[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ANTITRUST LAW AND THE NCAA:
EXAMINING THE CURRENT CLIMATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,
REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-682 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia ERIC SWALWELL, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas TED LIEU, California
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California
BARRY MOORE, Alabama MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,
REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
BEN CLINE, Virginia Member
LANCE GOODEN, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming BECCA BALINT, Vermont
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas ZOE LOFGREN, California
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
Georgia
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
JULIE TAGEN, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 11, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the
State of Wisconsin............................................. 1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust
from the State of New York..................................... 2
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 5
WITNESSES
Chris McIntosh, Director of Athletics, University of Wisconsin-
Madison
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Testimony............................................. 8
Caryl Smith Gilbert, Director, Men's and Women's Track and Field,
University of Georgia
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Testimony............................................. 15
Arthur Albiero, Head Coach, Men's and Women's Swimming and
Diving, University of Louisville
Oral Testimony................................................. 17
Prepared Testimony............................................. 19
Andrew Cooper, Executive Director, United College Athletes
Association (UCAA)
Oral Testimony................................................. 25
Prepared Testimony............................................. 27
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the
Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust are
listed below................................................... 56
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State,
Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of New York,
for the record
An article entitled, ``College Athletes Can Get Paid. But,
How?'' Feb. 21, 2025, Bold.org
An article entitled, ``Opinion | NCAA college football has
turned pro. Let's talk about its tax breaks,'' Jan. 21,
2025, Washington Post
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
for the record
An article entitled, ``Ex-Wisconsin women's basketball player
makes disturbing abuse allegations against head coach,''
Jan. 28, 2025, New York Post
An article entitled, ``On Average, Two NCAA Football Players
Die Per Season,'' Feb. 2017, National Library of Medicine
An article entitled, ``Moseley resigns from Wisconsin women's
basketball,'' Mar. 09, 2025, Wisconsin Badgers
An article entitled, ``UGA track' Caryl Smith Gilbert gets
lucrative deal, tennis coach raise,'' Jul. 14, 2021,
Online Athens
An article entitled, ``Football Practices Pose More
Concussion Risk Than Games, Study Suggests,'' Oct. 14,
2022, The New York Times
An article entitled, ``Chris McIntosh,'' The Trust, Powered
by the NFLPA
A working paper entitled, ``Who profits from Amateurism? Rent-
Sharing and Modern College Sports,'' Oct. 2020, National Bureau
of Economic Research, submitted by Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson,
Jr., a Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State,
Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Georgia, for
the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Member of
the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
Reform, and Antitrust from the State of California, for the
record
A fact sheet entitled, ``NCAA Division III Fact Sheet for
Congressional Districts 40 & 46,'' Chapman University
Athletics
A letter to the Honorable J. Louis Correa and the Honorable
Derek Tran, U.S. House of Representatives, Mar. 10, 2025,
from the Director of Athletics, Department of
Intercollegiate Athletics, California State University,
Fullerton, California
A letter to Congressional Leaders, from the NCAA Division I,
Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC)
A letter to Congressional Leaders, from the NCAA Division II,
Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC)
A letter to Congressional Leaders, from the 2024-2025 NCAA
Division III, Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC)
An article entitled, ``Loyola Marymount made a touch choice
to drop 6 sports--will similar universities follow suit?
College athletics' evolution will affect smaller schools
and programs that don't generate significant income,''
Sept. 16, 2024, Daily Breeze
An article entitled, ``College Athlete Unions Raise Specter
of Scholarship Tax Hit,'' Apr. 8, 2014, Bloomberg Law
An article entitled, ``Pressure on student athletes keeps
growing. For a UW runner, it was too much,'' Feb. 18, 2025,
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, submitted by the Honorable Becca
Balint, a Member the Subcommittee on the Administrative State,
Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Vermont, for
the record
A memo entitled, ``Statutory Rights of Players at Academic
Institutions (Student-Athletes) Under the National Labor
Relations Act,'' Sept. 29, 2021, Jennifer A. Abruzzo, General
Counsel, submitted by the Honorable Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, a
Member the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Illinois, for the
record
ANTITRUST LAW AND THE NCAA:
EXAMINING THE CURRENT CLIMATE
----------
Tuesday, March 11, 2025
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Administrative State,
Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Scott
Fitzgerald [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fitzgerald, Jordan, Cline, Gooden,
Hageman, Harris, Schmidt, Baumgartner, Nadler, Correa, Balint,
Garcia, and Johnson.
Also present: Representatives Fry, Raskin, and Moskowitz.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Antitrust Law and
the NCAA. I'll now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today's hearing will investigate the current landscape
around antitrust liability for the NCAA, which has created
issues around Name, Image, and Likeness payments, known as NIL,
the transfer portal and eligibility rules in college athletics.
A series of court opinions finding antitrust liability against
the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), most
notably the Supreme Court's 2021 Alston decision, calls into
question the legality of any rules that limit compensation for
student-athletes. Further, a patchwork of State laws has made
it difficult, if not impossible, for the NCAA to regulate NIL
payments to student-athletes, and additional ongoing litigation
strongly suggests rules governing student-athletes transferring
schools and eligibility requirements will also be found to
violate the antitrust laws. College sports are rapidly heading
in the direction of unlimited payments, unlimited transfers,
and no rules around who is eligible to compete.
In October 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement in House v. NCAA, known as the House
settlement. That paves the way for the first revenue-sharing
model in college athletics. It also creates a framework to
govern NIL payments from so-called, quote, ``boosters,'' also
known as collectives, and replaces scholarship caps with roster
caps.
The House settlement does not resolve other pending
antitrust litigation against the NCAA, nor does it immunize it
from many subsequent antitrust challenges. Further, the House
settlement is the product of the NCAA conferences and the
plaintiffs' lawyers. The schools, coaches, and athletes largely
did not have a seat at that table. Under the current framework,
any rule that the NCAA attempts to enforce will face immediate
litigation, and history suggests that the NCAA will likely lose
every time.
Most people can agree that the NCAA went too far with their
regulations in the past. For example, the NCAA placed rules
around the exact type of snacks student-athletes could receive
from their teams, prohibited transfers without penalty, and
barred legitimate third-party NIL payments.
The NCAA was too late to acknowledge that some college
sports are large commercial enterprises, and certain student-
athletes bring great value to their schools. Now, college
sports has largely lost any resemblance of the amateur sports
that they used to be or collegiate spirit, even when the cost
of a sport consistently and greatly exceeds any revenue from
it. College sports are rife with play-for-pay schemes from
boosters and schools, and the educational mission of college
athletics has been eroded.
Specifically, multiple transfers hinder pathways to
graduation, and a lack of eligibility rules encourage
individuals to stay in college long beyond the average four-
year period. Coaches are finding it difficult to manage their
teams, because students can transfer at the drop of a hat. This
scenario leaves coaches without a functioning roster and harms
the student-athletes that value consistency in educational and
sports programs.
Colleges must also shift their recruiting strategies.
Recruiting high school athletes is not the focus for some
coaches anymore, because getting athletes from the transfer
portal is more cost effective than training the next generation
of athletes from the group up. The inability of the NCAA to set
rules has turned college and athletics into what would be
called by some a semiprofessional endeavor focused more and
more on men's football and basketball.
The witnesses we have today are perfectly prepared to
supply Members of the Committee with the required information
to better inform us as we work on possible solutions to help
ensure that college athletics programs remain accessible for
the next generation of student-athletes. I want to thank the
witnesses for appearing before us today and look forward to
hearing what each of you has to say.
I also want to address, without objection, Mr. Fry and Mr.
Moskowitz will be permitted to participate in today's hearing
for the purposes of questioning the witnesses if a Member
yields them time for that purpose.
I now will recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler, and
recognize him for his opening statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, the business of college sports, a business that
generates billions of dollars a year, has seen dramatic changes
in recent years, and the industry continues to evolve rapidly.
College athletes have been recognized and compensated for their
talents and contributions as never before, and the new models
of compensation continue to develop through litigation and
other competitive pressures.
Now, the NCAA, which generates nearly $1.3 billion a year
in revenue, wants to stop this progress dead in its tracks. It
wants Congress to step in and protect the NCAA, its conferences
and schools, from having to share a greater percentage of the
money that they rake in each year with their unpaid athletes
without whom there would be no revenue in the first place.
Unfortunately, instead of highlighting the need for
continued reforms to the college athletic system to protect the
rights of its athletes, today we are considering whether a
repeat antitrust offender should get a bailout and be allowed
to turn back many of these recent changes while diminishing the
voice of college athletes in perpetuity.
The NCAA has lobbied Congress for years seeking exemptions
from our laws to preserve their monopoly on college sports. For
example, in the wake of Title IX's passage, ushering in
historic opportunities for women in sports, the then all-male
NCAA sought exemptions from the law. In advance of litigation
with the potential to disrupt their control over broadcast
rights, the NCAA sought Congressional intervention. When faced
with lawsuits that could bring an end to their suppression of
athletes' ability to capitalize on their personal publicity
rights, also called Name, Image, and Likeness, or NIL, the NCAA
asked Congress to step in. Now, the NCAA is back asking us once
again to take action on their behalf, to turn back the clock on
many recent changes to the collegiate system, and to render
college athletes voiceless and powerless.
The only professional sport that enjoys the antitrust
exemption the NCAA seeks is baseball, and for decades, this
exemption suppressed professional baseball players' abilities
to unionize if they needed reforms to their sport and obtain
competitive salaries.
Now, many of the same Republican lawmakers who have decried
Major League Baseball's antitrust exemption wants to grant the
same safe harbor from our competition laws to the NCAA. We have
ample evidence that antitrust exemptions generally suppress
wages, block access to necessary health and safety protections,
and undermine competition. There's no reason to contemplate a
bailout for the NCAA, especially when it has demonstrated
little regard for our competition laws while failing to protect
athletes from being exploited.
While paying coaches and executives exorbitant salaries
from the hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue generated
by college athletes, the NCAA insists it needs help from
Congress to suppress players' wages and rights to employment
status.
While looking the other way on academic fraud, the NCAA
insists that the current system is necessary to protect, quote,
``student-athletes.'' The NCAA knows that athletes often miss
class and cannot pursue their major of choice because of
practice and travel schedules, yet they hold out the academic
aspect of a college athlete's experience as all important.
While the NCAA insists it needs a bailout to ensure the
survival of Olympic sports and to protect women athletes, it
has failed to sufficiently promote those sports and has failed
to ensure its member schools follow Title IX. We should not
reward the NCAA by placing restrictions and unnecessary changes
to the collegiate athletic system, changes which are notably
benefiting the athletes already and which the NCAA continues to
resist and decry.
It is not just college athletes who are concerned about the
special protections the NCAA is seeking. The players'
associations of all the major professional sports have also
waited. In a joint statement they wrote, quote,
NIL legislation purporting to protect athletes should not be
used as a trojan horse to nullify athletes' legal rights or
status. Legislation that is meant to protect college athletes
should under no circumstances eliminate or diminish their
rights under contract, tort, antitrust and/or labor laws.
Similarly, in response to proposed legislation that would
affirm that college athletes are employees under the National
Labor Relations Act, the Players Association wrote, quote,
Collective bargaining has immeasurably benefited the workers we
represent in professional sports as a whole. Athletes enjoy
elevated health and safety standards, medical benefits, fair
compensation, and other rights, both on and off the field.
Leagues and teams can negotiate roster construction, player
reserve, and other competitive regulations, and fans receive
the most compelling entertainment product in the world. The
same result is achievable at the top collegiate level.
Mr. Chair, college sports has the power to bring
communities together and to electrify the Nation. The College
Football Playoffs brought heat to a cold winter, and this
month, the country will be riveted by March Madness. Perhaps
the best way to fully appreciate college athletes is to watch
them perform at the highest levels.
Please play the video clip.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Nadler. As you can see, NCAA college sports are
compelling. They are exciting. They are electric, and people
want to see them. Advertisers know this, and there's why the
business of college sports is so lucrative. People are tuning
in to see great athletes, and it is only fair that the athletes
see a portion of the revenue generated by their performances.
College sports have also brought many nonfinancial benefits
to its athletes, from life lessons about teamwork, building a
strong work ethic, and gaining leadership skills, to promoting
health and wellness. For some it also has the potential to set
them on the path to professional glory.
For too many athletes, the current system has failed them.
Important changes are underway that have begun to level the
playing field, and more are being considered. We should not put
our thumbs on the scale in favor of an organization that too
often has placed its profits over the interests of its
athletes.
I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look
forward to their testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee who he,
himself, is a two-time national champion wrestler from the
University of Wisconsin.
Chair Jordan. You weren't supposed to say that last part.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Chair. I want to thank you for
putting this hearing together, for all the good work you're
doing, for our witnesses for being here. I think there are two
fundamental questions: Should we get involved? If so, what
should we do?
This is one of those relatively rare times in Congressional
hearings where we don't have any, at least on the Republican
side, any predetermined outcome about what we should be doing.
We're trying to get the answers.
I do think it's interesting the clip that the Ranking
Member played. My guess is that almost every single one of
those programs that were in whatever respective sports was
being shown, most of those programs probably lose money,
probably don't make money. There's a handful of universities
and athletic departments that do, and trying to figure it all
out and figure out what it means to Olympic sports and
everything, and all these questions we have. So, we're trying
to get the answers. That's why I appreciate the experts that
we've brought in today, and it's good that one of those experts
is the athletic director from the school I happened to go to,
and both our boys graduated from as well, the University of
Wisconsin. We thank you, in particular, for being here.
We just want to learn, but I do want to thank the Chair for
the hard work he has done in putting this together and helping
us try to figure out if we should get involved, and if so, what
we should do.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
Without objection, all other opening statements will be
included in the record. We will now introduce today's
witnesses.
Mr. Chris McIntosh. Mr. McIntosh is the Director of
Athletics at the University of Wisconsin, a position he has
held since July 2021. He previously served as the Deputy
Athletic Director from 2017-2021, and was himself a Wisconsin
student-athlete in the late 1990s when he was a consensus All-
American tackle and captain on the football team. Mr. McIntosh
was a first-round pick in the 2000 NFL draft by the Seattle
Seahawks where he played several seasons before retiring.
Ms. Carol Smith Gilbert. Ms. Smith Gilbert is the Director
of Men's and Women's track and field at the University of
Georgia, a position she has held since June 2021. She
previously served as the Director of Track and Field at the
University of Southern California, where her teams won multiple
national championships. Ms. Smith Gilbert was a three-time All-
American and PAC 10 champion in the 100-meter and the 4
100 meter relay, and the 4 4 relay during
the 1990s at UCLA.
Mr. Albiero is the Head Coach of the Swim and Dive program
at the University of Louisville, a position he has held since
2003. His teams and athletes have earned multiple NCAA and
conference championships during his tenure. He was also named
to the Coaching Staff of the U.S. National Team for the 2016
Olympic Games in Rio. He was an 18-times All-American and
three-times NCAA champion swimmer at Oakland University during
the 1990s.
Mr. Andrew Cooper. Mr. Cooper is the Executive Director of
the United College Athletes Association, a nonprofit
organization that seeks to ensure student-athletes are safe,
educated, and compensated. He ran cross country at Washington
State University in UC Berkeley.
We welcome our witnesses and thank them all for appearing
today.
We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and
raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct, to the
best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you
God?
Let the record reflect that the witness has answered in the
affirmative.
Thank you all. Please be seated.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
Mr. McIntosh, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS McINTOSH
Mr. McIntosh. Chair Fitzgerald, Ranking Member Nadler,
Chair Jordan, and the distinguished Members of the Committee.
Thank you for allowing me to be with you today to talk about
the State of college athletics, both the life-changing
opportunity that it has and continues to afford to hundreds of
thousands of high potential young people, along with the many
challenges posed by the numerous uncertainties that we face.
My name is Chris McIntosh, and I have the privilege of
serving as the Athletic Director at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. I was fortunate to play football at the
University of Wisconsin. It was the experience of a lifetime. I
blocked for a Heisman Trophy winner, won two Big Ten football
championships and two Rose Bowls, and then went on to play a
few seasons in the NFL before an injury ended my career.
As the years followed, my career continued to accumulate. A
few things have become very clear to me. First, what an amazing
gift it was to pursue my athletic dreams. Second, the education
that I received, the multiple degrees that I have earned from a
world-class university, like the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, are powerful. They were made possible for me because
of a sport. Third, the life lessons taught to me and the
mentoring I received by top-notch Hall of Fame caliber coaches
like Barry Alvarez, well, that all just changed my life.
Our college athletic system, this American system, the
tethering of sport and education is truly unique. It's a system
where athletes not only compete at top levels of sport, but
also receive a valuable education that benefits them for the
rest of their lives. It's a system that my two oldest children,
my daughters, who are Division I volleyball players, are
experiencing now. It's the same system that my 16-year-old son
aspires to participate in, waking up every morning, working out
before school.
Is it a perfect system? It is not. It has and it continues
to evolve. Our system has made great strides since the days
when I competed. The opportunity for young people today, for
our student-athletes, is better than it's ever been. Today, we
provide guaranteed scholarships for athletes, irrespective of
their playing time, continuing healthcare for athletically
related injuries, and funding for degree completion even after
eligibility has been exhausted.
I am passionate about ensuring that our system continues to
improve, and that current and future student-athletes enjoy the
same life-changing experience that I and so many others have
benefited from.
At Wisconsin, we support nearly 800 student-athletes
competing in 23 varsity sports. We believe in education, broad-
based opportunity, and competitive excellence for all our
sports. At Wisconsin, and most other Autonomy Four programs,
the costs of a world-class opportunity for student-athletes are
funded largely by football. Eighty percent of our revenues, in
one form or another, are derived from the sport of football.
Most other athletic programs benefit disproportionately from
revenues generated by the NCAA II Men's Basketball Tournament.
There's no doubt that college athletics is at an inflexion
point where the decisions made in the near future will define
the landscape for generations to come. It is critical now more
than ever that Congress work together to pass meaningful
legislation that stabilizes college athletics for future
generations. We need your help to enhance this model of
opportunity for all sports, not just for football and
basketball. To achieve that, I believe we owe it to our
student-athletes to ensure that student-athletes can rightfully
enjoy the benefits of the pending House settlement and the
direct sharing of revenue that, if approved, it will provide,
while being permitted to continue to monetize their name,
image, and likeness through market-based opportunities; that
there is room for future student-athletes by allowing us to
create and enforce commonsense rules that align with the
educational mission of college sports and allow for a fair,
competitive environment; that we can create rules that allow
student-athletes to transfer to another institution but without
systematically sacrificing their academic progress, while
ensuring that players who do remain with their team have a
better idea of who their teammates will be the following
season; and that student-athletes are not considered to be
employees of their respective institutions; and that we can
ensure consistency across the country avoiding the State-by-
State patchwork of laws intended to create a competitive
advantage for in-State programs.
We look forward to working together with Congress to ensure
that this uniquely American system of college athletics can be
preserved, enhanced, and allowed to thrive.
Thank you for allowing me to be here today, and I look
forward to answering any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntosh follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. McIntosh.
Ms. Smith Gilbert, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF CARYL SMITH GILBERT
Ms. Smith Gilbert. Chair Fitzgerald, Ranking Member Nadler,
and the distinguished Members of the Committee. Good morning.
My name is Carol Smith Gilbert, and I am the Director of Men's
and Women's track and field at the University of Georgia. It is
an honor to testify before you today as we examine the current
State of college athletics.
The track and field is one of the most diverse and
accessible sports in the world, offering educational
opportunities to women, underrepresented students, and
international athletes. For more than 25 years, I have coached
and developed student-athletes, including Olympians and
national champions. Without scholarships, many of these
athletes would not have the opportunity to attend college at
all, and I speak from personal experience. Neither my husband
nor I would have been able to afford the college education we
received without an athletic scholarship. We both agree that
our college athletic experience saved our lives.
The student-athletes I coach are not just competitors. They
are students pursuing an education and an opportunity to build
a future beyond sports. For most, scholarships are the only way
they can afford a college degree, and obtaining a college
degree is truly the most important thing.
To be clear, the number of athletes who are able to have a
long and lucrative professional career in track and field is
extremely small, so my goal is to ensure that they achieve
their potential on the track and in the classroom so that they
are prepared for life after college athletics. Yet, today,
track and field and other nonrevenue sports are at risk. The
current NIL environment without a clear uniform national
standard threatens scholarships, undermines roster stability,
and creates uncertainty for athletes, coaches, and programs.
Of equal importance, implementing an employment model would
be devastating for nonrevenue sports. Today, our student-
athletes receive critical resources: Nutritionists, athletic
trainers, academic advisers at no cost, but as employees, they
would have to be responsible for many of these expenses
themselves. For nonrevenue sports like track and field, the
student-athletes aren't making lucrative NIL deals that can
support them past college. Instead of providing more
opportunities, an employment model would make it harder for
young athletes to compete while pursuing a degree, and a
college degree provides young people with a lifetime worth of
support.
My view on NIL is different from coaches in revenue-
generating sports. Unlike those sports where NIL deals can be
lucrative, my athletes earn little to no NIL money. Instead,
they rely on scholarships, academic support, and university-
provided resources to train and compete at an elite level. If I
am correct in my concerns about the future of Olympic sports
programs, the U.S. developmental program would be seriously
damaged. I know this because in sports like track and field and
swimming, college programs are the Olympic development program.
It isn't theoretical. Of the 118 athletes who competed for Team
USA in track and field during the Paris Summer Olympics, 114
developed through the college system. Only four did not. That
speaks about the critical role that the college athletics plays
in Olympic athlete development.
My personal fear is without regulation, all money will be
spent on football and the impact on nonrevenue and Olympic
sports will be devastating. I'm concerned many universities
will eliminate many Olympic sport programs, depriving countless
students of the same opportunities I experienced, thanks to
college track and field.
To ensure the future of college athletics remains strong, I
urge Congress to protect universities from excessive litigation
which diverts necessary money from our athletes and to prevent
student-athletes from being classified as employees, as doing
so will force schools to defund and ultimately eliminate
nonrevenue sports.
I am grateful for the Committee's attention on this
critically important issue, and I urge you to pass legislation
to establish uniform rules that will minimize the chaos and
maximize the opportunity for student-athletes, especially for
those in nonrevenue sports, to be able to attend college,
compete athletically, and graduate with a valuable college
degree.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith Gilbert follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Ms. Smith Gilbert.
Mr. Albiero.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR ALBIERO
Mr. Albiero. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, Chair
Fitzgerald, Ranking Member Nadler, and the distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State,
Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, thank you for the opportunity
to testify before you today on the important topic of
legislative support for college athletics.
My name is Arthur Albiero, and I am honored to testify
before this Committee. I come before you as a long-time coach,
a committed advocate for the student-athletes, and someone who
believes deeply in the values that collegiate athletics can
provide to young men and young women, values like education,
opportunity, and the development of leadership and character.
I have had the privilege of being a college swim coach for
almost 29 years, and I am currently in my 22nd season as the
head men's and women's swimming and diving coach at the
University of Louisville. I'm a former collegiate swimmer when
I attended Oakland University and Cal State-Bakersfield. I've
also been fortunate to be a coach for Team USA in many
international competitions.
I have been married for almost 30 years to my wife, Amy,
also a former collegiate swimmer, and I am the father of three
children who grew up swimming and all participated in college
swimming at the University of Louisville. In fact, our youngest
daughter will be finishing her college swimming career at the
NCAA championships next week.
As a coach at the University of Louisville, I'm proud of
the growth and development of the swimming and diving programs.
We have gone from a program at the bottom of Conference USA to
a program now that has consistently been one of the top teams
in the country.
Based on my experience, I have seen firsthand the
transformative power and impact that college sports, and
specifically swimming and diving, can have on young men and
women. While I'm certainly proud of the athletes'
accomplishments in the pool, I am just as proud of their
accomplishments outside the pool. We have countless success
stories of former swimmers who are now doctors, engineers,
nurses, business owners, CPA's, lawyers, Fulbright scholars,
and more. These now-adults are leaders in their communities,
and they are making a difference in our country.
At Louisville, our student-athletes gave themselves fully
to their craft, striving for excellence both in their sport and
in the classroom. In fact, our Fall 2024 swimming and diving
team GPAs were 3.43 for the men's program and 3.51 for the
women's program.
I give all the credit of these success stories to the
current structure of our program at the University of
Louisville. We certainly do the work in the pool, but our
student-athletes are also the beneficiaries of a robust benefit
structure, including mental health support, comprehensive
nutrition education and support, medical care and support,
athletic academic support services, including recovery and
massage therapy. For a full scholarship athlete at the
University of Louisville, these benefits could total over
$100,000 annually.
Unfortunately, the current structure of college sports
compounded by the complexities of the antitrust law places
these athletes and their sports now in a precarious situation.
While the proposed House settlement will provide a measure of
structure to the NIL landscape, it also has consequences for
athletic departments that do not generate enough revenue to
cover the expenses for all of its sports. Over the last few
years, many schools across the NCAA have announced sports cuts,
or completely eliminated programs in anticipation of the
challenges ahead.
It's crucial that any action by Congress recognizes the
unique challenges facing nonrevenue sports. Nonrevenue sports
provide invaluable experiences for the student-athletes. These
programs can be particularly vulnerable when institutions are
now forced to make tough financial decisions. Preserving and
strengthening these sports is essential for the future of
collegiate athletics and for upholding fairness, equity, and
the principles of Title IX.
I have serious concerns about student-athletes potentially
becoming classified as employees. This could create a number of
undesirable and unintended consequences, including taxation,
changes in medical services, and the opportunity in general for
nonrevenue sports. The required financial administrative burden
of treating student-athletes as employees could force
institutions to make even more difficult decisions about how
many sports institutions are able to offer.
In this critical moment, Congress has a unique and
important opportunity to address the issues facing college
athletics, particularly nonrevenue sports through legislative
action. The current climate presents a pivotal moment in which
Congress can shape the future of college athletics in a way
that aligns with its commitment to fairness, equity, and
opportunity for all student-athletes.
We know Congressional help is important to ensure student-
athletes are not employees and that NIL has some Federal
guidelines. However, I would ask if any Congressional support
also includes protection for the 78 percent of student-athletes
who do not compete in football or basketball because without
them, our youth sports pipeline and ultimately, Olympic
movement, will collapse.
As I conclude, I want to emphasize that the decisions made
in the near future will have a lasting impact on the future of
college athletics. Preserving women's sports and nonrevenue
sports is not just about fairness; it's about upholding the
very ideals that make college athletics so special. These
programs provide a platform for athletes to succeed both in
their sports and education, and they represent a crucial part
of the college experience for thousands of young men and women
across the country.
I urge you to consider the long-term implications of some
of these decisions and to act in a way that fosters fairness,
equity, and opportunity for all.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Albiero follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Albiero.
Mr. Cooper, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW COOPER
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and the
distinguished Members of the Committee. I am a former track
athlete at Washington State University and UC Berkeley, and I
now serve as the Executive Director of the United College
Athletes Association.
The UCAA is a nonprofit that educates college athletes and
unites their voices to advocate for safety mandates, academic
protections, and economic rights; ultimately, to ensure the
NCAA's business model is safe, fair, and sustainable for future
generations and for the players who generate the revenue.
Currently, 120 women's basketball players in the Big Ten
and SEC have joined the UCAA to secure a voice in the NCAA's
monopoly. When I say the NCAA is a monopoly, that is not my
opinion. That is the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Alston
v. NCAA where the Court found that the NCAA is a monopoly. As
Justice Kavanaugh concurred, quote,``The NCAA's business model
would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in
America. The NCAA is not above the law.''
After failing in the Supreme Court, the NCAA is now begging
Congress for an antitrust bailout to be above the law because
they want to continue enriching themselves through this
monopoly. In fact, according to the NCAA's publicly available
tax returns as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, in 2022, the NCAA paid
its top 16 administrators an average salary of over $800,000 a
year.
Over the last 40 years, our antitrust laws have been the
only force that have held the NCAA accountable: First, in 1984,
then in 1999 when coaches sued to end NCAA's cap on their
salaries, again in 2014, and most recently, in 2021.
Before granting the NCAA an antitrust bailout we should
first ask ourselves a fundamental question: Can we trust the
NCAA? Because history has shown that the NCAA cannot be
trusted. For example, in the 2013 wrongful death suit, the NCAA
confessed in court, quote, ``The NCAA denies that it has a
legal duty to protect college athletes.''
Then in 2020, Senator Blackburn stated, quote, ``The NCAA
has failed when it comes to women in sports, sexual harassment,
sexual abuse. How in the world are we going to be able to trust
NCAA to get this right?''
Senator Blackburn was referring to the sexual assault
scandal at Baylor where the NCAA's investigation ultimately
concluded no rules were violated because rape is not an NCAA
violation. Just last year, the Government Accountability Office
found that only seven percent of colleges even comply with
Title IX.
Even the NCAA's most powerful institutions now don't trust
the NCAA, which is why the Power Four conferences have formed a
new limited liability company to independently police NIL and
revenue sharing outside of the NCAA's purview moving forward.
If the NCAA cannot be trusted by parents to keep athletes
safe, and they cannot be trusted by their own conferences, how
can Congress trust them with the unchecked power of antitrust
bailout?
One NCAA director even anonymously admitted, quote, ``Let's
be honest, we're all money laundering.''
Given that reality, if the NCAA gets an antitrust bailout,
how do we hold them accountable when they inevitably abuse that
power? Further, have we considered how Congress' actions here
could permanently politicize college sports forever?
That's why Senator Kennedy told the NCAA president, quote,
``You may regret asking Congress to intervene here. All of a
sudden, you're going to be micromanaged.''
Instead of giving the NCAA a bailout, Justice Kavanaugh
proposed a solution, quote, ``Colleges and college athletes
could potentially engage in collective bargaining or seek some
other negotiated agreement.''
The solution is simple. Partner with the players and give
them an independent voice in this business. That's exactly what
the UCAA is doing, but the Big Ten and SEC are refusing to meet
with the players. Actions speak louder than words, and the
NCAA's actions prove they cannot be trusted with an exemption
from the laws.
I urge this Committee to reject the NCAA's request because
it would erode our country's fundamental antitrust laws, set
dangerous precedent for other $1 billion monopolies, and
permanently politicize college sports.
Congress wields a big stick and using it as a sewing needle
to reshape the fundamental fabric of college sports may cause
much more harm permanently than good. Instead, this Committee
should force the NCAA to simply follow the same laws as every
other business in this country.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Cooper.
We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with some
questions, and I will start with a question for Coach Smith
Gilbert.
Coach, budget constraints are not only measured in
scholarships and roster spots. As you know, to have a
successful track and field team, you need modern training
equipment and world-class facilities. You also need support
staff, like personal trainers, nutritionists, and strength and
conditioning coaches.
Can you talk about how budget constraints affect these
types of support services and how that can affect your ability
to recruit and retain the best track and field athletes
overall?
Ms. Smith Gilbert. Yes. As anybody who runs at all knows,
your body is your implement in track and field. In our sport,
what you put in your body, what you eat, how you train, where
you train, the type of surface you run on, all those things
make a difference.
There's a lot of money we put in every year for just one
student-athlete, one by one, to make sure that they are ready
to be at their best at an elite level. As I said, we are the
groundwork for the U.S. Olympic team. Without these resources;
if resources go elsewhere and we don't get them anymore, I
don't see how we're going to be able to maintain developing
elite athletes without the money to do it.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you.
Mr. McIntosh, competing at the Olympics is a dream for many
young athletes around the country, and the United States has a
long history of strong athletic performance at the Olympics.
However, the sports where American athletes excel at the
Olympics generally don't make money for universities. I kind of
preface that with--as the Director of Athletics, how do you
balance the investments at Wisconsin in nonrevenue sports
against investments in revenue-generating sports, like
football, as you mentioned in your testimony?
Mr. McIntosh. Well, thank you, Chair Fitzgerald.
First, we're very proud of the 17 Olympians that we had at
the University of Wisconsin in last year's games. It's a point
of pride for us.
I mentioned earlier that 80 percent of our revenues are
generated by the sport of football. Football serves as the
financial engine that underwrites the cost of opportunity for
just about every one of our other sports. Hundreds of athletes
and the opportunity that they have to pursue their dreams
athletically, obtain a degree, have the type of experience that
is life-changing is made possible by the revenues generated by
football and, to a much lesser extent, men's basketball.
That's the model. That's the model that we embrace. That's
the model that as an athlete myself when I was 20 years old, I
may not have understood the benefits of the way I do today, as
I mentioned having two daughters that are Division I volleyball
players today.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you.
Coach Albiero, with the restrictions of the transfer portal
eligibility lifted as a result of several State lawsuits, and
then couple that with changes to the NIL, we're seeing
athletes, particularly those who will not turn professional,
extending their collegiate career beyond the traditional four-
year term.
I'm just wondering, can you just talk about your experience
so far with the portal and how that has affected decisions that
your athletes have made?
Mr. Albiero. Thank you.
I think more than anything, providing some opportunity for
choice, right. I'm not against that in any way, shape, or form.
I think what the portal has created--in the sport of swimming,
it's not like the athletes are trying to go and shop around for
another opportunity. It has created academic opportunities for
potential master's degrees, and so on and so forth. It's not a
problem necessarily that has impacted our sport tremendously.
Now, with potential changes coming up, the transfer portal
could have a much bigger impact.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you.
Coach Smith Gilbert, kind of along the similar lines,
what's been your experience with the portal so far? Do you have
this back and forth that's been going on with your athletes
even in the nonrevenue setting?
Ms. Smith Gilbert. Yes, it's affected us quite a bit in
track and field and cross country. The main thing that concerns
me is they're having more trouble being in majors that they
actually want to be in because when they transfer, they lose a
lot of credits from one school to the next.
I do think they should be able to go and transfer wherever
they want, but I think the unlimited transfers have caused a
problem with academic progress. In my sport, as I said earlier,
``getting a degree is the main thing.''
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you. My time has expired.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes for his
series of questions.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cooper, is it fair to say that the NCAA is a repeat
antitrust offender?
Mr. Cooper. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. How many times has the NCAA lost in court on
antitrust grounds?
Mr. Cooper. At least four times so far.
Mr. Nadler. The NCAA still faces antitrust violation claims
today, correct?
Mr. Cooper. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. The proposed House settlement contains both a
salary cap and a roster cap. Should these be subject to
antitrust scrutiny; and, if so, why?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, because the NCAA should follow the same
laws as every other business in this country.
Mr. Nadler. All of which have--
Mr. Cooper. All of which are subject to antitrust laws
unless they secure an exemption through collective bargaining,
like every other professional sports league in this country.
Mr. Nadler. Now, the NCAA has argued that an antitrust
exemption is necessary to protect college athletics generally
and is especially important to protect sports other than
football and basketball.
Do you think that an antitrust exemption would be
appropriate? How would such an exemption affect the athletes?
Mr. Cooper. An exception is not appropriate. On the notion
that there's not enough money is categorically false. In the
Big Ten the collective endowments of those universities alone
are nearly $95 billion, and in terms of the spending in the
Power Four, the average operating revenue for a Power Four
institution was $158 million a year in 2022. Their spending on
coaches' salaries was $29 million a year per school and $27
million a year on admin, and their average spend on medical
expenses was $1.9 million per school.
Mr. Nadler. How much does that leave for the athletes?
Mr. Cooper. How much of the spending is on athletes? On
student aid, they spent $15 million on average per school.
Mr. Nadler. OK. Why would an antitrust exemption not be
appropriate? You said it wouldn't.
Mr. Cooper. An antitrust exemption wouldn't be appropriate
because it would give the NCAA power to abuse the laws and
force athletes to not follow the same laws as every other
business in this country. They would continue enriching
themselves off the backs of athletes without paying their labor
force.
Mr. Nadler. If the NCAA wanted to protect Olympic sports in
colleges, what are some of the things it could do?
Mr. Cooper. The NCAA has zero policies that protect Olympic
sports currently. A simple thing they could do is mandating a
one-year notice period where the NCAA has to give notice that
they are planning--or that school is planning to cut a sport.
They could also pass a policy that says if your school has over
$100 million a year in revenue, you can't cut sports because
you can't justify that you don't have enough revenue to support
those sports.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Albiero, you noted the importance of Title IX, but the
GAO found that less than seven percent of the schools comply
with Title IX, and the NCAA refuses to require Title IX
compliance, and even found systemic abuse to not violate their
rules.
Mr. Albiero, couldn't the NCAA act to ensure women have
equal opportunity and they're not abused by their coaches?
Mr. Albiero. Thank you for the question.
In my opinion, we strive very hard at the University of
Louisville to comply with Title IX rules. Certainly, as a coach
of female sports, and as a father of a daughter who happens to
swim, I feel Title IX has been an amazing opportunity and
created an opportunity for athletes to grow in a protection--
Mr. Nadler. Excuse me. You're saying that at your school
you do that.
Mr. Albiero. Sure.
Mr. Nadler. The GAO found that less than seven percent of
schools comply with Title IX, and the NCAA refuses to require
Title IX compliance, and even found systemic abuse not to
violate their rules. Why shouldn't the NCAA be required to
ensure women have equal opportunity, and they're not abused by
their coaches?
Mr. Albiero. Yes. I'm not privy of other things that are
happening around the country, if I may.
Mr. Nadler. OK. Mr. McIntosh, you said in your statement
that, quote,``It is extremely important to the educators at our
institutions that the focus of a student-athlete's college
tenure remain based on education.'' If that is the case, then
why do athletes miss classes for sports if it is extremely
important?
Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Ranking Member Nadler.
I think it's important to note that 94 percent of our
student-athletes graduate. That's our most recent graduation
rate. While the schedule can be difficult and time constraints
can be tight, our student-athletes have shown that they can be
successful in over 140 diverse programs within our university.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Nadler. I yield back.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I now recognize Chair Jordan for five
minutes.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McIntosh, if we follow Mr. Cooper's plan, what happens?
Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Chair Jordan.
I think what happens is college athletes are eventually
deemed to be employees, and that's a model that I've not had a
student-athlete ask to be deemed an employee.
Chair Jordan. What happens to nonrevenue sports? What
happens to the Olympics--and look, let me back up a second. I'm
not a fan of the NCAA necessarily, but I am a fan of providing
opportunities to young adults who want to compete while they're
pursuing their degree.
Mr. Cooper says if we follow his plan--well, if we follow
his plan, what's going to happen to the nonrevenue--the Olympic
sports that Ms. Smith Gilbert talked about?
Mr. McIntosh. Yes. Chair Jordan, there will be a tremendous
amount of financial pressure placed on institutions.
Admittedly, at conferences like the Big Ten, we could find a
way to make it work. I think it will be detrimental to Olympic
sports at lower levels.
Chair Jordan. When I had Mr. Sankey, the SEC commissioner,
he said if we don't do something, he anticipates that you will
lose all kinds of Olympic sports. He says you're going to go to
three--now, of course, the NCAA, Division I, you have got to
have, what, 16 sports?
Mr. McIntosh. Yes, sir.
Chairman Jordan. Yes. So, he says everyone is going to go
to 16, and it will be football, basketball, and whatever sport
fits that school on the men's side, and then you will have a
comparable number or a higher number of women's sports to
satisfy Title IX.
Is that what you think happens if we don't do something,
which is my big concern?
Mr. McIntosh. I think that's an accurate portrayal of what
a likely result might be.
Chair Jordan. Now, Mr. Cooper just said as long as you give
notice that, Hey, we're going to drop your sport, but we're
going to give you a year to get ready, or if you're an athletic
department that makes, he said, ``over $100 million in
revenue,'' then that will be enough to deal with the nonrevenue
problems.
Does that work, do you think?
Mr. McIntosh. It's important just to let it be known, we
don't have any desire to drop an Olympic sport. We have no
desire to cut an Olympic sport. We have a desire to enhance the
tradition that already exists within our Olympic sports. I
don't know if giving one year's notice solves that problem. I
think there are ways in which we can ensure that Olympic sports
thrive within the House settlement.
Chair Jordan. Can the University of Wisconsin--you said you
had a $171 million operating budget.
Mr. McIntosh. Right.
Chair Jordan. Would you be able to, the way things are
going, continue to offer the 22 sports you currently do?
Mr. McIntosh. That is correct.
Chair Jordan. You can do that?
Mr. McIntosh. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. You think you can continue to do that even if
nothing changes?
Mr. McIntosh. Yes, sir. We'll be able to operate 23 sports.
We'll be able to offer and operate 23 sports with world-class
opportunity competitively, academically, made possible because
of the stability provided by the House settlement.
Chairman Jordan. That was my next question. The House
settlement and the revenue sharing with the House settlement
you think will do that?
Mr. McIntosh. Yes, sir. The House settlement allows us to
be successful certainly in our revenue-sharing sports. Like I
mentioned earlier, those revenue--I'm sorry--revenue-generating
sports. Those sports fund the opportunity for all our student-
athletes. The unstable environment that we are currently
operating in is not sustainable to us. It has been a challenge,
and I think it has been long overdue that we can now share
revenues directly with those athletes in a fair way, in a
generous way, and that will, in turn, support the entire model,
the entire ecosystem, which we have been successful in the
past.
Chair Jordan. Thank you.
Ms. Smith Gilbert, comments on some of the same things I
asked Mr. McIntosh, if you could. I felt like you were wanting
to jump in there.
Ms. Smith Gilbert. No, I never want to jump in, but thanks
for the question.
If we're talking from an employment standpoint, I'm not an
employer. I'm a teacher, a leader, and a mentor. I think if you
make student-athletes follow an employment model, then it
changes the relationship between the coach and the athlete. An
athlete should not be put under the pressure of being employees
at such a young age.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Albiero.
Mr. Albiero. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I
think ultimately the impact on our sport, in the sport of
swimming and diving, which has been a foundational sport for
the Olympic movement, will be severely impacted.
Chair Jordan. Yes. I know we've had the USSE in to talk
with us. We've had the Women's Volleyball Association,
Wrestling Coaches Association. All are very concerned about
what happens to--if we don't do something what happens to the
nonrevenue sports that are part of our--as Ms. Smith Gilbert
talked about, part of our Olympic training ground. That's a big
concern I have.
With that, I yield back. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for unanimous consent
requests.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have two unanimous consent
requests. The first is I ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record a post from bold.org titled, ``How do college
athletes get paid?'' It explains that only one percent of
college athletes receive full scholarships. Therefore, most pay
tuition at their respective universities, meaning Olympic
sports are not a con for athletic departments.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. The second unanimous consent request
is I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article
in the Washington Post dated January 21, 2025, entitled
``College football has turned pro. Let's talk about those tax
breaks,'' which illustrates how top schools in the NCAA
collected more than $3 billion in revenue in 2023 without
having to pay taxes because of their framing that their
athletic activities further education, illustrating that the
NCAA not only makes a high profit based on uncompensated labor,
but also at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
Mr. Raskin, is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.
The Terps are on a roll. The men's basketball team is
piling up win after win, including Saturday night against
Northwestern, and our women's team made it to the Big Ten
quarter finals.
Thanks to recent changes, these highly competitive
basketball players can get some tangible benefits from their
extremely lucrative play and work by monetizing their personal
publicity rights. Players can now use their name, their image,
their likeness revenue to invest in themselves and their
families and their communities.
We're talking about whether we should give further power to
the NCAA, a nominally nonprofit organization that collects
hundreds of millions of dollars a year based primarily on the
athletic performance of these students. They want Federal
statutory protections to enable them to roll back the positive
changes that have been made for students to gain immunity from
the consequences of breaking the law and to permanently prevent
players from having a seat at the table.
The NCAA has repeatedly put institutional profits over
players' health and safety, academic achievement, and economic
freedom. It is a repeat offender of our antitrust laws and has
lobbied for decades to be wholly exempt from Title IX and law
enforcement. The NCAA has had a monopoly on college sports and
the revenues they generate for decades and has consistently
failed to make needed changes to help the student players
without outside pressure.
Consider the situation of college women basketball players.
The NCAA says that academics is a key part of the college
athlete experience, and yet, women players complain that their
travel schedules meant they can go for a month without
attending any of their courses in person. Despite claiming they
care about athletes; the NCAA has allowed women basketball
players to be pressured to play through their injuries. Despite
claiming to care about the balance between sports and academic
achievement, the NCAA has allowed schools to refuse to
recognize course credits for transfer students. Despite
claiming to care about the student side of the college
athlete's life, the NCAA allows schools to prevent athletes
from choosing the major they want if it conflicts with practice
and travel schedules.
Our Division I women basketball players are commonly
required to practice and play an average of 50 hours a week,
and yet for many their low stipend means they're paid less than
$10 an hour and cannot afford rent.
Women college basketball makes less on their name, image,
and likeness than their male counterparts. The Trump
Administration recently retracted guidance that would have
ensured personal publicity opportunities were distributed
fairly among athletes.
The NCAA and the conference they work with want us to give
them a law that would roll back recent positive changes for
players, give the NCAA and conference immunity from the laws
they break and keep the players voiceless forever. We have
consistently undervalued and underinvested in women's sports,
but now that women's college basketball is clearly a profitable
business for schools, conferences, and the NCAA, it's high time
that women players get a seat at the table. A collection of 120
Division I basketball players has been rejected by the
commissioners of the Big Ten and the SEC.
These players are not unionizing. They're not striking.
They're just asking for a seat at the table, asking for the
chance to provide input for the people who control their sport
and their lives on the court.
Colleagues, let's not give these repeat offenders a
bailout. The NCAA only makes changes in response to
Congressional pressure or lawsuits. They've done little over
the decades to make any proactive, positive changes for the
students. Even today, the conferences that make hundreds of
millions on uncompensated college athlete labor refuse even to
sit down with the players who pay their salaries.
I thank our witnesses for coming here today.
Mr. McIntosh, if I said that the NCAA earned $1.28 billion
in revenue in the 2022-2023 school year, would that sound about
right to you?
Mr. McIntosh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Raskin. If I said that the college football playoff
series has brought in over $500 million a season in recent
years, is that correct?
Mr. McIntosh. That sounds right.
Mr. Raskin. Do any of these billions of dollars of revenue
make their way into players' pockets--and I'm not talking about
personal publicity rights here, only about shares of broadcast
revenue--does it make it to the players?
Mr. McIntosh. Ranking Member, that's a great question. It
does make its way to the players through Alston payments, cost
of attendance, and it funds the approximately $4 billion of--
Mr. Raskin. Just claiming my time. Just in terms of direct
payment to the players?
Mr. McIntosh. Alston payments are direct payment to
players.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Mr. Cooper, until the House settlement is
finalized, players who create the revenue that fuel the most
competitive colleges' athletic departments pay the salaries and
the operating budget of NCAA and fund the conferences, they
will not get any money from these highly profitable
broadcasting deals. Is that right?
Mr. Cooper. They currently do not. If the House settlement
is approved, then schools will be allowed to share up to $20
million a year with them. However, schools will not be required
to share any of that revenue.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Mr.--Oh, sorry.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman's time has expired.
I will now recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming for five
minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Good morning and thank you for being here.
Mr. McIntosh, your testimony touches on the outside forces
that are driving changes in collegiate sports. As for negative
changes, you have identified those to the transfer portal,
which allows athletes to now transfer every year and face no
ineligibility. Changes such as those are of great concern to
me, representing a less populated State with smaller schools in
Wyoming, which is a member of the Mountain West Conference,
which must compete for recruits and players with the power five
conferences and all other Division I schools.
How have these changes incentivized or pressured student-
athletes to use the transfer portal more frequently?
Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think it is a
great question. I think the combination of third-party NIL and
permissibility of unlimited transfers has put our coaches in a
real tough position. It's caused our student-athletes--it's
harmed their academic progress. It's created roster
instability, which I think is not fair to teammates on those
teams. In short, it's put us in extremely unstable environment.
This is an area in which we need help, we need help from
Congress to be able to create commonsense rules that would
allow student-athletes to transfer for the right reasons but
also preserve their academic progress toward a degree.
Ms. Hageman. What are some of the recommendations that you
would make in that regard?
Mr. McIntosh. There have been many discussions and
explorations of possibilities. Concepts like one transfer
permissible in a period of time. Like these are areas that we
would explore. There is a need for a student-athlete, or a
student-athlete's voice in that discussion. These are the
things that we talk to with our student-athletes.
Ms. Hageman. One of the things I see, again, especially
coming from a State like Wyoming where we don't have
professional sports. Our only sports are the University of
Wyoming. It's incredibly important to the people of Wyoming
that we maintain a competitive basketball team, football team,
but we also have wrestling. We have a rodeo. That's something
that I don't think people have talked much about, the impact on
rodeo teams of what you're discussing today.
I can see a circumstance where we might recruit somebody.
Josh Allen went to the University of Wyoming. One of the
greatest football players of all time. I can see where why we
would recruit someone to be cornerstone of a team only to have
that person lured away by another school, which would
essentially, or could essentially, destroy the entire program,
at least for that year, if not for a longer period of time.
That this is a very significant issue that does need to be
addressed. I want to protect the athletes as well. One of the
things that we've always done when we look at college athletics
is this gives students an opportunity to be part of a team
after high school, to be part of a track and field team, to be
part of a swim team, to have that experience, while at the same
time, going to college and getting a degree that is so
necessary for their long-term well-being.
Ms. Smith Gilbert, when we have these kinds of transfer
situations, what does that do to a student's ultimate academic
record and their ability to get the degree so that they have
the successes long-term? Because I would assume--I don't know
the percentage--but I would assume it's a very small percentage
of people who actually go on to make this a career to become
professional athletes. Providing that education is highly
important. What is the ease of transfer due to the ability to
provide that academic experience they need?
Ms. Smith Gilbert. In the sport of track and field, that's
a really good question, Congresswoman. What I'm finding is
unlimited transfers--and you have to understand in track and
field, we may have four or five windows of the transfer portal
per year. Cross country has a window, indoor has a window, and
outdoor has a window. It is never stable. You may have someone
running this week at Nationals who may get in the portal on
Monday and leave, but they have to go to school and finish
classes, but it's in the middle of the semester.
They're looking around in the middle of the season to try
to see where they can go, where their credits will transfer,
where they'll be accepted to the next school. What I'm finding
is, as much as I push them to get a master's degree, a lot of
times depending on when they transfer, it's not a viable option
because maybe admissions isn't accepting graduate degrees at
that time, or you're off track.
They end up taking undergraduate classes all for nothing,
just anything to just be at the new school. That's very
detrimental when they could have had a master's degree.
Ms. Hageman. I think it is, too. One other issue, and I'm
almost out of time, but we also need to talk about the
regulation associated with agents and their access to students,
and make sure that we are protecting the students from what I
would consider to be predators almost in the way that they
treat our athletes. I don't have time to go into that, but I
very much appreciate you being here and addressing this
complicated subject. With that I yield back.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman yields back.
I now recognize Ranking Member Raskin for a unanimous
consent request.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This one is from the New
York Post entitled, ``Ex-Wisconsin Women's Basketball Player
Makes Disturbing Abuse Allegations Against Head Coach.'' The
other is from a press release from the University of Wisconsin
Badgers titled, ``Moseley resigns from Wisconsin Women's
Basketball.''
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
The gentleman from California is now recognized for five
minutes. Mr. Correa.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to start
with asking unanimous consent to submit documents for the
record.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
Mr. Correa. Information sheet from Chapman University
entitled, ``Athletics NCAA Division III Fact Sheet for
Congressional Districts 40 and 46''; a letter dated March 10th
of this year from Cal State Fullerton, Department of
Intercollegiate Athletics.
Both of these letters address the issue of college athletes
becoming employees and ask Congress to address national
landscape related to NIL and other matters. A third letter from
student-athlete Advisory Committees Divisions I, II, and III.
An article from the Daily Breeze, titled, ``Loyola Marymount
Made a Tough Choice to Drop Six Sports--Will Other Universities
Follow?'' Finally, Bloomberg Law article entitled, ``College
Unions Raise Specter of Scholarship Tax Hit.''
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
Mr. Correa. I want to start out by thanking the NCAA for
making a total mess--sports, college sports. Given that track
record, we find ourselves today where NCAA is asking for an
antitrust exemption in perpetuity given that sports, college
sports are still evolving. It's a very interesting question. I
just ask, Mr. Chair, that we do have additional hearings to
address these issues here.
All of us are college sports fans, whether it be football
or basketball. Personally, I love college wrestling. To think
the amount of money that's involved in college sports. Just USC
recently signed $110 million contract, 10-year contract with
our head coach, the football.
On the other hand, let me show you something.
[Displays football helmet.]
Mr. Correa. This is the last football helmet from my alma
mater, Cal State Fullerton, the second largest school in
California with 42,000 athletes. In 1992, because of budget
reasons--what did I say.
Mr. Raskin. Athletes.
Mr. Correa. With 42,000 athletes' students. Students.
Mostly blue-collar working families, my neighbors, cut football
in 1992 because of budgetary reasons. In 2010, they cut the
wrestling team because of budgetary reasons. This was
especially painful to me because a lot of the kids in my
neighborhood are street kids. If it wasn't for wrestling, God
knows where they would be. More importantly, wrestling gave
them a taste of success that has changed their lives.
Now, local athletic programs don't offer college wrestling.
It limits their educational opportunities because most of them
don't have scholarships. They live in the neighborhood. They
have got to go to a place where they can live at home and
wrestle.
Mr. Chair, there are college athletes in 1,000-plus
schools, D-II and D-III. They're not football or basketball
powerhouses. My issue, my question today is, how will these
changes affect those blue-collar middle class families,
students that are trying to get their college education?
My question to all of you, beginning with Mr. Cooper, is
how will allowing athletes to become employees help or harm
these thousands of students that are trying to get a college
education? Mr. Cooper? Let's start talking about becoming
employees. Go ahead.
Mr. Cooper. There's clearly a difference between the D-I,
D-II, and D-III institutions, which is why the NCAA has those
distinctions. A similar distinction will inevitably will be
drawn between the power five and the rest of D-I. Because
there's 32 conferences in D-I, and the lower resource
institutions in D-I and Wisconsin and--
Mr. Correa. Good? Bad?
Mr. Cooper. What do you mean?
Mr. Correa. Do you have an employee that can hurt--
Mr. Cooper. Well, the same rules don't need to be imposed
on every athlete. The D-I and D-II rules are not the same.
Mr. Correa. --a little bit more than is what you're saying?
The solution isn't clear yet.
Mr. Cooper. There isn't a simple solution that can be
summarized in 30 seconds that applies to all athletes.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Cooper, I have eight seconds left. Mr.
Albiero.
Mr. Albiero. Yes, my concern again from a standpoint of
swimming and diving, an Olympic, sport, nonrevenue sport, the
employee model would be extremely detrimental to us. Simple as
starting with the level of services that we provide for mental
health support, nutrition, athletic training, medical support,
all of the sudden, those things could be taxed, it creates a
nightmare scenario.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much. Ms. Smith Gilbert.
Ms. Smith Gilbert. The employee model will affect us in
track and field because I have majority student-athletes from
underserved communities, and they're not going to have the
money to pay for these resources. They have no other way--
Mr. Correa. They could negotiate a collective bargaining
contract to pay for those resources.
Ms. Smith Gilbert. I don't know about that. I'm a track
coach. Maybe.
Mr. Correa. Mr. McIntosh.
Mr. McIntosh. Congressman, what I would say is I
participated as a professional athlete as an employee. I was
injured in my second year, and I was terminated after my third
year. That's a system that is more adverse to an athlete than
the system we live in today in, which other student-athletes
have guaranteed scholarships regardless of injury.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am out of time. Like
you said, I do hope to have further hearings on this issue.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Baumgartner.
Mr. Baumgartner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I am delighted
the Committee is having this hearing. This is a very important
issue to me.
I came to Congress in part to work specifically on this
issue. In the Washington State legislature, I was the Chair of
the Commerce, Labor, and Sports Committee. I worked a lot on
higher education issues. Here I have helped found the
Bipartisan College Sports Caucus.
This is a very important issue to me, and I campaigned on
this issue. I spent a considerable amount of time talking to my
voters because we care quite a bit about this issue.
College sports is very, very important to the American
public. It contributes to social cohesion, it contributes to
opportunities for young people, and also is vitally important
for our economies in our region. These are highly subsidized
public goods. Highly subsidized public goods that we're dealing
with in college education.
While I am delighted that we have two members from the Big
Ten in the FCC here, and I very much want to work with you on
these issues, it is difficult for me to sit here as someone
from the Pack 12, knowing that the greed of ESPN and the
football programs at the Big Ten, and the FCC have contributed
to the breakdown in the traditional model in college athletics.
That's very tough for me.
Mr. McIntosh, I do I want to work on this issue. Can you,
in good faith, tell me that it is in the best interest of
student-athletes for volleyball players or Olympic athletes to
travel across the country on a weekly basis? Does a national
sports league in college athletics make any sense when it comes
to student-athlete welfare?
Mr. McIntosh. Well, Congresswoman, thank you for your
question. First, I'd like to say, I'm empathetic to your
position on breaking up with the Pack 12. It was a tragic
situation in the landscape of college athletics.
I would say this to your question, sir, our student-
athletes already play a national schedule. Our student-athletes
travel all over the country, whether they're in revenue-
generating sports or Olympic sports to play all over the
country and to play the best teams.
Mr. Baumgartner. Well, I would disagree. When I talk to
most taxpayers, they think it is absurd that the volleyball
team from Oregon or the University of Washington is traveling
across the country to play the schools like Maryland. In fact,
if you look at the frequent comments by coaches like the
basketball coach at UCLA, he's also talked about the strain
this year that it's putting on student-athletes that travel
across the country.
For the good of taxpayers, I think for when we hopefully
put the genie back in the bottle here, we do have to seriously
have to look at the student-athlete welfare on this issue.
Mr. Cooper, in college athletics, football makes a ton of
money--there's a ton of money, particularly in Power 5
football. The current model tries to pay for everything else
with that football money, but in the era of unfettered free
agency, and the era of NIL where there's no salary caps, we
have this uncontrolled arms race in football that allows
coaches to make considerable sums of money. It is now the
Olympic sports that have a lot of value that are at risk.
In your model, how would athletes be treated if they were
treated with--if you were to be successful, would Shedeur
Sanders, or someone that is a very high-profile athlete, would
he receive more in payments than a college wrestler? Or how
does your group envision payments working if you are to be
successful?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, so as you emphasize, these are highly
subsidized public goods, and that is an important fact to
remember here. Because they have not been operating under the
antitrust laws, they have been inefficiently allocating these
funds. They conceal how much money they're spending on their
own salaries, frankly.
In terms of whether athletes should all be paid equally; I
think most folks would agree that the funds generated by a
sport should go to that sport. How those decisions are made
should not be made unilaterally bythe administrators in closed
doors. They should be held accountable by taxpayers to spend
that money efficiently both in how they're compensating coaches
and administrators, but also how they're compensating athletes.
Mr. Baumgartner. Well, if we were to do that, football is
the one that makes all the money. Under that model then, all
the money stays with football players, and it is the Olympic
athletes that would continue to suffer. That you need to think
through exactly what that would mean to how we save Olympics
sports. I would say just in closing, I have five kids, two of
them participate in track and field and two of them were all-
Americans in junior athletics. I would love them to be runners
someday either at West Point or for Washington State
University. I just really believe that the current model is--
that it is too broken.
If this Congress does not do something to step forward to
save on the big sports, that my kids, your kids, and every kid
are not going to have that opportunity, because it's all going
to in football with the FCC and the Big Ten, and ESPN, and Fox
Sports, and a bunch of backroom deals of TV execs instead
elected, accountable officials who are responsible to the
taxpayers.
We got to sort this out. This has to get fixed in this
Congress. I showed up here with a lot of people talking about
this issue, but we really need to fix this. It can't be the
typical, nonunion demonization schools, NCAA evil. We really
have to work on this issue and come to a solution. Thank you.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
I recognize the Ranking Member for a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is from the Athens
Banner--Herald, titled, ``Details on What University of Georgia
is Paying New Track Coach Raises for Tennis Coach and Group
Assistance.''
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection. I now recognize the
gentlewoman from Vermont.
Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
College sports are unique in that they unite, and they
inspire parts of our country that may not have a professional
team. We saw that firsthand in Vermont as our Catamounts
electrified the entire State on the way to winning the Division
I 2024 men's soccer national championship. Go Cats.
College sports are exciting. They inspire us. They also
pose a dilemma, particularly when we talk about big-time
football and basketball.
Is it right that a multibillion-dollar industry does not
pay its workers? I want to appreciate that you're all here
today giving your valuable time. I want to direct that question
to Mr. Cooper. What's your perspective on that intense
contradiction?
Mr. Cooper. No, it is fundamentally wrong that they do not
pay their workers.
Ms. Balint. One of the things that I want to lift up right
now, Mr. Cooper, is that you're also somebody who has spoken in
the past about the mental health impact on college athletes. I
just want to give you a few minutes to talk about that. It's
something that's very important to me.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and for me as well. That's why I got
into this. When I was a student at Washington State University,
our quarterback, Tyler Hilinski, my classmate, died by suicide.
That is what compelled me to work with his family, to advocate
for mental health. Through that, I was elected the SAC
president, the student-athlete Advisory President at Washington
State. The more I pushed for mental health policies at the
school and in the conference, the more pushback I got, and they
refused to do anything or to listen to our concerns.
The reality is, this business is so lucrative that there is
so much money being thrown at coaches, they put that pressure
on athletes, and there is nothing the NCAA has a rule that says
you can only spend 20 hours a week on sports. A Pack 12 study
found that athletes are working 50 hours a week. There's
nothing stopping them from doing 60-70. There's no
accountability in the system as a whole, and so that is--
Ms. Balint. It's tied up in this issue, isn't it?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, so from a mental health standpoint, if you
were working 50 hours a week, 60 hours a week, and you also
have to go to class, it is ripe for abuse, and athletes' mental
health is suffering. College athlete suicide rate has doubled
over the last 20 years. That is largely in part due to the fact
that there are no enforceable safety mandates in this business.
There are only guidelines and recommendations. When a coach
actually breaks the rules, there's no accountability
whatsoever, and there's no mechanism for athletes to hold them
accountable.
Ms. Balint. I really, really appreciate what you have just
said here because it's important for us to focus on who we
should be looking out for? We should be looking out for those
student-athletes. So, thank you so much.
It does seem unfair to me and many folks here in this
Committee hearing that young athletes put their bodies and
their minds on the line for mass entertainment, and yet they're
not paid directly for their work.
Now, I've heard some good discussion here today on what is,
in fact, a pretty complex topic. There's a lot to consider
regarding NIL deals, looking at NCAA antitrust exemption, and
whether we ought to consider those athletes as employees under
labor law.
I know that it's important for us to ask who is best
equipped to handle these complicated questions? I would argue
that the experts at the agencies that Congress have empowered
to handle employment issues and enforcement of antitrust laws
are the ones best equipped. I'm talking about the National
Labor Relations Board. I'm talking about the Federal Trade
Commission. I'm talking about the Department of Justice.
The courts have a role here, too. As we've heard, we may
have a settlement this year providing for the payment of
college athletes. Now, it would be great for Americans if we
had these institutions ready to help us sort out these issues,
but we don't, because we have an administration right now who
is partnering with Elon Musk to dismantle some of these
agencies. We should be talking about whether we owe college
athletes additional compensation.
We should also be talking about the agencies that the Trump
Administration is illegally dismantling, the ones that Congress
has empowered to solve problems, like college athlete
compensation.
We don't have an independent board in charge of determining
whether these athletes can collectively bargain. Why not?
Because the President illegally fired a board member, and the
entire board is now deadlocked. At the FTC, we've seen
antitrust division staff terminated. For some odd reason,
they're forced to move to the USAID building. That agency is
also deadlocked and in chaos, because of this administration's
actions.
I don't even have enough time because I see I'm running
short here on the abuses happening at the Department of
Justice. My point is this: Let's keep the main thing the main
thing. We have agencies that can help us to look at these
complex issues. Right now we were not funding those agencies to
do their jobs. I yield back.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman yields back.
The gentleman from Virginia is now recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Cline. I thank the Chair for holding this hearing. I
thank our witnesses for being here as well. I want to echo what
the gentlelady said. This is about the student-athletes, and we
need to keep that in mind, first and foremost, keeping in mind
that they are student-athletes, and we should do no harm so
that they do not unintentionally, through government
destruction of the sports industry, become only students, and
don't have the opportunity to become student-athletes.
I was a student-athlete at a very small school. I swam
Division III because I wasn't fast enough to swim Division I.
It was a great program, Mr. Albiero, if student-athletes become
employees, which they are not now, Division I schools like
James Madison University in my district, other Division III
programs in Virginia--Washington and Lee, Bridgewater--they may
struggle to afford salaries and benefits. Would this force
schools to cut sports like swimming, or reduce participation?
Mr. Albiero. Thank you. Unquestionably. I think we're
already seeing some of those changes right now and some of the
pressures in programs dropping. Specifically, Cal Poly recently
dropped men's and women's swimming. It's a travesty. Small
school, phenomenal academic environment. To your point, those
opportunities are now gone.
We are very concerned about this model and the pressures
that we put on Olympic sports, specifically, nonrevenue sports.
Mr. Cline. Do you think that schools in Division II,
Division III, do you think they should be exempt from athlete
employment rules if those are set up due to financial
constraints, or would that complicate the situation even worse?
Mr. Albiero. Well, there were three different divisions and
they have different priorities in each one of those. I'm not
sure how that would apply unilaterally, but certainly an
important topic.
Mr. Cline. So many students in Division III schools in my
district and across the country play sports as a passion rather
than as a career path. That was my goal. If college athletes
are classified as employees, could this discourage student
participation at schools without major financial backing?
Mr. Albiero. A hundred percent. There's a very strong
responsibility.
Mr. Cline. If there is some kind of tiered-employment model
where only power four athletes are treated as employees--again,
you indicated that this might be a solution, but it might be
just adding complicating factors to the situation?
Mr. Albiero. I would agree with that. Again, back to
ultimately the impact in all sports nonrevenue sports would be
devastating.
Mr. Cline. If student-athletes become employees, would
schools need to provide healthcare, worker's comp, and
retirement benefits?
Mr. Albiero. It comes with the employee, right? That's
something that's really important. To a point earlier, in terms
of mental health support, it's something that for us is really
important at the University of Louisville where we invested
seriously in that area with the tune of 10 professionals that
now work with our programs.
Mr. Cline. Would smaller programs be able to afford this?
Would that potentially lead to program cuts?
Mr. Albiero. It's possible to think that way clearly.
Mr. Cline. Mr. McIntosh, employee status could mean that
scholarships and benefits are taxable income for athletes.
Should Congress provide tax exemptions for scholarships of
athletes who are reclassified as employees?
Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Congressman. The idea of
classifying student-athletes as employees even at the autonomy
4 level is one that we need to be careful and examine closely.
Wisconsin, we have 23 sports. Six of those sports generate
revenue. Two of those sports turn a profit. It's those profits
that fund the opportunity for everyone else. To grant an
exemption for employees in Olympic sports, I would just tell
you that the detriment to those student-athletes, the tax
consequence that they would face given the benefits that they
already receive, the guarantees that they are already
benefiting from--guaranteed scholarships would be put at risk.
Mr. Cline. Could tax burdens discourage athletes from
enrolling in certain States with higher income taxes? That
could be a factor as well. You look at States--I don't know
about Wisconsin. I don't know that they have--how their tax
rates are. I know Vermont's are pretty high, but Virginias are
too high. What would you say to that?
Mr. McIntosh. It should be a priority of ours to allow the
academic and athletic reputation of our institutions stand
alone and be what helps a young person decide what school
they're going to go to. I'm not sure that State-by-State tax
law or--
Mr. Cline. Not the tax rates.
Mr. McIntosh. I'm not sure that's where we want to compete.
Mr. Cline. I appreciate that. I yield back.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentle--
Ms. Balint. I have a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman is recognized.
Ms. Balint. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record an article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, titled,
``The Pressure on student-athletes Keeps Mounting.''
Mr. Fitzgerald. With objection. The gentleman from Illinois
is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chair Fitzgerald, and to the
witnesses here today. We're here today to discuss whether the
NCAA, a nonprofit organization that makes over $1 billion a
year off of uncompensated college athlete labor, safe harbor
from antitrust laws. In some ways, this is a complex and nuance
legal issue, but for me, it's a pretty simple question. It's
whether or not people have rights, labor rights at that.
Let me be clear, I'm a strong supporter of college
athletics, but I'm also proud that Illinois enacted a law led
by State Representative Kam Buckner and others allowing college
athletes to be paid for the use of their name, image, and
likeness.
It's because of my strong support for college athletics
that I strongly oppose legislation that grants the NCAA and
antitrust exemption and prohibits athletes from being
recognized as employees.
Let's talk about the facts. The fact is that athletes are
controlled by their institutions, and many of them spend more
than 50 hours a week on their sport while in season. The fact
is that the entire college athlete system is designed to
suppress the compensation and labor rights of players.
The fact is that income NCAA is big business. In the 2023
school year, it earned $1.28 billion of revenue from the labor
of players who received none of that revenue. The fact there's
coaches and athletic directors profit handsomely from this
system.
In 2023, the highest paid State official in 43 States was a
college coach. Here in the room we have an athletic director
that makes $1.45 million per year and oversees a program that
spends nearly $200 million per year.
I just don't buy the argument that there isn't enough money
to pay athletes. I don't believe that Congress should forever
prevent athletes from exercising their labor rights, whether we
like it or not--we like the term or not.
Let me ask you, Mr. Cooper, if players cannot be recognized
and employees, what other avenues do they have to see critical
changes to the system that controls their lives, their sport,
and their compensation?
Mr. Cooper. None. They would have to go through Congress or
file lawsuits. Both of which are incredibly difficult
processes, they wouldn't have any way to hold the NCAA
accountable in the same way they have no way now.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I want to quickly touch on an
important point here about our Federal agencies. College
athletes are fighting right now for the right to be recognized
as an employee under the National Labor Relations Act. I
strongly support their efforts. Even if they win their fight,
they will have limited recourse to enforce their rights because
of Donald Trump and Elon Musk in their efforts to gut the NLRB.
That's why I've spoken out against the illegal attempts to fire
Gwen Wilcox, who was reinstated in a blistering court opinion
last week. It's why I continue to fight against dismantling of
agencies that uphold critical rights, like the Department of
Education, which enforces Title IX as you have testified.
Let's be clear, the reason why Republicans are doing this
is because these agencies fight for workers, and Republicans
fight for billionaires. I'll continue to fight really hard on
behalf of all Americans, not just the rich and powerful.
Mr. Chair, before I yield back, I ask unanimous consent--
Mr. Fitzgerald. Sure.
I recognize the gentleman's unanimous consent request.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you. I have the unanimous consent. Its
request is to add to the record, a memorandum written by the
NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo to all regional directors
and officers in charge, dated September 20, 2021, titled,
``Statutory Rights of Players and Academic Institutions,''
student-athletes under the National Labor Relations Act, which
proves through the case at Northwestern University that college
athletes must be considered employees under Section 2C of the
NLRA, and that leading them to believe that they do not have a
statutory protection is a violation of Section 881 of the Act.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection. The gentleman's time has
expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank all of you on the
panel that are here. I appreciate your testimoneys. I have had
an opportunity to read them through as well as what you have
shared today.
I'll be brief. Director McIntosh, are you facing pressures
internally to make your student-athletes employees?
Mr. McIntosh. No, sir. My student-athletes are not asking
to become employees.
Mr. Harris. You're saying your student-athletes don't want
to be employees?
Mr. McIntosh. That is correct.
Mr. Harris. OK. Well, I have serious concerns that
classifying student-athletes as employees would ruin college
sports as we know it. In fact, if student-athletes unionized,
it could alleviate antitrust scrutiny, but more likely,
employee status would have the effect of increasing antitrust
scrutiny among a host of other problems.
So, Mr. McIntosh, as we consider ways for Congress to act
to protect the relationship between student-athletes and
universities, what problems do you think might arise if we fail
to act?
Mr. McIntosh. Well, Congressman, we're in a world right
now, an environment right now that is not sustainable, that is
not stable, and we need Congress' help to create some stability
so that we can ensure that the mission of college athletics,
(1) the education; (2) broad-based opportunity; and (3) the
competitive equity can be delivered on.
I fear right now given the environment and the direction
that we're going that we will not be able to do that in the
future. I fear that rules meant to create stability for college
athletics are being challenged every day in the courts. This is
an area in which we need your help.
Mr. Harris. What might happen if some States or schools
classified student-athletes as employees while others did not?
What do you see in that scenario?
Mr. McIntosh. Well, Congressman, I don't think that's a
great scenario. It raises issues of competitive equity and
fairness that are pretty dire.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to yield the balance of my time to Mr.
Jordan.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. McIntosh, the other side, the previous speaker talked
about--I think the term he used is uncompensated labor of
college athletics. What's a full grant made scholarship over
five years? What's that for a college athlete?
Mr. McIntosh. In total, sir, $125,000.
Chair Jordan. Room, board, books, tuition, everything you
get is $125,000 a year or--
Mr. McIntosh. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you meant--that was
tuition, sir.
Chair Jordan. Just tuition?
Mr. McIntosh. Yes.
Chair Jordan. When you add it all up--books, board, the
clothing they get, the food they get, the meal plan, the
tutors--what's it over five years with most athletes register
the year, they go five years, what's that total.
Mr. McIntosh. Sir, on a per-average basis, it's an
investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars per athlete.
Chair Jordan. OK. Now the House's decision is going to say:
We got 20 million bucks coming to the university that you can
then divvy up for the athletes as well--is that right? On top
of what you described?
Mr. McIntosh. That's correct.
Chair Jordan. Then there's also, for some athletes,
particularly some of the best football, basketball players,
whatever, they're going to get NIL money from some
businessperson who wants them to advertise at the car
dealership or whatever. There's that revenue for the athlete;
that is income for the athlete as well?
Mr. McIntosh. That is correct. Market-based NIL.
Chair Jordan. Then, we have at the big places, the big
universities, the collective which is out raising money to also
get athletes to come--typically football players--I don't know
what your collective is. I know at Ohio State it's a lot of
money. My guess is that the University of Wisconsin is a lot of
money too. That also gets given to certain athletes. Is that
right?
Mr. McIntosh. That is correct.
Chair Jordan. It's far from uncompensated labor. In fact,
they're getting maybe over $1 million, a couple million
dollars, maybe more. I know in the sport of wrestling, an all-
American that goes to the portal and transfers somewhere--
they're getting $200,000-$300,000 in the sport of wrestling.
The quarterback's got to be getting millions of dollars.
This idea that there's uncompensated labor is just false.
What we want is a system where all these student-athletes get
an opportunity to continue to do what they do, participate in
sports, not hurt our Olympic mood. That's what we're trying to
get. Again, I'm not sure what the answer is, but we're trying
to figure it out.
Mr. McIntosh. That's absolutely correct, Chair Jordan.
Right now, our student-athletes have been benefiting from
opportunities that exist outside of our ecosystem and outside
of our department. We look forward to the pending settlement of
the House case that will allow us for the first time to
contribute directly, revenues directly to our student-athletes.
Chair Jordan. Right.
Mr. McIntosh. It's been a long time coming and it's long
overdue. We're embracing it, and we're excited about it.
Chair Jordan. All right. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I yield back to the Chair.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Georgia is now recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cooper, do you believe that urban and suburban athletes
recruited to play football and basketball, which are the net
positive revenue-generating sports, do you think it's fair that
those players in those sports subsidize the Olympic aspirations
of those who are looking to make it to the Olympics in
archery--
Mr. Cooper. The football or--
Mr. Johnson. --rowing, fencing, water polo, beach
volleyball, sailing, or canoeing, things that those urban
students and suburban students who are playing football and
basketball, they or their classmates in high school, they have
no opportunity to do those--but should they--is it fair that
they subsidize the Olympics aspirations of the country club
set?
Mr. Cooper. The predominantly Black football and basketball
players who generate the vast majority of the revenue, they
should have rights, worker rights, and be entitled to a share
of the revenue that they generate. From an Olympic sport
standpoint, the Olympic sports could easily be subsidized by
university endowments, or through State and Federal funding.
This country is one of the only--we're one of the only
countries in the world that does not federally fund Olympic
sport developments.
Mr. Johnson. Well, gosh, I am troubled here by the fact
that the Chair of the Committee talks about how $125,000 a year
in scholarship and room and board, and that kind of thing over
five years, and doing that for a number of athletes in football
and in basketball is a lot of money that the school is giving
those players. While at the same time, we got a guy like Jimbo
Fisher being paid $77.5 million in a contract buyout when he
lost his coaching job.
Can you explain to me how we could pay one man $77.5
million for a contract buyout, while at the same time really
nickeling-and-diming those athletes on whose labor, that money
is being paid out to the coach? How could you justify that?
Mr. Cooper. You can't. Those same administrators, testified
that there is not enough money to fund Olympic sports. If they
were forced to follow the same laws as every other business in
this country, they would be forced to become more fiscally
responsible than they currently are, and spend less on their
own salaries and more on worker-athlete or college-athlete
compensation packages.
Mr. Johnson. The NCAA is crying out for an antitrust
exemption, telling us that forcing them to compete for talent
on a level playing field would lead to the death of college
sports. I find that hard to believe that an organization
earning $1.3 billion a year doesn't have enough money to go
around. That's not even including the revenue these schools get
from the football playoff and bowl games, which are operated
separately from the NCAA.
Mr. McIntosh, what is the median salary for a head football
coach at a Division I school?
It's about $3.5 million, isn't it, plus bonuses. Isn't that
correct?
Mr. McIntosh. I won't disagree.
Mr. Johnson. Are you suggesting that the Black men who are
playing football and basketball are interested in supporting
your lobbying efforts to stifle their economic opportunities in
playing college sports?
Mr. McIntosh. Absolutely not, Congressman. In fact, you and
I are in agreement that it's time for those athletes,
specifically in college football and college basketball, to
benefit from the revenues that they're creating. The House
settlement allows for that, a 22 percent of those revenues that
would go then to support them. The success from their sport
profits from the sports then--
Mr. Johnson. Why do you need an antitrust exemption?
Mr. McIntosh. Excuse me, sir?
Mr. Johnson. Why do you need an antitrust exemption?
Mr. McIntosh. We need your help to ensure that those same
athletes that I'm talking about, those football players,
basketball players, and the Olympic--all those in the Olympic
sports--one area where we need your help is so that they're not
considered to be employees.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Go ahead.
Mr. Johnson. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a report authored by Craig Garthwaite and others for the
National Bureau of Economic Research titled, ``Who profits from
Amateurism? Rent-Sharing and Modern College Sports.''
It explains how money is generated by predominantly Black
lower-income athletes and shifted into the benefit of
predominantly White Olympic athletes from higher-income
backgrounds.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection. The Ranking Member
Raskin is now recognized for a UC request.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This one is from the
National Library of Medicine dated February 2017, ``On Average,
Two NCAA Football Players Die Per Season.''
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection. The gentleman from
Kansas is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield to my colleague
from South Carolina, Mr. Fry.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Fry. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
What's interesting to me in this whole debate is, this is
the disconnect from Washington, DC, with the rest of the world,
right? That we're talking about Federalization on the other
side of college athletes with commissions and regs and all this
stuff. That is the disconnect, right? When you cross the
Potomac, somehow these things cropped up last week in the
Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard from student-athletes.
They resoundingly said, ``We don't want the employee model.''
We hear that on the other side that this is where we should go.
We hear from the coaches today who are very talented. They
don't want the employee model because it changes the face of a
student-athlete.
So, Director McIntosh, you're on the hot seat for a little
bit. I want to walk through some of the implications. That if
Congress were to adopt what others on the other side are
saying, an employee model, what does that do? First, if they're
employees, you have an employer, employee relationship, which
presumably means that they could get fired if they're injured.
Is that correct?
Mr. McIntosh. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Fry. You also have additional taxes that the university
would pay on their behalf to student-athletes' behalf. Is that
correct?
Mr. McIntosh. That's correct.
Mr. Fry. Of course, they would be paying taxes now as well
on any revenue that they receive, right?
Mr. McIntosh. I think it's actually worse than that,
Congressman. I think they would be taxed on revenue that they
receive and taxed on benefits that they currently receive in
which they're not paying taxes on.
Mr. Fry. Right, so mental wellness coaches, tutors, room
and board, food, and swag that they get, these will all be
taxable under existing law. Is that correct?
Mr. McIntosh. Potentially.
Mr. Fry. OK. What about what happens in the event that an
athlete is injured?
Mr. McIntosh. I think that's the problem. One of the
benefits that our student-athletes have right now is they have
guaranteed scholarships for four years, even if they are
injured. I lived this myself as an employee in the sports
organization in the NFL as a player. I was injured in the
second year of my contract, and I was terminated after the
third year.
Mr. Fry. All right. How many student-athletes are at the
University of Wisconsin?
Mr. McIntosh. Approximately, 800, sir.
Mr. Fry. So, 800. If you go to an employee model, you have
just hired 800 additional employees at the university, correct?
Mr. McIntosh. Theoretically, yes.
Mr. Fry. What does that do to your budget?
Mr. McIntosh. It puts tremendous pressure on our budget. I
am trying to envision our H.R. department processing 800--
posting 800 positions, posting a position for a wide receiver
on our football team. It seems impractical, sir.
Mr. Fry. Right, and to be fair, you might, as the
University of Wisconsin, be able to absorb it better than other
schools, correct? Smaller schools would be really on the
chopping block?
Mr. McIntosh. I think that is true. I think we would have a
better chance. I think it would be detrimental to programs at
lower levels.
Mr. Fry. If we decide to go to an employee model, which I
think is a mistake, you are now paying more money. What happens
naturally when you've got to pay more money, but there's a
finite amount of money that you are budgeted every year, you
have to make cuts elsewhere. Is that correct?
Mr. McIntosh. We would be forced to find the money through
growing revenue or cutting of expenses.
Mr. Fry. OK. Cutting of expenses probably means cutting of
sports, correct?
Mr. McIntosh. We would take every step necessary to avoid
that. That would be the rest resort.
Mr. Fry. Is it a reality that this could happen?
Mr. McIntosh. That would be a reality for many programs at
lower levels.
Mr. Fry. Also, what happens, too--this has not been
discussed at all. If you're injured as a college athlete, and
you are considered an employee at the university when you're
injured, does that also trigger worker's compensation laws
within the State?
Mr. McIntosh. Presumably.
Mr. Fry. What does that do to the State budgets that are
impacted?
Mr. McIntosh. It's not good for them.
Mr. Fry. Basically, all the schools, including--and we did
a liability safe harbor bill last year that was supported by
big schools, small schools, historically Black colleges,
student-athlete organizations, and entities because they need
the oxygen in which to come up with their framework.
If we go to this model, that's the rub is that when
somebody is injured, which injuries happen in college sports,
you are now blowing wide open a State budget from a worker's
compensation perspective. Because student-athletes do get hurt.
They recover, but they do get hurt. Is that correct?
Mr. McIntosh. That's correct, sir. I just think it's
important that we remind ourselves this is not what our
student-athletes are asking for.
Mr. Fry. Let's take it just briefly in my last remaining
seconds. The NCAA and other entities--I'm not going to
apologize for prior actions of the NCAA--but they can't even
enforce the rules right now without being sued. I understand
that y'all are--I say collectively--that college sports are
seeking a liability safe harbor that would kind of go along
with any Federal legislation. How important is that liability
shield to help preserve college athletics in the future?
Mr. McIntosh. Yes, thank you, Congressman. It's extremely
important. It's important to distinguish that we are not asking
for a blanket antitrust exemption. We are looking for a limited
safe harbor in areas in which we need to be allowed to make
rules like around eligibility that could preserve the
opportunity for future student-athletes in the future. I don't
think we want 12-13-year college athletes. Those are the types
of rules right now that are being determined by the courts.
Mr. Fry. Like the basketball player that was just granted
his eighth year of eligibility, right? I'm not going to call
him out by name. We're institutionalizing the Van Wilders of
college sport if we go down that model.
Mr. McIntosh. That's the risk that's out there right now.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
That concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for
appearing before the Committee today. Without--oh.
Mr. Raskin. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Two quick UC requests. One
about football concussions in The New York Times, dated
February 1, 2021.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. This one is an interview with Mr. McIntosh on
the Trust website describing the health benefits he had by
virtue of being in the NFL with the Players Association.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
All members will have five legislative days to submit
additional written questions for the witnesses or additional
materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform,
and Antitrust can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/
Committee/
Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=117995.
[all]