football.
    Mr. Carter. And not necessarily for football or basketball, 
but for some of the other sports especially, if it is deemed to 
be pay-for-play, how is this going to impact their eligibility 
for future Olympics?
    I mean, if--you know, a student athlete who has been 
playing--you know, has been on a swimming scholarship, or 
diving or whatever, and then it is deemed, OK, that was pay-
for-play, are they going to be eligible for the Olympics once 
they are finished there?
    Dr. Emmert. I am not an expert on Olympic eligibility----
    Mr. Carter. But don't you think it would be----
    Dr. Emmert [continuing]. But I do believe that they 
probably would be allowed to compete.
    Mr. Carter. They would be allowed to compete?
    Dr. Emmert. I believe so.
    Mr. Carter. But don't you think that should be clarified 
with the Olympic Committee. I would think you all would----
    Dr. Emmert. It clearly should be, yes.
    Mr. Carter. I hope that the NCAA will take that upon 
themselves to clarify that.
    Also, another concern, because I have heard you all mention 
it during this hearing, about the revenues go to academics as 
well to help with that. Isn't there a concern about the 
sponsorships withdrawing from that and going to the students 
instead, the student athletes?
    I mean, at University of Kentucky, you have got Kroger 
Field. You know, let's--are they still--you know, I know at the 
University of Georgia, we have got the earphones or had the 
Delta emblem on it, and, you know, you have got Nike jerseys 
and everything.
    I mean, are these companies now going to shift to the 
students and away from the schools, and therefore the revenues 
are going to decrease, and therefore it is going to go back on 
the State legislatures to have to fund more for academics, et 
cetera, et cetera? I mean, has that been looked at?
    Dr. Emmert. It has certainly been widely discussed. The 
evidence so far is not clear because we only have, you know, 2 
months worth of data, but it is one of the real concerns I know 
that athletic directors who run athletic programs is very--are 
very concerned about.
    Mr. Carter. And with good reason.
    How are you going to handle--I remember the Olympics, when 
we had the basketball dream team, that some of them weren't 
with the official sponsor--I forgot who it was, whether it was 
Nike--and then some of the athletes didn't want to wear Nike, 
so they had to put the--had to cover up the emblem.
    How are you going to deal with that if a school uses, you 
know, a certain company but the student has an agreement with 
another company?
    Dr. Emmert. Well, again, right now, there is a patchwork of 
different laws that approach that issue differently in several 
of the States. Some would allow student athletes to be mandated 
to wear specific uniforms produced by some sponsors. Some do 
not require that. Some would allow a student athlete to wear 
the shoe brand of his or her choice, et cetera.
    So it is not clearly regulated today, and it is one of 
those areas that is of--also of great complexity and why we 
need a national law.
    Mr. Carter. In a nutshell, we have got a mess.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And now, also waiving on to our subcommittee, I recognize 
Congresswoman Schrier.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I would simply like to yield to my colleague, Mrs. Trahan.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Congresswoman. I so appreciate the 
time.
    Dr. Emmert, according to data available from the Equity in 
Athletics Disclosure Act, there are 2,071 institutions of 
higher ed with athletic programs that are recipients of Federal 
funds, 90 percent of which are still out of compliance with 
title IX. In fact, you know, 50 years after the passage of 
title IX, females are being annually shortchanged by a billion 
dollars in athletic scholarships and nearly 150,000 sports 
participation opportunities.
    It is also common knowledge that these institutions are 
providing significantly more dollars promoting and publicizing 
men's revenue sports, which has an adverse impact on female 
athletes seeking NIL employment in the open marketplace.
    So I have two questions. One, if a university only focuses 
on deals with its basketball and football teams, are they in 
violation of title IX?
    And second question is: How is the NCAA ensuring that 
universities that assist athletes with NIL deals do so in an 
equitable manner?
    Dr. Emmert. Well, I am certainly not an expert on the legal 
nuances of title IX around whether or not the relationship you 
are describing would be in violation of title IX. So I won't--I 
won't offer an opinion on that.
    I do know that the individual schools and the conferences 
with which I am most familiar work quite hard, as we do at the 
national level, to promote sports as equitably and assertively 
as we can.
    We do live in a society and, indeed, perhaps beyond our 
society where the majority of the highest-profile sporting 
events are male dominated. That is a reality. Whether that 
makes sense or not is a different matter.
    And so when you look at where are the largest revenues that 
are coming in from media deals, for example, or where do you 
get the largest audiences, regardless of what a school's 
promotional model may be there, but typically football, which 
is, of course, the largest national sport, and then basketball. 
So whether or not their engagement around that violates title 
IX, I simply can't say.
    What I can say is that we would very much like to see in 
Federal legislation policies that make clear that institutions 
in the implementation of any title IX engagement are doing so 
in a way that is completely equitable across genders and every 
other group, regardless of their sport, regardless of their 
gender. And I think that is certainly possible and plausible 
within legislation that could be passed.
    Mrs. Trahan. I am going to move real quickly to yesterday's 
release of the NLRB's memo, because the NCAA put out a 
statement saying that college athletes are students who compete 
against students, not employees who compete against employees, 
and added that both academics and athletics are part of a total 
educational experience.
    You know, I have heard from countless current and former 
athletes who experienced the same thing I did, right? A system 
that rewards athletic performance first, and then that full 
academic experience--internships, you know, job opportunities, 
travel abroad--you know, that sort of comes close to near last.
    So I am a proponent of giving athletes the power to 
organize and collectively bargain for fair and better treatment 
in a system that, you know, just for too long has a history of 
not having their backs. I mean, being a college athlete is a 
source of enormous pride but also enormous sacrifice. And so 
making sure that we have an ability to give the power back to 
the athlete so that they can bargain for better athletic-
academic balance is key.
    I know your position on the legislation. I read your 
statement after Senator Murphy and I launched it. Since you are 
opposed to giving athletes a voice through collective 
bargaining, what do you and the Association propose to give 
athletes not just a voice, but an actual say in setting the 
expectations of their performance in the classroom and in their 
sport?
    Dr. Emmert. Well, if I can say this quickly, first of all, 
I think student athletes' commitment to their sports and their 
academic success is an enormous effort. It is extraordinary to 
me when I see what student athletes do in both the classroom 
and on the court or the field, and I am incredibly proud of 
them.
    I do believe that there are many ways in which they should 
be provided more opportunities to strike a balance between 
those two, including more time to finish their degree or to 
continue in internships or a variety of other activities, as 
you point out. I think it is very hard to balance those two.
    I think, in terms of the student voice and vote, we need to 
make sure--and I hope that we can continue to make progress on 
this. It is something that I have been very engaged in--to 
continue to do that so that student athletes are more involved 
in every one of the committees and decisionmaking bodies of the 
Association. They are in 80 or 90 percent of them now, but we 
need more, and I support that clearly.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you.
    Could I just close, Madam Chair?
    Ms. Schakowsky. Pardon me?
    Mrs. Trahan. Could I just have a second to close?
    Ms. Schakowsky. A second to close.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Go ahead.
    Mrs. Trahan. I appreciate this. I know that there is a lot 
on the table, and I really do appreciate the testimony. It is 
informative.
    You know, the scales of college athletics have been so 
dramatically tilted in the direction of everyone who isn't an 
athlete for so long that one of the reasons why we take the 
tack that we do is because we are less concerned about going 
too far in the direction of giving athletes power than not 
giving them enough.
    So this is an issue of fairness. It is an issue of equity. 
And while I don't often find myself associating my views with 
Justice Kavanaugh, I share many of the perspectives that were 
laid out in his concurring opinion in Alston earlier this 
summer. So I think it is important we get this right, and that 
means getting it right for college athletes first and foremost.
    But thank you. This was--it was very helpful.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman--the gentlewoman, who is an 
expert on the subject and I am sure will be part of many of the 
conversations going forward, yields back.
    Mr. Duncan, welcome, and you now are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, and thank the committee for letting 
me waive on. This is an issue that is very important to me. I 
have been working with Anthony Gonzalez for a while on this, 
ever since NCAA allied NIL.
    And the gentlelady was right. We have a opportunity here to 
get this right, and we need to get it right. We don't need a 
hodgepodge patchwork of 50 State rules and regulations 
governing NIL. That is not fair to the student athletes who are 
looking to go to colleges, universities in other States to try 
to figure out what they may or may not be able to do. We don't 
need the recruiters having to figure out what their laws are in 
Texas versus Alabama or Alabama versus South Carolina. A 
national standard on NIL is urgently needed. It just makes 
things easier for the college and university recruiters and 
athletes.
    At the end of the day, we need to make sure that we keep 
the focus on the student athlete, because NIL is their name, 
their image, their likeness, and they are the ones getting the 
economic deal. They should negotiate it themselves. The 
colleges and universities should not be in the middle of that 
transaction.
    And so we don't need--I think we have an opportunity here 
to get NIL legislation, a national standard, passed. But we 
don't need to muddy the water with collective bargaining and 
revenue sharing and all these other things, because that may 
prohibit us from getting an NIL bill passed. We keep our eye on 
the ball and make sure that we do something to protect student 
athletes--and college universities are second to that, but 
protect them as well--and not muddy the water.
    You know, revenue sharing is an interesting thing, because 
I think Dr. Livingstone said it best, is that, you know, the 
big-ticket sports of football and basketball, in some cases 
they provide the revenue that allow the colleges and 
universities to have all the--I will say it--down-ticket 
sports, the women's soccer and lacrosse and softball and 
swimming, and I can go through a whole litany of sports that 
don't generate the revenue, and they are paid for. The 
universities are able to have those sports because of the 
football programs.
    What that means is there are students--student athletes 
that now have the opportunity to come to university on 
scholarship that they--and get an education that they would not 
have otherwise, due to economic conditions or inability of the 
parents to pay for that college tuition. They have the 
opportunity because football pays for women's softball.
    And if you do revenue sharing, you take that ability for 
those universities to have those down-ticket sports, and it 
prohibits universities from providing those opportunities--
educational opportunities for those student athletes. So those 
are things we need to think about.
    I think we can have a conversation, Madam Chairman, about 
all of the issues of revenue sharing and liability and lifetime 
insurance and all pay-for-play, all the payment of students. We 
can have that conversation. It is probably worth having that 
conversation, not at NCAA, Dr. Emmert, but from the United 
States Congress at some point. But we have a chance to get NIL 
without muddying the water. That is one of the big points I 
wanted to make.
    And, you know, Greg Steube hit a home run last night for 
the Republican team as we beat the Democrats. And if he was a 
student athlete or an up-and-coming high school player, he 
would have had the opportunity to probably to go get a 
scholarship and probably have an NIL deal waiting on him. But 
then he would have to try to figure out, well, the laws in 
South Carolina where I want to go play at Clemson may be 
different than the University of Florida, or even Utah, which, 
you know, that is a whole other conversation what Brigham 
Young, BYU, is doing.
    So we need a national standard. It is that important. But 
at the end of the day, who governs that and who negotiates it 
and who enforces it?
    I wanted to ask just one question. This is from--for Mr. 
Huma: Should conferences and associations be able to make and 
enforce recruiting rules that ban financial inducements? Yes or 
no?
    Mr. Huma. No. That should be done directly from Congress, 
because otherwise they would need an antitrust exemption, which 
they don't--it would put them above the law.
    Mr. Duncan. OK. I don't know, is Ms. McWilliams still on? 
OK.
    So, Ms. McWilliams, you highlighted that the CIAA stretches 
over five States, including Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, 
North Carolina, and South Carolina.
    While North Carolina NIL law is similar to South Carolina, 
they are not the same. For example, South Carolina law prevents 
universities from directly facilitating NIL deals for athletes, 
which I think is the right thing to do. In contrast, this is 
not covered in the North Carolina law.
    So how do you think coordination by one school and not 
another will impact the competition on the field?
    Ms. McWilliams. I think it will impact. I think that 
disparity alone. Again, you can do one thing in South 
Carolina--or student athletes or students who are interested in 
going to Claflin University compared to going to Johnson C. 
Smith. I mean, we can just talk about Division II and not 
Division I. There is greater access in one State than another.
    I mean, being that we are neighboring States, it is just 
interesting that we haven't been able to work together on 
legislation in the first place to get to a place where we both 
can manage--manage our institutions in our State, but I get 
there is differences.
    I think it is hard. I mean, we can see right now there is--
we are all over the place. I mean, it is in the Association 
membership trying to define the fine lines between our Division 
I, Division II, Division III, State to State, private and 
public. It is tough. And so I agree with you that there needs 
to be some mandate across the board.
    We are at the gates already but different legislation. How 
can we take what is the best out of each of the States and get 
to a place where we can all be on the same page for our student 
athletes, to have the same fairness, recruiting advantages, you 
name it, across the board? It is not easy.
    Mr. Duncan. Yes. I agree with you. I think you are right. 
Look, the horse has already left the barn. NIL is already--the 
rules that NCAA has put forth. Colleges and universities are 
having to navigate this quagmire of 50 different patchwork laws 
because the States are passing their own laws, because they see 
the need to do that, protect the student athlete and the 
universities that fall under their funding stream.
    Madam Chair, we have an opportunity to get NIL legislation 
out of this Congress, and I urge that we pass a clean NIL bill 
dealing with that.
    And, with that, I yield back. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And we do have one more for questioning, and that is Mr. 
Bucshon is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much.
    First of all, I apologize for missing some--a lot of the 
questioning. I had another thing to do, and I couldn't get out 
of it.
    I thank you, Madam Chair.
    College athletics, of course, has long served as an 
important venue for Hoosiers--Indiana, I am from Indiana--as 
well as college students from across the country to get their 
degrees while participating in sports that they love, and even 
some of them make careers out of it--2 percent, as has been 
mentioned. However, the enactment of a number of State laws to 
put this into focus, this system of college athletics as it 
relates to the NIL situation, and we have talked about that a 
lot.
    So I am going to get--hone down to a specific issue that 
has been mentioned. While there are a number of other issues, 
this one is important. Some athletes are signing deals before 
they even stepped on the playing field at the collegiate level, 
and making deals with companies, some based maybe not in the 
United States, and then being pressured or influenced by the 
government of those countries. That is a potential concern.
    Prominent college athletes can have an enormous influence 
on our culture, particularly amongst our younger children. And 
should we be concerned about the ability of governments--and I 
will get into which ones--to interfere in affairs of our Nation 
by putting pressure on college athletes and using college 
campuses, which has been done, to influence our culture amongst 
our young people, but now, if you--now, if you have some of the 
most prominent athletes on campus that are caught up in that, 
is that going to be an issue?
    As an example, Dr. Emmert--I am going to ask this question 
of you--do you think that there should be any restrictions 
placed on NIL deals to restrict them from being entered with 
companies with close ties, for example, the Communist--Chinese 
Communist Party, would be the extreme example. Are there any 
associated dangers to athletes or institutions that you foresee 
that Congress should work to address when working on a national 
NIL framework?
    Dr. Emmert. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman 
Bucshon. I think there needs to be, again, greater clarity 
around what are and what are not appropriate sponsors. This is 
confused by the patchwork of laws we have been talking about. 
Some allow the schools to determine which sponsors are out of 
bounds when they are inconsistent with the values of the 
institution. Others specify specific industries--gambling or 
alcohol, tobacco, et cetera--as being out of bounds. Other 
States have no restrictions whatsoever.
    So I think that what is necessary and what I would urge is, 
in the final crafting of a NIL bill here and in other chambers, 
that we have an open, frank discussion and debate about where 
there are appropriate boundaries and where there aren't.
    My instinct would be to be as liberal as possible in 
allowing students to explore the market, but at the other hand, 
there are challenges nonetheless that need to be explored.
    Mr. Bucshon. I mean, for example, we subsequently have 
found out, for example, on campuses with--related to the 
Chinese Government, Confucius Institutes, and that--and also 
students involved in research projects that have specific 
Department of Defense focus. In fact, we have recently allowed 
that not to happen anymore.
    So, you know, you could see the next frontier is promoting 
through high-profile college athletes things that maybe the 
college athletes don't understand themselves. I am not saying 
they would promote it, but I am saying they could be caught up 
in this. And it is important, I think, as many people have 
mentioned, to make sure the contractual relationships young 
college athletes get involved in have some degree of scrutiny 
by someone.
    Dr. Livingstone, you represent an institution with immense 
resources--I think you have mentioned that--as well as a 
conference with a great deal of power in the future of NIL. How 
do you perceive performing your role as an educator, as well, 
these young athletes as they begin to capitalize on this 
opportunity, and how do we ensure that smaller institutions 
that do not have the same brand power as you do and not come 
out on the losing end of multiple NIL laws if we don't do 
something here at the Federal level?
    Dr. Livingstone. Yes. Thank you for that question. You 
know, I think that our role as educators just informs how we 
help our student athletes navigate NIL. I shared earlier some 
of the things we do at Baylor to help educate our students and 
prepare them to do NIL, so I think it is just part of our 
responsibility as we really, for all of our students on our 
campus, try to help prepare them for life, both while they are 
on our campus and then after they leave.
    We have a phrase we use in our athletics program called 
preparing champions for life. And so in all aspects of what we 
do with our student athletes, we want them not just to be 
successful on field or the court or on the track, we want them 
to be prepared when they leave Baylor to be successful in life 
as parents, as spouses, as employees, as community members. And 
so NIL is just a piece of that. So I think it just--the 
philosophy we have just wraps around that new piece that we 
have to deal with.
    In terms of smaller institutions--and we have talked quite 
a bit about this--I think the uneven landscape probably has an 
even more challenging impact on smaller institutions and 
smaller markets, and you have heard Ms. McWilliams talk some 
about that. So I think----
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
    Dr. Livingstone [continuing]. It is this national standard 
that helps us all understand how to do this.
    And, frankly, it probably will take fewer resources for 
less-resourced schools to be able to be in compliance with 
national standards than if they are dealing with just their 
State standard, the students coming in from different 
institutions, because you can then provide educational 
materials. You can provide support at a national level, whether 
it is through the NCAA or some other body, to be able to 
support those institutions.
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your 
indulgence.
    I just want to say, whatever we do, we certainly don't want 
colleges to make the decision to scrap athletics altogether, 
and that could happen if we do this wrong. And we could lose 
tons of potential student athletes and educated citizens as a 
result.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and that 
concludes the questions.
    I do want to thank our witnesses for their participation in 
today's hearing.
    And before I adjourn, I just want to have unanimous consent 
to enter the following document--only one this time--into the 
record, a letter from Representatives Cleaver and Allred.
    I seek unanimous consent. Without objection?
    Mr. Bilirakis. Without objection.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Schakowsky. I want to remind our members--and we will 
do that--that pursuant to committee rules, they have 10 
business days to submit additional questions for the record to 
be answered by our witnesses who have appeared today, and we 
appeal to you to respond in as short a period of time as 
possible.
    And at that time--at this time, the subcommittee is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]