[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WINNING OFF THE FIELD: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
TO STABILIZE NIL AND COLLEGE ATHLETICS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING,
AND TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 12, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-27
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-154 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia Ranking Member
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama KATHY CASTOR, Florida
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice RAUL RUIZ, California
Chairman SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas DARREN SOTO, Florida
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee KIM SCHRIER, Washington
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
KAT CAMMACK, Florida LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
JOHN JAMES, Michigan JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina KEVIN MULLIN, California
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
GABE EVANS, Colorado
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
------
Professional Staff
MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
Chairman
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho, Vice Chairman JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee Ranking Member
KAT CAMMACK, Florida KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JAY OBERNOLTE, California DARREN SOTO, Florida
JOHN JAMES, Michigan LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon KEVIN MULLIN, California
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
GABE EVANS, Colorado KIM SCHRIER, Washington
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex officio)
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, opening statement............................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 5
Hon. Lori Trahan, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement............... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Yvette D. Clarke, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, opening statement........................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Witnesses
Sherika A. Montgomery, Commissioner, Big South Conference........ 20
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Answers to submitted questions............................... 150
Ramogi Huma, Executive Director, National College Players
Association.................................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Answers to submitted questions............................... 153
William King, Associate Commissioner for Legal Affairs and
Compliance, Southeastern Conference............................ 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Answers to submitted questions............................... 163
Ashley Cozad, Former Swimming Student-Athlete and Former Division
I SAAC Chair, University of North Florida...................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Answers to submitted questions............................... 177
Legislation
Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Student Compensation and
Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act of 2025........ 79
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 103
Letter from Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to
Congressional Leaders.......................................... 104
Letter from Lillian Case, Chair, Division III Student-Athlete
Advisory Committee, to Mr. Bilirakis........................... 108
Letter of February 17, 2025, from Jacqie McWilliams,
Commissioner, Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, et
al., to Ms. Clarke, et al...................................... 111
Letter of June 12, 2025, from David Polansky, Executive Director,
Saving College Sports, to Mr. Bilirakis and Ms. Schakowsky..... 114
Letter of June 12, 2025, from American Volleyball Coaches
Association, et al., to Mr. Bilirakis and Ms. Schakowsky....... 125
Statement of the American Association for Justice, ``The NCAA
Should Be Subject to More Scrutiny, Not Less, in the Face of
Decades of Anti-Trust Violations''............................. 128
Letter of June 11, 2025, from Jim Cavale, President and
Cofounder, Athletes.org, to Subcommittee on Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade members and staff..................... 130
Article of May 15, 2025, ``Which SEC football program spent the
most on severance in FY 2024?,'' by Matt Stahl, Advance Local.. 147
WINNING OFF THE FIELD: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL TO STABILIZE NIL AND
COLLEGE ATHLETICS
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office
Building, Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Bilirakis, Fulcher,
Harshbarger, Cammack, Obernolte, Fry, Kean, Evans, Goldman,
Guthrie (ex officio), Schakowsky (subcommittee ranking member),
Soto, Trahan, Mullin, Clarke, Dingell, Veasey, and Pallone (ex
officio).
Also present: Representatives Carter of Georgia and
Fedorchak.
Staff present: Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Matt
Furlow, Counsel; Sydney Greene, Director of Finance and
Logistics; Natalie Hellman, Professional Staff Member; Megan
Jackson, Staff Director; Daniel Kelly, Press Secretary; Sophie
Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff Director; Alex Khlopin, Clerk; Giulia
Leganski, Chief Counsel; Sarah Meier, Counsel and
Parliamentarian; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; Chris Sarley,
Member Services/Stakeholder Director; Matt VanHyfte,
Communications Director; Hannah Anton, Minority Policy Analyst;
Keegan Cardman, Minority Staff Assistant; Waverly Gordon,
Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany
Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Lisa Hone, Minority Chief
Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; La'Zale Johnson,
Minority Intern; Megan Kanne, Minority Professional Staff
Member; Phoebe Rouge, Minority FTC Detailee; Destiny Sheppard,
Minority Intern.
Mr. Bilirakis. The committee will come to order.
The chairman recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our legislative
hearing on name, image, likeness, and college athletics. I want
to thank our witnesses for being here today. Your experience
and insight are critical as we navigate what is arguably one of
the most transformative moments in the history of college
sports.
In recent years, we have seen a dramatic shift in college
athletes engaging in their sports, their schools, and their
personal brands. The recent House v. NCAA settlement represents
more than just a court decision. It marks a fundamental change
in how college athletes--athletics will operate going forward.
The timing couldn't be more appropriate for legislative action,
in my opinion. That is why I am leading the SCORE Act, the
Student Compensation and Opportunity Through Rights and
Endorsements Act, a comprehensive, commonsense discussion draft
that reflects months of dialog with student-athletes, athletic
directors, conference leaders, and the NCAA.
This is not just another proposal. It is a targeted
solution designed to bring predictability, fairness, and long-
term balance to a system that has rapidly evolved without
structure. The SCORE Act is built around three core principles:
clarity, by establishing a national standard that replaces the
current patchwork of State laws; stability, by setting
reasonable guardrails around the transfer portal and NIL deals
to protect both athletes and programs; and support, by ensuring
benefits like scholarship protections and financial literacy
programs are not optional, but expected.
For far too long, student-athletes have operated in a gray
area, empowered in some ways but exposed in others. The current
model lacks the transparency and consistency that both athletes
and institutions need. The SCORE Act brings that balance, in my
opinion.
And while today's hearing is just the beginning of a
broader tricommittee process with the Committees on Judiciary
and Education and Workforce--so the two committees--it is an
important step. So three committees total, including this one,
E&C--the best committee in Congress, by the way.
We are not here to micromanage college sports. We are here
to put forward a framework that strengthens it, that ensures
athletes can succeed on the field without losing sight of their
future off of it. I am proud of the work this subcommittee has
done on this issue, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get this across the
finish line.
Oh, and by the way, it is great to be a Florida Gator.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilirakis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bilirakis. All right, so the chairman now recognizes
the ranking member, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for her
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be
here today.
And in part I believe that there is a role for the
Congress, but not necessarily the one that we are looking at
today. And I am looking forward to working on it further and
hearing the testimony on what we really need to make sure--for
me, the health and welfare of the students is the most
important thing.
But we have a real expert among us, and all of the--someone
who has been involved in sports all of her growing life. And I
wanted to yield now to Congresswoman Trahan. And also after
that, if she would yield to Congresswoman Kelly.
Mrs. Trahan. Clarke.
Ms. Schakowsky. Oh, Clarke, I am sorry. Clarke, of course.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LORI TRAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you. I want to thank the ranking member
for yielding.
I am deeply disappointed. For the second year in a row,
Republicans on the committee are advancing a partisan college
sports bill that protects the power brokers of college
athletics at the expense of the athletes themselves. This
legislation was crafted behind closed doors with no input from
Democratic members on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the
Judiciary Committee, or the Education and Workforce Committee.
In fact, we didn't see a draft of this bill until late last
week--not because our Republican colleagues shared it with us,
but because lobbyists and the members of the media got it
first.
I am a former DI athlete, and I am deeply--I care deeply
about the future of college sports, so that when I asked the
chairman about the rumored hearing today, he said he would be
happy to discuss the proposal with me beforehand. Sadly, that
meeting never happened.
What makes this all the more frustrating is that there is
bipartisan agreement on serious problems in college sports that
deserve congressional action. International athletes are being
denied the same NIL rights as their teammates. Women are being
left out of roster spots due to title 9 loopholes. We could be
working together on solutions. Instead, the SCORE Act uses the
approval of the House settlement as justification to slam the
door on future progress for college athletes.
Proponents claim the system is broken, but the fact that
three separate antitrust cases are being settled proves
otherwise. We have a system where the NCAA conferences and
their member institutions set rules. Athletes can challenge
them. And if the rules are unfair, courts can intervene or a
deal can be struck. This bill rewrites that process to
guarantee that people in power always win and the athletes who
fuel this multibillion-dollar industry always lose.
I oppose the legislation as written.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Trahan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Trahan. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses,
and I yield to Congresswoman Clarke.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. YVETTE D. CLARKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ms. Clarke. I thank my dear colleague and the Ranking
Member Schakowsky for yielding some time. And thank you to our
panel of witnesses for joining us today.
The landscape of college sports has undergone a rapid
transformation over the last decade, including with the recent
settlement of landmark House v. NCAA lawsuit. But one thing
remains: the enduring popularity of college athletics.
College football remains the second-most watched sport in
American--in America behind the NFL, and this year's men's
basketball Final Four was the most watched since 2017. Women's
basketball has experienced an exponential growth in popularity
in recent years due to stars such as Angel Reese, Caitlin
Clark, and Juju Watkins.
The point is that the so-called Wild West environment that
is often used to describe college sports in this committee is
an unfair characterization. For far too long, college sports
prioritized some antiquated definition of amateurism that
provided cover to allow the billions of dollars created by the
labor of college athletes to flow to coaches, athletic
departments, conferences, and the NCAA. Just about everyone was
getting paid--except for those whose efforts created all these
streams of revenue: the players, primarily Black and Brown
young people.
So to call this the Wild West or the NIL era is ridiculous.
Let's call this what it really is: the era of athletes'
empowerment. We should embrace that, not seek to reign it in
just because the job of the college athletic director got a
little harder.
There may be a role for Congress to play in protecting
college athletes and providing clarity in certain areas, but it
is incumbent on us not to screw this up by giving undue
authority back to the remnants of the previous power structure
that exploited athletes for decades by keeping them unpaid and
subject to restrictions we would not allow in any other
industry.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Clarke. I look forward to today's discussion, and I
yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. The gentlelady yields back, and Ms.
Schakowsky yields back.
So anyway, I just want to address a couple of things, Mrs.
Trahan, and you know that I have an open-door policy, and I did
agree to meet with you. And I don't think anybody reached out
to my office to make the appointment, but I will be happy to
meet with you anytime.
And also to remind the committee that this is a discussion
draft. It is not a bill, so it is not finalized. And that is
why we are here today, to make the bill even better, or at
least make the discussion draft, which will become a bill, even
better.
So--and some of the comments that were made by other
Members at this time so far--read the discussion draft. I urge
you to do that, and also read the settlement, which is--
addresses some of the issues that concern all of us. So we
appreciate it very much.
And with that, I will yield to the chairman, Representative
Guthrie from the great State of--excuse me, Kentucky----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. For 5 minutes for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Bilirakis, and
thank you for your hard work on this. And good morning to our
witnesses, and thank you all for being here.
And before we dive in, we need to look at name, image, and
likeness agreements with our own ethics laws because I believe
August Pfluger, after his great play at third base last night,
is going to be open for opportunities for his--I don't know if
anybody saw his diving play on third base. All joking aside,
this is a serious issue. But he did do well. But I look forward
to a thought-provoking discussion that we have already started
today on the ways Congress can more--specifically this
committee--can help stabilize the current system.
This subcommittee has deeply engaged on this issue. Just
this year we have had numerous hearings, roundtables with
student-athletes, coaches, athletic directors, conference
leaders, and the NCAA, and the work has accumulated in a
discussion draft, the SCORE Act, a legislative proposal to
bring stability and clarity to the NIL arena.
Last week, the approval of the House litigation settlement
marked a historic shift in college athletics. Since the NCAA
changed their NIL rules in 2021, the NIL ecosystem has operated
without meaningful guardrails. The settlement provides long-
overdue relief to thousands of student-athletes and allows
schools to share a percentage of that revenue with their
student-athletes. While the settlement addresses key issues
with collegiate athletics, it also raises complex legal,
operational, and policy questions, especially in the absence of
consistent Federal standards for a fundamentally interstate
system. That is precisely why we are here today: to create a
sustainable Federal structure that preserves the integrity of
college sports programs.
Right now, more than 30 States have enacted NIL laws,
creating a fragmented and uneven playing field. The SCORE Act,
working in conjunction with the settlement, will help to level
this playing field and provide more consistency nationwide.
We have also seen the lack of enforceable rules around
athletic eligibility, and transferring between schools has
intensified recruiting battles and led to a surge in student-
athletes entering the transfer portal, not to mention the
challenges posed by the added player--layer of student-athlete
agents. This instability raises serious questions about the
competitive balance, the sustainability of college athletic
programs, and, most important, the athletic integrity--the
academic integrity of what our students are experiencing.
Our proposal would provide authority and liability
protection to the entities creating and enforcing such rules.
We are working closely with our colleagues when--respect of all
their jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee to refine this
language.
And lastly, the SCORE Act ensures that student-athletes may
not be considered employees of their institution. Such a
classification could put significant financial strain on
college athletic departments, lead to program cuts, and
ultimately, fewer opportunities for student-athletes.
I look forward to working closely and with all respect to
the jurisdiction of our Education and Workforce Committee on
these important issues. We have also been in close contact with
the Senate, with the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee,
who has shown a strong interest in creating a durable and
balanced framework for college athletics. I appreciate the
engagement and look forward to continuing that discussion to
get this across the finish line.
And as members of this committee, we have an important
responsibility to ensure that college athletics can thrive in a
new era. Today we will take a step in the direction by
discussing draft legislation designed to create a unified
framework to ensure--for fair treatment for student-athletes
while preserving the integrity and viability of college sports
programs.
Energy and Commerce has always led the way to tackle big
issues affecting interstate commerce in a serious way. I look
forward to continuing to work with my colleagues across the
aisle to make this a bipartisan bill, and we will work
together.
And before I yield back, I want to thank my good friend,
Chairman Bilirakis, for his diligent work over many years to
come up with solutions for NIL.
Your leadership and commitment to student-athletes has been
essential to getting us here today. And you know as well as I
do that college sports are an important American institution,
and I am glad you are willing to take the lead that you are
taking.
And I did talk to my good friend from New Jersey, the
ranking member, yesterday, and we had a kind of a colloquy
about noticing of legislative hearings. And the committee rules
said that the subject of the committee will be noticed, as
well. And the precedent has been to release legislative texts.
I think we pointed to two issues where we didn't. One was on
yesterday's meeting in the Environment Subcommittee, and the
text just had not come back from Legislative Council because
someone was out. And so I can apologize for that. That was kind
of out of our control, but we will make sure we try to--we will
follow precedent. And if for some reason we can't, I will
personally let you know that there is an issue.
The other with this--today's discussion draft for today, in
my understanding it was shared with committee as of last
Thursday. So if Members didn't get it until after it was
released to the press or to downtown, I apologize for that. I
know it was shared with your--the minority committee as of last
Thursday.
And so, of course, this is a discussion draft, and we will
do everything within our power to make sure everybody is
informed because we want to make this so we can work together
because it makes it more sustainable if it is a bipartisan
solution.
And so we will--I will just commit again we will share
legislative texts when we post legislative hearings, unless
there are extenuating circumstances. And we will communicate
that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Guthrie. So thank you, and I will yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back. Now I recognize
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank
Chairman Guthrie for what he just said about the notice. I do
appreciate the--what you are saying you are going to do in the
future. It is important for us, as the Democrats, as we prepare
for the hearings, to actually have the text and--so that we,
you know, can prepare in advance not only what we are going to
say but for the witnesses as well.
So thank you, Chairman, for what you just said.
I also wanted to mention I enjoyed the game last night. I
don't know if all of you know in the audience, but we had our
Congressional Baseball Game last night, and August--I did see
the play with August. And the only thing I would say is I know
the Democrats lost, but we did better than we did the previous
year. So I hope we are on the upswing, is what I am going to
say.
I do have to say, though, Mr. Chairman, of the--Bilirakis,
before we begin--and I don't mean to take away from this
hearing, but I am very concerned about the fact that, you know,
in order to have college sports you have to have colleges,
right? And I do believe that the Trump administration is trying
to destroy American higher education every day. Every day. And
we should be having hearings on those aspects of his
destruction of America's universities and colleges that fall
within the jurisdiction of the committee.
You know, I am very concerned that some of our best
universities--like Harvard and Columbia, for example--are
really going to go under, or really suffer greatly because of
this administration. I mean, we see elimination of research
projects which is within our jurisdiction. We see trying to tax
endowments to the point where there essentially won't be any
endowments. Taking away accreditation. Can you imagine that the
President is trying to take away the accreditation of Harvard
and Columbia? To me, this is so extreme I can't even imagine
that someone would suggest it. Prohibiting foreign students.
You talk about international athletes, he doesn't want any
international students at any university. So what are we
talking about here? And of course, the abolishment of the
Department of Education.
So my point is you can't have college sports if you don't
have colleges, and we should be talking about his effort to
destroy colleges and universities--not just the sports
programs, but the colleges themselves.
Now, getting to the issue at hand, we have heard
countless--we have had countless hearings about college sports
over the last few years. And in every hearing we have heard
that for decades, the National Collegiate Athletic Association
failed to put the interests of college athletes first.
Every witness we have heard from has agreed that finally
allowing college athletes to profit from their name, image, and
likeness is a good thing and represents a long-overdue change
in college sports. And changing the rules so that college
athletes can now profit from name, image, and likeness was a
hard-fought change won by college athletes, not by
congressional action. We can pat ourselves on the back, but it
wasn't us. It was through State legislatures and the court
system.
Just last week, a court approved a historic settlement in
House v. NCAA that allows schools to pay college athletes
subject to a salary cap of $20.5 million per school. And this
is the first time the NCAA will allow colleges and universities
to pay college athletes for the talents those athletes bring to
their institutions, conferences, and the NCAA.
Instead of celebrating progress made by college athletes,
the Republican majority has called a hearing today on a
legislative draft that would bring this progress to a dramatic
halt. The legislation grants the NCAA a broad exemption from
legal liability and seemingly limitless and unchecked authority
to govern how college athletes can get paid, transfer schools,
or be represented by an agent.
Rather than offering college athletes new, strong,
enforceable protections, the Republican bill simply codifies
recent NCAA health and safety rules but leaves college athletes
no way to enforce violation of these protections.
The bill does not offer any meaningless--any meaningful
protections to help ensure college students don't hire bad
actors as agents, and it does not provide pathways to relief if
they do. Instead, it simply allows the NCAA and the conferences
to require agents to register with those institutions. This act
of registration with a third party will do little to help
college athletes and could create a false sense of security
regarding the integrity of registered agents.
So as we discuss this bill, I believe it is important that
we don't do anything that stifles the progress being won by the
students that the NCAA is supposed to represent. The landscapes
of modern college sports is well on its way to being developed
by these recent court decisions, and Congress should allow that
work to play out.
And instead, this committee should be focused on the very
real issues facing colleges and universities, as well as
everyday Americans, because the bottom line, there's not going
to be any college sports if there are no colleges or if there
are no--colleges have no money and have no ability to function.
And that is where we are headed. That is where we are headed
with the Trump administration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back. This concludes
opening statements. The Chair would like to remind Members
that, pursuant to the committee rules, all Members' opening
statements will be made part of the record.
I want to thank all of our witnesses here today, and
taking--thanks for taking the time to testify before this
subcommittee.
Our witnesses today are Sherika Montgomery, and she is a
commissioner for the Big South Conference.
Welcome.
And then next we have, let's see, Ramogi Huma. Is that
right? The executive director of the National College Players
Association.
Welcome.
We have Mr. William King, associate commissioner of legal
affairs compliance at the Southeastern Conference.
Welcome, sir.
And we have Ms. Ashley Cozad, swimming student-athlete and
Division I SAAC chair at the University of North Florida, class
of 2024.
Welcome.
So per committee custom, each witness will have the
opportunity, 5 minutes for an opening statement, followed by a
round of questions from Members.
The light on the timer in front of you will turn from green
to yellow when you have 1 minute left.
So let's start with Ms. Montgomery.
You are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening
statement.
STATEMENTS OF SHERIKA A. MONTGOMERY, COMMISSIONER, BIG SOUTH
CONFERENCE; RAMOGI HUMA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COLLEGE
PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; WILLIAM KING, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR
LEGAL AFFAIRS AND COMPLIANCE, SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE; AND
ASHLEY COZAD, FORMER SWIMMING STUDENT-ATHLETE AND FORMER
DIVISION I SAAC CHAIR, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA
STATEMENT OF SHERIKA A. MONTGOMERY
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you so much. Chairman Bilirakis, Vice
Chairman Fulcher, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today. It is truly an honor to speak on an issue
that I care deeply about: the evolving landscape of college
athletics.
As a former women's basketball student-athlete, I know
firsthand the tremendous and invaluable impact of a prominent
student-athlete experience. It is not hyperbole to say that an
orange basketball changed the trajectory of my life and
professional career. College athletics provided me with a
pathway to higher education and an opportunity to compete on
the Division I level. Nearly 15 years later I have united an
innate advocacy for optimal student-athlete experiences and
servant and transformative leadership. I turned my avocation
into my vocation.
With a background in NCAA governance and compliance, I have
served at all three levels of college athletics: a college
campus, three Division I conference offices, and the NCAA
national office. The Big South Conference includes nine member
institutions and three contiguous States--that is North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. The Big South
Conference sponsors 19 championship sports while providing
supreme academic experiences and highly competitive athletics
to nearly 3,400 student-athletes.
For over 40 years, the Big South Conference has been
unwavering in its commitment to fostering the academic,
personal, social, athletic, and leadership development of its
student-athletes. During the 2023-2024 academic year, the
conference achieved a league record of nearly 74 percent of
eligible student-athletes earning a 3.0 grade point average or
better.
Even more impressive, a total of 1,399 student-athletes
earned a 3.5 grade point average or better. During the '24-'25
academic year our top athletic accomplishments included 18
victories over A4 and/or power conferences in 7 different
sports; ranked number 18 out of 31 in net rankings in the sport
of men's basketball; 3 notable All-Americans in volleyball,
men's and women's track and field. Former UNC Asheville men's
tennis player and three-time student-athlete Player of the Year
Henry Patton won the 2005 Australian Open men's double in
January of 2025 and won the 2024 Wimbledon doubles championship
of 2024.
For the last two decades, the Big South Conference has
annually sponsored a leadership conference--which I am proud to
say I am an alum of--that 60 student-athletes are able to come
and focus on their development as people. As you can see, we
are committed to developing the next generation of leaders
through meaningful and yet transformational student-athlete
experiences. Yet very few, if any, of our student-athletes
receive the level of NIL that makes headlines. None of our
programs generate a large sum of revenue. All of them depend on
the assistance of institutional support to fill those
competitive 19 programs we just spoke about.
The experience of our members and student-athletes is the
norm for the majority of student-athletes who compete at the
Division I level across the United States. One thing we all can
agree on is that the college athletic landscape--is that for
Big South member institutions and similar institutions, to
continue to providing life-changing experiences, clarity and
stability is essential.
In the last 2 years, the NCAA and its member institutions
have evolved and adopted warranted enhancements focused on
meeting the needs of our student-athletes, establishing the
core guarantees that I know you all are familiar with. Despite
the positive and impactful change made thus far, there are
areas that can only be addressed with the leadership of
Congress. Those areas are affirming student-athletes are not
employees, providing safe harbor from select liability
complaints and preempt State law.
As previously noted, significant progress has been made
surrounding the evolution of athletics, but we are not done. As
Chairman Bilirakis's opening statement--as he stated in his
opening statement of the March 4, 2025, ``Moving the Goalpost,
How NIL is Shaping College Athletics,'' the absence of
preeminent uniform standard has led to a Wild West environment
here, where, sadly, our student-athletes are put into a
vulnerable position where they can easily be exploited by those
who do not have their best interests in mind. As a former
student-athlete and current commissioner, I want to enable our
student-athletes to succeed on the field, in the classroom, and
financially.
We appreciate the introduction of SCORE Act 2025 and
commend your aim to bring Federal clarity to NIL frameworks. I
look forward to working with each member of the committee to
ensure that schools such as those in the Big South are able to
continue to compete and thrive. Thank you for your visionary
leadership and consideration of legislation to ensure student-
athletes are winning on and off the field for generations to
come. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Montgomery follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so very much. I appreciate it.
Now, Mr. Huma, you are recognized, sir, for your 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RAMOGI HUMA
Mr. Huma. Good morning. And first I would like to thank
Chairmen Guthrie and Bilirakis and Ranking Members Pallone and
Schakowsky for inviting me to testify today. My name is Ramogi
Huma. I am a former UCLA football player and executive director
of the NCPA, the National College Players Association.
The NCPA has served as a primary advocate in support of NIL
laws in over a dozen States and has helped craft State and
Federal bills seeking broad-based reform. The NCPA is opposed
to the SCORE Act.
College sports is in crisis, but it is not because of NIL
collectives and transfer portals. College sports is in crisis
because NCAA sports is a predatory industry that exploits
college athletes physically, sexually, and economically. The
NCAA and conferences refuse to enforce safety standards or
impose any consequences for athletic personnel who kill an
athlete in a hazardous workout, sexually abuse an athlete, or
force an athlete with a concussion back into the same game.
Just ask the parents of Calvin Dickey, Jr. and Jordan
McNair, football players who died preventable deaths at
Bucknell University and the University of Maryland; or former
San Jose State gymnast Amy LeClair, who along with her
teammates survived sexual abuse from the athletic trainer.
In surveys, Division I athletic trainers report about 20
percent of coaches return athletes to play who are deemed
medically ineligible, and more than 1 in 4 college athletes
report being sexually assaulted or harassed by a campus
authority figure. The NCPA is advocating that Congress refrain
passing any Federal legislation that does not mandate the
enforcement of safety standards by a third party and other key
protections. The SCORE Act does not address these critical
issues and is instead modeled heavily after the unjust House v.
NCAA settlement.
The SCORE Act would exclude college athletes from equal
rights under antitrust and labor law. This would prevent
unionization, which could otherwise help bring forth key safety
protections. The SCORE Act would give the NCAA power to ban all
athlete pay from colleges. If pay was allowed, it would be
optional, and the SCORE Act would directly impose a low athlete
compensation cap of 22 percent, instead of the 48 to 50 percent
of guaranteed revenue pro athletes earn, thanks to their
unions. The SCORE Act's 22 percent cap would yield different
maximum compensation amounts from one school to the next. The
total athlete payouts could be a max--could max out at $10
million at Virginia but $15 million at North Carolina and $20
million at Florida State, for example.
Athletes have no way of knowing whether their pay from a
university would exceed the compensation limit, which could
subject all athletes to that team--on that team to punishments.
The SCORE Act would permanently eliminate about $2 billion in
athlete NIL pay by gutting NIL collectives, which are booster-
funded organizations that are labeled associated entities in
the SCORE Act.
The SCORE Act would allow universities to prohibit athlete
pay conducting--conducted during athletes' free time if
dictated by a school's contract. The SCORE Act would allow the
NCAA and conferences to continue to eliminate athlete roster
spots and cut entire Olympic sports. The SCORE Act would give
the NCAA absolute power to eliminate all transfer freedoms,
even when athletes are being abused.
The SCORE Act is silent on its application of private
equity firms if they ultimately operate athletic programs or
replace an athletic association. And notably, the athlete
compensation and benefits included in the SCORE Act are not a
net gain for athletes because these provisions already exist
under State NIL laws and NCAA rules. The SCORE Act gives
athletes no recourse if a university, conference, or the NCAA
breaks the law at the athlete's expense.
And just to be clear: The current language in the SCORE Act
would hurt college athletes, not help them.
Much of this bill chases the myth of creating a level
playing field among college athletes--athletic programs, and
the truth is that there has never been a level playing field.
Rich programs and boosters have always spent money to give
their athletic programs a competitive advantage. If a level
playing field was the goal, the bill would cap coaches'
salaries and require schools to share revenue evenly amongst
themselves. Instead, the SCORE Act allows the same rich
athletic programs and boosters to keep competitive advantages
by spending unlimited amounts of money on coaches, recruiting
budgets, and lavish facilities.
To gain competitive advantage, rich athletic programs and
conferences are ruthlessly poaching the most valuable athletic
programs from less prominent conferences to gain higher TV
revenue and continue their dominance. Congress shouldn't pass
legislation to deny college athletes billions of dollars so
that the NCAA and conferences can pretend a level playing field
exists.
Finally, the NCPA is supportive of a transfer structure
that is less chaotic, but we point out that the athletes didn't
adopt unlimited transfer freedoms and schedule transfer portals
in the middle of the football postseason and spring football.
The NCAA did.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huma follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back. Now I will
recognize Mr. King for 5 minutes' testimony.
Thank you again for being here.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM KING
Mr. King. Good morning. Chair Bilirakis, Chair Guthrie,
Ranking Member Schakowsky, and Ranking Member Pallone, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the
Southeastern Conference and its 16 members, thank you for the
opportunity to share my views on these important issues in
college athletics today.
My name is William King. I am associate commissioner for
legal affairs and compliance at the Southeastern Conference.
Prior to joining the SEC nearly 10 years ago I spent 25 years
in private law practice, where I specialized in representing
universities, coaches, and occasionally student-athletes in
NCAA infractions matters. I represented universities throughout
the country, often working to help athletes stay or get back on
the field or court to play their sports.
Over the past year, I have spent most of my time working
with my colleagues to be prepared to successfully implement the
exceptional changes in college sports reflected in the House v.
NCAA settlement, which includes a new revenue share model
between institutions and their student-athletes. This
implementation must be done in a manner that preserves the
attributes that make college sports such a unique and special
part of American culture.
My one remaining professional goal is to help create a
solution that provides stability for college sports, treats all
college athletes fairly, and allows schools to continue to
sponsor a broad range of sports that create opportunities for
athletes to earn college degrees when otherwise they might not
have attended college.
The timing for this hearing is especially good, after the
court's approval of the House settlement on Friday night, as
the court's decision helps frame the issues for discussion
today. I will focus these remarks on why congressional action
is needed now more than ever, after the settlement approval to
provide stability for the future of college sports.
Federal legislation is needed to codify the key elements of
the settlement as revenue sharing with student-athletes and
reasonable NIL regulation. These key tenets are needed in
Federal legislation because they are not included in and could
not be achieved in the House settlement agreement. Only
Congress can do those--do that.
First, we need preemption of State laws governing name,
image, and likeness and compensation of college athletes. The
current environment in State legislatures has devolved into
competitive lawmaking, intended to give universities in a
particular State meaningful advantages in recruiting and
competition and, in some States, even prevent enforcement of
national rules related to name, image, and likeness. We need a
Federal law that creates a uniform national standard with
meaningful enforcement and preempts State laws that conflict
with the Federal law.
Next, we need liability protection or safe harbor for
conduct that complies with the Federal law. We do not seek
broad antitrust exemption or blanket antitrust immunity. What
we seek is more limited than that: protection from lawsuits
that challenge conduct and regulations that are consistent with
or codified in a Federal law passed by Congress.
Third, Congress needs to address the issue of college
athletes as employees. The SEC athletes we speak with--we have
four leadership councils--they tell us they do not want to
become employees of their universities. Putting aside their
views--which should not be put aside--the financial impact of
employee status for college athletes would be devastating and
force many Division I schools to abandon athletics altogether
while those with greater resources would likely reduce the
number of sports they offer or otherwise alter the student-
athlete experience.
We are the only country in the world where elite athletes
do not have to choose between education and their sports but
instead can use their athletics ability to receive a college
education for free while pursuing their athletic goals at the
same time. College athletics programs are the Olympic
development program for many sports, and the United States'
Olympic development model is the envy of many countries. I am
concerned this system is at risk if Congress does not act.
Now that the settlement has been approved and the
transformative model for college athletics is being implemented
even as we meet today, there will never be a better opportunity
for Congress to act to provide the structure and stability to
ensure the future of college athletics.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views on these
topics, and I look forward to a productive discussion today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. King. I appreciate it very
much. Next we have Ms. Cozad.
You are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF ASHLEY COZAD
Ms. Cozad. Good morning, Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member
Schakowsky, and distinguished subcommittee members. My name is
Ashley Cozad. I am a former swimming student-athlete at the
University of North Florida, more simply known as UNF.
As a freshman walk-on, I was hopeful of proving myself to
my coaches and peers in and out of the pool. Over the course of
the 5 years that I attended UNF, I earned three degrees, an
athletic scholarship, and held numerous leadership positions
and advocacy roles. As a freshman, I quickly became involved
with the Student Athlete Advisory Committee, or SAAC, and held
numerous positions at the institutional, conference, and
national level. I was nominated in June of 2022 to serve as the
Atlantic Sun Conference Division I SAAC representative. After 2
years of service, I was elected chair of the Division I group
for a 1-year term.
Serving as the collective voice for over 190,000 Division I
student-athletes changed my perspective on the importance of
advocacy and sharing individual stories. Being one of two
student-athletes that served on the NCAA Division I Board of
Directors, I understood how important it was to share both my
own perspective in addition to the thoughts and concerns of the
student-athletes I represent around this Nation.
Throughout this experience, two continual issues always
resurfaced in my conversations: name, image, and likeness, or
NIL, and employment.
In July of 2021, the NCAA removed their bylaws regulating
NIL and ultimately gave student-athletes the right to
capitalize on their name, image, and likeness. While it is
evident that NIL has had positive impacts on student-athletes,
the lack of transparency and the lack of uniform regulation due
to differing State laws has created an unstable environment.
In the process of writing my testimony, the House v. NCAA
settlement received final approval. This approval will
positively change college athletics in numerous areas,
including NIL.
In addition to allowing schools the option to direct new
financial benefits to student-athletes, part of the agreement
of the settlement is the NIL clearinghouse. Student-athletes
will be required to report any NIL deal and/or earnings over
$600 to the clearinghouse. This will create much-needed
transparency for institutions and student-athletes across
Division I. However, the hodgepodge of State laws remains a
nightmare for student-athletes who are often unsure of what
rules apply where and to whom.
It is imperative that Congress take action to establish
Federal guidelines surrounding NIL so that student-athletes are
on the same playing field across institutions over State lines,
as to diminish the confusion and competitive advantages created
by conflicting State laws.
While student-athletes are capitalizing on their NIL, the
conversation surrounding employment status is routinely
discussed. While classifying student-athletes as employees may
seem logical because of the time we pour into our sports, it
would be incredibly detrimental for the majority of student-
athletes. Most institutions would not be able to afford an
employee model and would only have the funds to sponsor a
football or basketball team. This model would decimate
opportunities for athletes like me and thousands of others
throughout the country. Congressional action to affirm the
nonemployee status is vital for preserving the collegiate model
and guaranteeing a future for Olympic and nonrevenue-generating
sports.
We have entered a new era of collegiate athletics, whereby
student-athletes can benefit from both NIL and revenue sharing
from their institutions. These opportunities have both
transformed and are continuing to transform the landscape of
college sports for the benefits of student-athletes.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before
you today. I am hopeful that through continuous conversations
and collaboration we can create an environment where student-
athletes will not only compete but thrive.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cozad follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Ms. Cozad. I appreciate it very
much.
I want to thank all the witnesses today for their
testimony, and I will begin questioning and recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
Mr. King, I would like to start with you. Over the last
several years, we have seen the pendulum swing dramatically
when it comes to the transfer portal. What began as a mechanism
to give student-athletes more flexibility and control over
their futures has, in many cases, created instability, both
academically and athletically. Does the SCORE Act help provide
stability to the transfer portal, and should we consider
including a one-time unrestricted--again, I want to emphasize
unrestricted--transfer rule or other rules in Federal
legislation?
Mr. King. Thank you, Chair Bilirakis, and you certainly
picked a timely issue to start with, and your description I
would agree with, as to the current environment.
Where the NCAA is now is it is unable to regulate this
space. There are unlimited transfers. Some athletes are seeking
transfer three, four times. We will talk about the educational
consequences later. Let's just talk about the competitive
first. We need the ability to regulate in this area.
Your suggestion of a one-time exception, that is where the
NCAA approach was prior to a court injunction that enjoined the
rule and opened the door for unlimited transfers. I think that
is a good part--a good place to start the conversation. I agree
with you.
In addition to creating a system where there is greater
stability in the system, where athletes know who their
teammates are going to be and it is not a constant turnover
semester after semester, there is definitely an educational
component that sometimes is left out of the conversation. We
know statistically that transfers, especially multiple
transfers, are less likely or will take longer to graduate. And
what we have heard--I have heard directly from athletes myself
is they go in the portal, they transfer, and only after they
are at their new school do they find out that many of their
credits did not go with them. And that is--that also is--you
know, it is a setback from a standpoint of the ultimate goal of
earning a degree.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Montgomery, the SCORE Act has a section codifying core
guarantees, which include protections for scholarships and
posteligibility degree completion. How does this give student-
athletes across all sports programs more stability and
assurance as they complete their degrees?
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you so much. I think it does exactly
that. It provides that guarantee. Student-athletes are no
longer looking to see, is this an NCAA policy, is this a State
law, where does this assurance come from? So being able to
codify that, I do think, will assist student-athletes in
knowing that it is exactly that, and it is a core guarantee.
I think, furthermore, making sure the student-athletes are,
one, informed, and they are educated, I think that that is one
of the issues, as Mr. King just alluded to. The burden that is
placed on student-athletes currently of not knowing where
information is coming from, if it is coming, is it legit, is it
accurate--so I think the codification of the already existing
and adopted core guarantees will only provide that additional
insurance and assurance for student-athletes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Ms. Cozad, as a student-athlete in a nonrevenue sport like
swimming, you have an important viewpoint to our hearing, and
thank you so very much for your testimony. Much of the national
NIL conversation has focused around football and basketball, as
you know, but athletes like you are very much affected. Can you
speak on how NIL opportunities and guardrails in the SCORE Act
can support student-athletes in sports like yours?
Ms. Cozad. Thank you for your question. I think guardrails
that are level across all sports are imperative, especially
when it comes to educating student-athletes. Oftentimes we all
receive the same education, and it just--when you talk to one
student-athlete versus another, one says one rule, one says
another. That just creates more confusion across the board.
So having a level playing field would benefit all student-
athletes so that we know what the rules are, whether we are in
the State of Florida, the State of Georgia, wherever it may be.
Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. Well, you know what? I
have got 25 seconds left. Is there anything else anyone wants
to add with regard to that?
I will tell you, you know, we want to emphasize we want to
protect the Olympic sports, and swimming is definitely one of
them. So is there anyone else who wants to make a comment?
Yes, but briefly, sir.
Mr. Huma. I think that is one area we all agree in, and it
needs to be put in the law. You know, the power schools to the
settlement are cutting the sports, not preserving them. So that
I think that is an area of agreement we should all be able to
support.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
All right, I will yield back and I will recognize the
ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky, for her 5
minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. I want to thank the witnesses for being
here.
We are talking about the--a piece of legislation that I
have a lot of concern about because I don't think it catches
what I feel most about. So the SCORE Act, I think, is certainly
just the beginning, and I want to say once again that the
health and safety of the athletes is number one to me. And that
seems to me to call on us to do something to make sure that we
really do protect our athletes.
And so, Mr. Huma, I wanted to ask you what you think we
should be doing to make sure that we protect our students.
Mr. Huma. Well, thank you very much for that question and
your concern, and all that you have done for college athletes
and advocated for over the last number of years.
You know, the NCAA's position is that it has no duty to
protect college athletes. You know, if you talk to the parents
whose kids either die or are abused, they are shocked that NCAA
sports does not enforce safety standards. So if they don't do
it, who does? And from our perspective, these are institutions
that receive Federal funds. Obviously, a matter of public
policy. We need a referee. We need a third party. Congress can
do that.
And I would say, you know, we fought very hard for every
avenue of protection for athletes, whether it be avenue towards
collective bargaining, even. But there are athletes that would
not necessarily have the same leverage even if they wanted to
start a union, right? You have athletes in community colleges,
NAIA, you know, all different levels of schools. So they need
protections too. And it doesn't cost money to not kill someone
in a hazardous workout. It costs --it takes accountability. It
takes people following the rules.
So Congress, what we advocate for is to ensure that safety
standards which are above--they are abundant. You know, the pro
leagues have safety standards. the National Athletic Trainers
Association, even the NCAA has great guidelines, none of which
are enforced on the college level.
We need a mandate that these standards are identified and
enforced by a third party because right now you have a bunch of
guidelines. The NCAA says, ``Hey, schools, self-police.'' And
the schools, there is no accountability, so the athletic
trainers, the coaches, they are really uninformed, and that
is--and that can create deadly situations. So self-policing is
a recipe for disaster, and we don't want to see that. So
Congress definitely has a role to play.
Ms. Schakowsky. So do you think there has to be something
universal that should be brought into the Congress and into
law?
Mr. Huma. Absolutely. For instance: concussion protocols,
that should be at every level, from community colleges up to
the top; preventing heat illness, death from heat illness,
rhabdomyolysis. There are simple solutions, there are just a
lot of uninformed people. And so we don't want to see more
deaths.
This is something that, you know, when our organization
started, that very year back in 2001 there were 3 deaths in
college football. And actually, as I look at you two,
ironically, Northwestern in Illinois and two in Florida--
Florida and Florida State--all within the same year. A few
months later, I testified in this very committee asking
Congress to do something, and that didn't happen. A few years
ago, I asked for this very committee for Congress to do
something. That didn't happen.
And since then--and I mentioned Calvin Dickey, Jr.--he died
after all of the, you know, information was out there. So a
lack of action from Congress will guarantee more deaths. Calvin
Dickey, Jr., could be alive today if Congress would have acted.
And that is--those are the stakes.
Ms. Schakowsky. So let me ask one more question, Mr. Huma.
Do you think that athletes should be able to sue in any case
the NCAA, when there are situations?
Mr. Huma. Absolutely. Liability exemption, you know, that
is kind of described in this bill is a detriment to athletes.
Being able to sue does a number of things. One, it can
provide recourse. Some of these athletes have lifelong
injuries. You know, a loss of a family member is irreplaceable,
but it also works to be punitive as a deterrent as well.
And in some cases, like in the Dickeys' case and several
others, the schools won't even give information about a child's
death to the schools without signing an NDA. The Dickeys have
said that, even after signing the NDA, that they still don't
have information. So suing gives you the ability to have
discovery and subpoena power and get information critical for--
as a parent or a surviving family member that you have to be
able to try to make sense of something.
Ms. Schakowsky. Great. My time is up. I yield back. Thank
you for your testimony.
Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentlelady. Now I will yield 5
minutes to Mrs. Harshbarger, who is was wearing Tennessee
orange today.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. I will give you 5 minutes for questioning.
Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
the witnesses for being here today.
You got to represent it if you are SEC, so that is what I
am doing.
I will start with you, Mr. King. You hear stories about
shady agents pretending to be college athletes on the phone, or
cases where star quarterbacks get bad advice. They lose out on
great NIL deals. How do you see agent registration changing the
landscape for college athletes?
Mr. King. Well, thank you for the question, and it is it is
an area that I hear anecdotally from our campuses that, when
they from time to time see a contract that an athlete will
share with them, ask for their input, some pretty unscrupulous
practices trying to take--the agents trying to take advantage.
So absolutely, I agree that this is an area where regulation is
needed. The discussion draft, you know, provides for that.
The real solution, however, lies in the process for
discipline and consequences----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. King [continuing]. To encourage agents to not even
engage in that conduct to begin with, to not take advantage.
And then I think, as part of that registration process, I
think in the past it has been difficult--but to have meaningful
criteria that must be met. Not too much, but that some general
showing of aptitude to represent athletes----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. King [continuing]. In these matters. And then, when
they take advantage of them, to have----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Pretty----
Mr. King [continuing]. Very meaningful penalties.
Mrs. Harshbarger [continuing]. Stiff penalties. OK, thank
you, sir.
Ms. Montgomery, I read that Judge Wilkins said herself that
the House settlement is still open to antitrust issues. Do you
anticipate that colleges and universities could be subject--the
subject of such lawsuits?
And do you think there is room for liability protections
for schools as well?
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you so much for the question. You are
exactly right. Even with the House settlement being recently
approved, not only--well, not even a week ago tomorrow, we have
already seen some concerns that have been voiced with regards
to challenging some of the aspects.
One specifically is title 9, which--we know that that is an
area continuing to be of concern.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Montgomery. Albeit I think it goes back to not complete
liability protections, but there are some areas that I think
would be appropriate so that the NCAA, its member institutions,
as a national organization has an opportunity to not only
create but enforce rules to not prohibit or restrict student-
athletes, but more so to protect.
But to answer your question in short, I do see that there
will continue to be some areas of liability and/or litigation.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, very good. I am going to continue
with you, ma'am.
As a former student-athlete and now commissioner of the Big
South Conference--you go, girl, OK?
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you.
Mrs. Harshbarger. I would love to know your thoughts on the
future of these agreements between schools and student-
athletes. And do you think these revenue-sharing agreements
will bring stability to college athletic rosters?
Ms. Montgomery. Yes, and thank you for the question again.
I do think that it will bring a level of stability. That is one
of the reasons--and specifically member institutions of the Big
South Conference, not all nine of us are opting in to those
opportunities for various reasons. But of the four who have
decided to opt in thus far, that is one of the primary reasons.
It is being able to bring in some of those collective actions,
some of those opportunities that we have seen previously in
house to make sure there is no nefarious activity going on----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Ms. Montgomery [continuing]. Student-athletes aren't being
promised things that an institution will not be able to commit
to.
So I think, with contracts and with more institution and
student-athlete engagements and agreements, there--will bring a
level of stability.
Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. You talked about title 9. It doesn't
appear the legislation addresses the topic of title 9, but
aren't there pending or expected title 9 lawsuits related to
the topic of NIL?
And should Congress address these questions as we develop a
national solution?
Ms. Montgomery. Yes, as a former women's basketball
student-athlete who--I have benefited tremendously from title
9--I think this is an area----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Ms. Montgomery [continuing]. That we, as leaders both
within our association as well as the leaders of Congress,
should continue to give a significant amount of attention to.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Ms. Montgomery. Obviously, we are only a week out, so there
is still a lot of questions about the application and the
implications of title 9, but I would 100 percent support
continued attention given to this area.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Mr. King, I have got about 30 seconds
left. Can you talk to us about the financial viability of SEC
athletic programs and the difference between revenue and
nonrevenue programs?
Mr. King. Absolutely. So generally speaking, there are two
sports that generate the vast majority of the revenue--no
surprise there--football and men's basketball.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. King. And the funds from those sports are used to
support the other sports. And in our conference now, obviously,
we are fortunate to be in the position that we are in. But I
hear regularly from our people on campus just how difficult it
is to try to make everything work in this current environment
and the--in many ways unregulated--and that with the additional
expenses from the settlement, which we are very glad the
settlement was approved and look forward to implementing it,
that that job will become even more difficult.
And we have already alluded to this, that there have been
and will be difficult decisions to make if we are unable to get
some certainty and some areas through Federal legislation.
Those decisions will expand and be even more difficult.
Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Thank you, sir.
My time is up, so I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I appreciate it very much. Now I
will yield 5 minutes to Mr. Soto from the great State of
Florida.
You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a great time
to congratulate the Gators once again on a basketball national
championship.
We know we, as Americans, love college sports. That is why
we are here. That is why we are all so passionate about this.
We also know it is a huge business, which is why in Alston v.
NCAA no one was surprised that there was a unanimous decision
regarding antitrust and making sure that students have economic
rights, that the financial straitjacket is lifted.
We also see in all major professional sports leagues they
have players' unions. All Americans have a First Amendment
right to form a union. All Americans also have a right to
representation by an agent, and our college athletes deserve
those same rights.
Mr. Chairman, would you mind, since this is a discussion
draft, yielding to a question about college players unions?
I just--because there is not a lot of information in the--
in section 8. Does this discussion draft ban college players'
unions, or does it just simply regulate them?
Mr. Bilirakis. This particular discussion draft does not.
We don't have jurisdiction, so this is clearly E&C
jurisdiction, as far as this draft is concerned.
Mr. Soto. OK, thank you. Yes, just because it is kind of
general in section 8 right now.
And then the only other question, does it regulate transfer
portal in any way? I didn't see anything in there, but I have
heard some of the witnesses talk about it.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, yes. Well, at this particular time it
allows the creation of rules----
Mr. Soto. OK.
Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. With regard to transfer
portals. I have some suggestions, and I would be happy to talk
to you about that as well, Mr. Soto.
Mr. Soto. I am sure we all have opinions about the transfer
portal.
Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely.
Mr. Soto. That is not a shock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
yielding. That was very helpful.
Mr. Huma, you had mentioned in your testimony you thought
that because it exempts from labor laws, our college sports,
that it would violate unions. Can you go into that--or prevent
unions. Can you go into that a little more, even though----
Mr. Huma. Sure.
Mr. Soto [continuing]. Some of that may be beyond the
committee's jurisdiction?
Mr. Huma. Sure. So the draft States that college athletes
would not be defined as employees under any Federal law. That
includes the National Labor Relations Act. That is a Federal
law. And the right to organize falls under that law. So if
college athletes are not employees under any Federal law, that
would capture the National Labor Relations Act as well.
Therefore, they would have no rights to organize or
collectively bargain.
Mr. Soto. And so even beyond that, they may have--there
still might be a First Amendment issue with this legislation
because the right to unionize is protected by the First
Amendment. So what could that mean, as far as trying to resolve
this issue?
Mr. Huma. Well, I think in general, honestly, college
athletes deserve equal rights under the law. We are not asking
for favors from Congress, we are just asking that Congress
allow athletes to have equal rights. And we believe that
currently college athletes would qualify.
Depending on their situation, we focused our organization--
football and basketball, in our opinion, clearly fall under the
National Labor Relations Act right to organize. They would be
employees and they would have the right to organize. So in a
sense, you know, our north star is to ensure that college
athletes are treated equally under the law, the same law that
governs every other American, including labor law.
Mr. Soto. And we are all concerned about safety. We heard
our ranking member talk about that, as well as a lot of other
college leagues that aren't the big revenue-makers, but are
absolutely essential to college sports. What do you think are
some of the ways we can protect some of the--beyond college
football and men's and women's basketball--some of the other
sports that are so important for college life?
Mr. Huma. It is going to take Congress. It is going to take
a mandate from Congress.
You know, we have had a lot of experience going State to
State, trying health and safety, trying NIL. NIL catches on,
the economics always catch on. The States love to compete. But
unfortunately, when it comes to health and safety standards,
they don't compete. And recruits aren't very aware about the
differences in life-and-death situations and what it would mean
from State to State. That is going to take Congress.
And athletes from community college on up, from nonrevenue
sports to revenue sports, they all deserve the same
protections.
Mr. Soto. Ms. Cozad, welcome. We are always happy to have a
Floridian here.
There's a lot of us on this committee. How important is it
for you that we make sure there is some revenue sharing so all
these sports that are currently in existence get to continue
onward?
Ms. Cozad. Thank you for your question.
It is so important because, if we go to an employee model,
I wouldn't be here. There would not be any more nonrevenue-
generating sports. The protections surrounding Olympic sports
would be--we need protections for Olympic sports. You would not
see NCAA college athletes representing us for Team USA. So it
is imperative. Thank you.
Mr. Soto. Well, thanks so much. I appreciate it.
And I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back. And now I will
recognize Mr. Fry from the great State of South Carolina.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here.
You know, I am struck, obviously, with the NCAA v. House
settlement. I mean, I think that clarifies certain things, but
I think it also leaves intentionally vague the future of
college sports and where we are going to go.
What we have seen throughout the country are States carving
out specific protections for their instate schools. And as our
student-athlete has talked about, it becomes an untenable
situation, an unmanageable situation on how we go about
governing or playing college sports when you don't know the
legal framework with a 50-State patchwork of laws. And so
Congress, I think, has an authority here.
I also worry a little bit, too, about how much that
authority goes. There is a framework, I think, that Congress
has a role in. But do we go too far? I think those are
questions that I still have in my mind both about this and this
discussion draft and also, you know, Congress' role in this.
You don't want to go too far and create more problems than you
solve. But I think we are on the right track. I think this
committee, I think the Judiciary Committee has a unique role
here and, of course, Ed and Labor, as well.
Mr. King, I want to discuss just briefly the settlement and
the litigation. You know, the NCAA and conferences, you know,
have the ability to govern college athletes, but it has been
diminished. You can't create rules--you can't enforce the rules
that you create. We have heard the term ``Wild West'' a lot by
folks at this table and in other hearings too. Can you explain
the SEC's ability to regulate and govern its member
institutions, particularly on matters related to NIL, just
briefly?
Mr. King. Thank you for the question, and I guess we will
kind of start where you started, is that there needs to--that
in order to have national competitions, you need to have
uniform standards nationally.
And as a reminder, name, image, and likeness started in
State legislatures. It did not start with an NCAA rule. The
NCAA rules have prohibited before, then State legislatures got
involved. And once it became a State law question rather than a
governing association question, then the ability to govern
nationally, obviously, is impacted. And as we have seen, the
State lawmaking in this area in particular has become a
competitive endeavor, where it is--some call it a race to the
bottom, with each State legislature trying to give its
universities some type of leg up. So it has--this approach has
severely limited the ability of anyone to regulate, including
the SEC, and has highlighted the need for preemption.
And you mentioned the House settlement. The fact that there
is a structure coming out of this settlement that was
negotiated by the leading plaintiffs antitrust lawyers in the
nation, was approved by the court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, that provides revenue share of 22 percent of certain
revenues on a national average, which would be over $20 million
per year in year 1, and it will go up every year.
Mr. Fry. Mr. King--and I hate to--I am going to cut you
off. I have got a ton of questions here, so I want to----
Mr. King. OK, I am sorry.
Mr. Fry [continuing]. Bounce around, if that is OK.
Mr. Huma, you brought a case to the NLRB on behalf of USC
football players to have them deemed employees. But you quickly
withdrew that case, possibly because of a change in
administrations. So I am curious a little bit. Do you now agree
that the best--and you have said that some of the things within
the House lawsuit--do you agree that some of those from that
settlement, that it--is it important to codify some of those
settlement terms in a future bill?
Mr. Huma. Yes, and thanks for that question. Actually, it
is also through the lens of State laws.
Mr. Fry. Well, let me ask you this too. So I am a little
bit perplexed, because you also called the settlement terrible,
despite it including things that you have long advocated for,
so--like revenue sharing and extended health benefits. So I am
a little bit concerned.
I mean, is this just about unionization? I mean, is this
ultimately what your goal is? Because we have heard from our
student-athlete today, but we have also heard from several
other student-athletes that they don't want employee status and
they don't want unionization. So why are you pushing something
that student-athletes don't want?
Mr. Huma. So the settlement, in terms--through the lens of
the State law, the settlement actually reduces freedoms for
athletes. It imposes caps on direct compensation. The State
laws already--many, many States--allow that already.
The steps that are good about the settlement is the NCAA
admitted college athletes should be paid and schools admitted
they should be paid. That was what we were referring to. The
State laws are really important to hold the door open, whereas
the settlement tries to shut the door on NIL collectives' $2
billion, and then cap at a low percentage optional compensation
pay to college athletes, and that is--those are some of the
reasons why we oppose the settlement, including cutting 5,000
rosters across Division I sports.
Mr. Fry. Thank you. I see my time is, unfortunately,
expired, because I have a ton more questions.
But Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time. And I do hope
that, as we discuss the discussion draft and as we move forward
between all three committees of jurisdiction, that we are
inclusive of Members, that we are making sure that Congress is
taking the right approach, that we are not overreacting to a
problem, and that we have significant buy-in from all the
Members that serve on all the different committees. But I
appreciate that, and I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Agreed. The gentleman yields back. Now we
will ask Mr. Mullin to go ahead and proceed with his 5 minutes
of questioning.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
There is no denying that the college sports landscape is
shifting rapidly. The amount of money flowing through this
ecosystem from media deals to NIL agreements is staggering. But
for all the talk about stabilizing the system, I think we
should be asking stabilizing for whom? Because from where I
sit, a lot of what is happening right now--conference
realignments, rush rule changes, and patchwork policies--seems
to prioritize institutions and revenue over the athletes
themselves.
We have seen conferences chase bigger media deals at the
expense of athletes who now have to fly across the country just
to compete in a conference game. That may make sense on a
spreadsheet, but does it make sense for a 19-year-old balancing
practice, travel, and a full course load?
I am concerned that the SCORE Act, as drafted, proposes a
framework that is more focused on regulatory certainty for
schools than on protections for college athletes. It caps how
much athletes can earn, carves them out of labor protections,
gives broad enforcement powers to the NCAA, the athletic
conferences, and this new College Sports Commission that has
been created to administer the financial parts of the recent
settlement. But it doesn't include clear, enforceable standards
when it comes to healthcare safety or operational fairness and
transparency.
So my question, Mr. Huma, in your testimony you point to
several real risks athletes face: medical bills, for example,
after injuries; lack of recourse in abusive situations; and
little protection when bad actors enter the picture. So what
tools do athletes currently have to protect themselves when
things go wrong?
And would the SCORE Act take any of those things away or
give athletes due process in such instances?
Mr. Huma. Well, thank you for that question.
The SCORE Act does nothing to advance athletes' positions
in those situations. There is no enforcement whatsoever. And I
think the enforcement of anything that Congress looks at to
protect athletes, there needs to be third-party enforcement.
You have--I have helped athletes in situations where their
schools were supposed to provide medical coverage, they are
still stuck with the bill, but they have the athletes behind
closed doors. There is a big power dynamic, right? And they are
dangling their scholarship and telling them to look the other
way, or if they are trying to medically retire--but the schools
are putting extra conditions on them and, you know, they aren't
supposed to be allowable.
And you have--you know, right now, even the broader sense,
this whole settlement, we have--we mentioned the State NIL
laws. Just taking the Big Ten alone, 10 of the schools fall
under States with NIL laws that don't even allow their schools
to comply with the House settlement. It would be--they would be
breaking their own State law. And now you have conferences
trying to strong-arm the schools to force them to break State
NIL laws. It has been reported throughout the media, to break
the law.
So if they are willing to break the law of State lawmakers,
you know, Congress needs to consider who they are dealing with.
They are dealing with schools and conferences that are
increasingly engaging in lawless activities. So there needs to
be very sound enforcement from a third party, not the schools,
not the NCAA.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that.
So the SCORE Act includes a requirement that agents
register with athletic associations, but a name on a list
doesn't necessarily protect a student from a predatory contract
or a bad actor with hidden conflicts of interest.
Similarly, while the College Sports Commission created by
the House settlement will monitor NIL deals, it is not set up
to protect students from predatory practices. If we are serious
about protecting these young athletes, especially those with
little support at home, we need to do more than just track who
is in the room or how much the deal is worth. We need to make
sure someone is looking out for the athletes.
So with my minute left here, Mr. Huma, what kinds of
guardrails should Congress be thinking about to ensure college
athletes aren't being pressured or misled by the people around
them?
Mr. Huma. Well, I think there is definitely a need for an
agent certification program. Congress can do that. It needs to
be completely independent from the NCAA, the conferences, and
the colleges. Those are the very entities that never wanted
athletes to have agents in the first place. And under the House
settlement, it kind of enshrines a complete conflict of
interest that allows the schools to serve as exclusive agents
for the athletes, if you can believe it. So the athletes are
supposed to negotiate with schools NIL deals, yet the schools
can pressure the athletes into granting them, you know, the
power to be the exclusive agent. So you can see where that
goes. Huge conflicts of interest.
There needs to be a third party similar to the NFLPA, NFL,
you know, the NBPA, they certify agents because they have the
best interests of the athletes, and not so much the leagues.
Mr. Mullin. I appreciate that, sir.
And with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back, and now I will
recognize Mr. Goldman for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
the panelists here today.
Ms. Montgomery, thank you for your very good testimony. I
am interested in digging a little deeper in the Big South. How
many of your student-athletes receive NIL money?
Ms. Montgomery. I would say this past academic year, out of
our 3,400, I would say maybe 500 to 600 student-athletes in
some level of NIL opportunities.
Mr. Goldman. Do you know what the largest NIL payment was?
Ms. Montgomery. This is anecdotal, but I would say around
the 17,000 to 18,000.
Mr. Goldman. Seventeen or eighteen thousand----
Ms. Montgomery. Correct, dollars.
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. To play.
Ms. Montgomery. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Goldman. And was that only in football, I assume?
Ms. Montgomery. Specifically basketball, the Big South,
yes.
Mr. Goldman. OK.
Ms. Montgomery. Big South Conference. We do have two
football member playing institutions. We are in a great
partnership with Ohio Valley Conference. But basketball would
be the sport I am alluding to.
Mr. Goldman. OK, so several hundred students receiving
thousands of dollars to play basketball.
And so NCAA has oversight over you all?
Ms. Montgomery. Correct.
Mr. Goldman. What service do they provide? What does the
NCAA do for the Big South?
Ms. Montgomery. So following student-athletes being able to
receive a name, image, and likeness opportunities, the
education, obviously, was there. Information as it relates to
student-athletes being informed, I think the NCAA does a really
good job of supporting that.
From a conference perspective, we do the best that we can.
But as we know, student-athletes receive information
differently. Also, from an engagement perspective, obviously,
that is something that is continuous on the dockets and the
agendas of commissioners and industry leaders.
But I would say, for the most part, it is definitely the
education piece.
Mr. Goldman. When you played, did you receive NIL money?
Ms. Montgomery. I did not.
Mr. Goldman. What did you receive?
Ms. Montgomery. I received a full scholarship, I will----
Mr. Goldman. A great education, huh?
Ms. Montgomery. Yes, a great education. But I will say I
was a transfer student-athlete. So when I was at the University
of Memphis I did receive what I will call additional benefits
outside of my scholarship, and this was just a part of our--or
a package, if you will. But when I came to Gardner-Webb
University, that was a slight difference, but it was
essentially my scholarship.
Mr. Goldman. So you were in the portal before the portal
was cool?
Ms. Montgomery. Do we have time for that?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Montgomery. I say that respectfully, and I will--just
won't go down a rabbit hole. But when I transferred, that was
essentially my foot into the door of NCAA. I could not believe
for the life of me, as a women's basketball student-athlete, I
had to sit out, whereas there were 83 other sports at that time
that did not have to sit out.
Mr. Goldman. Yes, great point.
Ms. Montgomery. It was at that point I was implored to
understand my student-athlete experience outside of the
classroom, off the court. What is this NCAA? What are these
bylaws that I am governed by? We have seen that change, but
there was no portal when I transferred.
Mr. Goldman. I understand. You did have to sit out a year.
Ms. Montgomery. I did serve a year in residence.
Mr. Goldman. Great point. Thank you very much. Thanks for
being here.
Ms. Montgomery. You are welcome.
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Huma, should athletes unionize?
Mr. Huma. I think they should have the option. You know, I
think--and it varies on their preference from school to school,
situation to situation. There's some schools that, you know--
and I will say, you know, obviously, in terms of leverage, the
higher-revenue athletes might have more leverage. But even
Grambling State, you know--not necessarily a higher-revenue
school--several years ago the athletes had real issues on
safety standards, and they threatened to boycott and everything
else. You know, obviously, there were things that--beyond money
they needed to have addressed.
And so I think it needs to be an option, an avenue that
they have, a choice to pursue, just like every other American
in similar situations.
Mr. Goldman. Should we ban agents from representing
student-athletes?
Mr. Huma. Not at all. Not at all. Agents--it is really
important. One reason why college sports has evolved this way
is because athletes have never had proper representation. It
was banned. I mean, murderers have representation, you know, in
this country. They have the right to representation. But you
have 17-year-olds coming from homes that, you know, they may
not have had a college degree in the house, and they are having
to negotiate or just take whatever the multibillion-dollar
industry gives them.
Mr. Goldman. But you certainly agree that there's some
people taking advantage of these student-athletes who are----
Mr. Huma. Absolutely.
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. Acting as agents.
Mr. Huma. Absolutely.
Mr. Goldman. OK, thank you.
Mr. King, SEC. Do you know what percentage of student-
athletes receive NIL funds?
Mr. King. I do not know the percentage, but I would think
it would be higher than 500 or 600.
Mr. Goldman. Well, let's put it this way. Ninety percent--
80percent, 90 percent of the college football athletes in the
SEC, do they receive NIL funds? You know, a rough estimate.
Mr. King. Yes, I don't have a rough estimate, but I would
not be surprised if that--if the number you quoted is accurate.
Mr. Goldman. Do you know what the largest payment is to one
individual athlete?
Mr. King. I do not. The agreements are not reported to the
conference office right now. They are not reported anywhere.
Mr. Goldman. And overall, what does the NCAA do for the
SEC?
Mr. King. It certainly provides structure, it provides
excellent championships, it has provided oversight, and----
Mr. Goldman. Excellent revenue-producing championships?
Mr. King. Some, not all. But--and also, obviously,
enforcement and rulemaking. But with this--with the House
settlement, the issues related to that will be handled
differently as part of the College Sports Commission.
Mr. Goldman. Like Mr. Fry, I have many more questions but
my time is over. I yield the rest of my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I appreciate it. Now I recognize
Representative Dingell from the great State of Michigan.
Again, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
questioning.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today to speak on--I know some people
don't think this is a critical issue, but for where all of us
are, it is, especially as the House settlement was approved
just last week formalizing a new era in college sports.
College sports are the lifeblood of so many communities
across the Nation, and they sure are in Michigan. I am proud to
represent both the University of Michigan--yes, Go, Blue--and
Eastern Michigan University, two very different schools with
very different athletic programs. I have seen firsthand how
these programs can inspire, educate, and uplift college
athletes, and I have also seen how some of this may endanger
athletics at smaller schools and a broader range of college
sports across athletic departments.
Many now say college athletics are becoming
indistinguishable from professional sports. While this may be
true for a small number of athletes at a few schools, it
doesn't reflect the reality for most athletes. And people are
asking, ``Why do we need Federal rules? Shouldn't we just let
the House case play out or the House settlement play out?'' As
you all have pointed out today, States are already considering
laws that will distort the system and risks the promise of
fairness and creating what I worry about: a race to the bottom.
We need a national framework with clear and real
enforcement mechanisms. We must stay focused on protecting the
athletes themselves, supporting the educational opportunities
and programs they value, preserve the broad range of sports
that colleges offer, and upholding the spirit of what college
athletics has been, is, and should continue to be across the
country.
I know I am naive, but I want college athletics to be
college athletics.
As we look ahead, title 9 must be front and center. We
cannot allow new compensation models to widen the gap between
men's and women's sports. That is why gender equity and strong
protections must be built into any Federal framework.
For most Power 4 schools, about 90 percent of the total
athletic revenue comes from football and basketball men's
teams. That revenue isn't just supporting those teams, it is
supporting the rest of the athletic departments. At the
University of Michigan, for instance, this revenue helps to
support 27 other varsity sports, their training programs, the
facilities, and the opportunities they provide to athletes,
including all the nonrevenue sports that have produced
Olympians like Michael Phelps, Tom Dolan, and Greg Meyer. These
nonrevenue and Olympic sports face uncertainty and possible
what--like they may not be.
And we don't realize in this country that the way that we--
our Olympians get training is through this. We don't support
them in other ways.
And let's not forget that while there are approximately 70
Power 4 institutions that generate major revenue in the
football and men's basketball programs, there are more than
1,000 other schools that offer college sports that don't.
Across all the divisions, there are 500,000 college athletes,
and less than 2 percent of college athletes ever become
professional.
College athletics are not just pipelines to the pros for a
lucky few. College athletics are supposed to be pathways for a
good education, degrees, leadership, and lifelong opportunity.
And that is why Federal legislation must include real athlete
representation for both revenue and nonrevenue sports from
large and small schools. Athletes must have a voice in the
decisions that affect their futures, and they need protections
around issues like medical coverage for serious, long-term
injuries, academic support, and how they are going to get to
fight for what is good for them.
We must also bring increased transparency and
accountability to third-party affiliates like collectives and
boosters. Their activities should be reported, regulated, and
aligned with fairness and equity, not market manipulation. And
as we consider any kind of antitrust exemption, we must ensure
it is narrow and justified. The goal here is to preserve
athletes' rights and ensure the long-term viability of college
sports.
This is a pivotal moment. We have the chance to build a
system that reflects the full diversity of college athletics
and protects what makes it so special. It means ensuring
athletes are supported, not exploited. It means preserving
Olympic sports. It means honoring title 9. And we owe it to the
athletes to get it right.
And I am out of time, Mr. Chairman, so I will have about
1,000 questions I will submit for the record.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I appreciate it. The gentlelady
yields back. Now I recognize Representative Evans from the
great State of Colorado.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and, of
course, thank you to the witnesses for coming.
Mr. King, I just wanted to lead off with a question to you.
In this conversation, some folks have proposed the creation of
a Federal, self-regulatory organization or some other sort of
independent body to oversee college sports, including NIL. So
just curious: In your view, do you think this is necessary or
unnecessary?
What mechanisms are already in place?
And how do we ensure fair play and athletic protection--
athlete protection without creating a new layer of bureaucracy?
Or do you think we need a new layer of bureaucracy in this
space?
Mr. King. Thank you for the question, and it is certainly
one that has been front of mind over the past few months.
I do not think that we need a federally created commission.
You have heard talk about the College Sports Commission, which
is--arises out of the House settlement. Now that it is
approved, it is actually in existence and up and running. And
the way it is structured is, it would--it will handle the
regulation, implementation of the settlement around revenue
share, around review of NIL agreements, other than with the
university, to try to weed out or identify pay-for-play or fake
NIL.
And so I believe that structure will serve its role well in
that area. It will have a separate enforcement arm. It will be
not an additional layer of bureaucracy, we don't need that. It
will be a new approach to these issues related to the House
settlement.
Mr. Evans. Thank you. And kind of following up on that: In
a previous career I was a cop, which meant that I worked with a
lot of bail recovery agents. And once I became a supervisor and
had to kind of sort out these things on the streets from my
perspective as a police officer, a police sergeant, I learned
there is actually--in my State there is a bail bondsman and
bail recovery agents. The bondsmen have to be registered. The
agents don't.
And so I kind of use that as an analysis to how do we have
the appropriate level of regulation in this space for agents
that are representing student-athletes to make sure that they
are doing the right things and we don't have a Wild West
situation that is going on, which, unfortunately, sometimes I
saw in the unregulated component of interacting with bail
recovery agents in my State.
So I know we have talked about it a little bit. Can you
just talk about how the previous bodies you have discussed
would have the ability to have that appropriate regulation to
make sure that we are taking care of our student-athletes
without an additional layer of bureaucracy?
Mr. King. Yes, thank you. I think we have all talked about
that there is absolutely a need for meaningful regulation of
agents as a way to protect student-athletes. Given where we are
in college athletics now, the question of whether athletes need
agents or not, that is gone. We all agree that they should have
the right to have that representation and that we need to know
who they are, we need to know that they meet minimum
qualifications, and then we need to know when they don't
fulfill their professional obligations to their clients. We
need to know that so that they can be--the appropriate
consequences.
And, you know, the draft discussion provides a mechanism to
at least require them to identify themselves, but I think that
is a conversation that we need to--it needs to continue to the
next level, to the issues you raise about how do we most
efficiently, effectively regulate with the least amount of
bureaucracy.
Mr. Evans. Thank you.
And switching to Ms. Cozad, student-athlete. We want to
make sure that student-athletes are at the table, that your
voices are heard when we are having these conversations about
the sports because, ultimately, you all are the central focus
of this whole conversation. So can you just share a little bit
more about how you were able to make an impact in this space as
a student-athlete, especially when you were serving on a board
in the NCAA?
Ms. Cozad. For sure. Thank you for that question. I served
on the Division I Board of Directors for a 1-year term. I
actually rolled off, like, 10 days ago. And before that, I
served on three separate NCAA committees. A majority of NCAA
committees have student-athlete representation. And as we speak
right now, the NCAA is undergoing governance structure changes
that will increase student-athlete representation in the
future.
During my time, my biggest goal was to advocate for
student-athletes, making the House settlement digestible for
your everyday student-athlete that is not an attorney and that
does not understand the weeds of all the specific pieces. And
that was something that I really, really pushed for back in
October in our in-person meeting when student-athletes were
scared of what was happening within the House settlement, and
we wanted to make it as digestible and understandable as
possible. Thank you.
Mr. Evans. Got it. Thank you.
I yield back, Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Mrs. Trahan for her 5 minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank
you for emphasizing that this is a discussion draft. I look
forward to getting on your calendar and working with you to
ensure that this legislation is bipartisan. Thank you.
Ms. Cozad, when fans went to your meets, who were they
cheering for? Were they cheering for your coach, your
university president, your conference commissioner, or do you
believe it was you and your teammates?
Ms. Cozad. Hi, thank you for that question. I definitely
feel it was for me and my teammates. Being from a nonrevenue-
generating sport, the fans was my mom and my family members,
and those were the people that were watching us.
Mrs. Trahan. I believe you are right, and I want to thank
you for the--answering the question and for being on the panel.
And look, I asked that question because too often in this
conversation we lose sight of who actually drives the value,
the fans, the excitement of college sports. It is not the
coaches. It is not the administrators. It is the athletes.
Mr. Huma, I would like for you to indulge me for a moment.
I am going to describe a few provisions of this bill, and I
want to--I would love for you to tell me, in your expert
opinion, whether each one strengthens or restricts the rights
of college athletes. You can simply respond with ``strengthen''
or ``restrict'' so we get through it.
First, a blanket antitrust exemption for the NCAA and
conferences that eliminates athletes' ability to sue over
eligibility, NIL, and compensation rules.
Mr. Huma. Restricts.
Mrs. Trahan. A provision banning college athletes from ever
being permitted to collectively bargain, regardless of their
sport or the revenue they generate.
Mr. Huma. Restricts.
Mrs. Trahan. Language allowing schools or the NCAA to block
NIL deals that conflict with existing contracts.
Mr. Huma. Restricts.
Mrs. Trahan. A preemption of all State NIL laws, even those
that currently expand and protect athletes' rights.
Mr. Huma. Restricts.
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Huma. So from what I am
hearing, this bill imposes significant new restrictions on
college athletes. But let's look at what, if anything, it gives
them in return. Mr. Huma, if--in your reading of the
legislation, does it strengthen title 9 enforcement to ensure
more women can play college sports or ensure that they benefit
fairly from the House settlement?
Mr. Huma. No.
Mrs. Trahan. Does it include any provisions to help
international athletes like Alex Condon, who helped lead the
chairman's beloved Florida Gators to a men's basketball title
this year, access their NIL rights?
Mr. Huma. No.
Mrs. Trahan. So I just want to get this straight: This
committee is considering a bill that would constrain or roll
back athlete rights, block further progress, and give them
little in return.
Mr. Huma. Correct.
Mrs. Trahan. I think we can do a lot better. It is
athletes' talent, labor, and courage that have forced the
changes we have seen, not because the college sports executives
wanted it, but because young men and women across the country
demanded it. Congress should be standing with the athletes who
are unafraid to advocate for themselves, not undermining them.
I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentlelady, and I think we are
going to go with Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
questioning.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I wanted to
point out something, and I am going to change my comments here
because I was--I heard something that kind of really, really
bothered me, and it was about the protection of the student-
athletes from an academic standpoint. And I want people to just
remember how students were treated before NIL, the transfer
portal when it came to academics.
A lot of these programs would do whatever it took, whatever
was necessary to keep players eligible. And I can tell you
stories about young people back in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s that
were pushed into remedial classes, and they got ready to--they
thought they were getting ready to graduate from college their
senior year, and there was a kid in the Dallas-Fort Worth area
that was a first-round draft pick, and he had about 90 hours
and none of them counted towards anything.
That is what was happening before the transfer portal,
before NIL. And I want people to know that it was Wild West
before then. There wasn't anyone looking out for the student-
athletes before all of this happened.
I talked to one player who had a great career in the NFL,
absolutely loves his coach, would do anything in the world for
his former coach. And he told me, he said you have to decide at
this university that I went to if you wanted to be a student or
if you wanted to be an athlete. If you wanted to be a student,
they would move you down the depth chart. You had to decide.
And if you took certain classes, you would get moved down the
depth chart. So there wasn't anyone looking out for the
students before all of this happened.
What I would like to see--and don't get me started on the
low, dismal Black student-athlete graduating rates, Black male
graduating rates in football and basketball. If you go back--
and you can easily Google some of these articles--some of these
football programs and basketball programs, they would have 19,
20, 30 percent Black male graduating rates out of these
programs.
So the schools want to try to put together something that
looks more like the past, and I am telling you the past was not
perfect. The past was jacked up, and these kids were being
exploited. And so now they have a chance to get some of this
money, kids that were pushed into remedial classes, were
threatened to be moved down the depth chart. Now there is
starting to be some equal footing here, and I don't want to
take that away from future student-athletes. I think that that
would be terrible. And when you start talking about tinkering
with the transfer portal, that is exactly what you will do.
I do think that there needs to be some rules. I thought it
was crazy that kids were transferring during the March Madness,
during NCAA. I did not like that at all. Like, that is the type
of thing that needs to be fixed, right? I think that is
something that we can all agree on, protecting some of these
players that are getting into these risky contracts with people
and they have absolutely no idea what they are doing.
I remember when my brother was getting all the letters when
he went DI, and we had coaches and recruiters coming in and out
of our house. And, you know, I was having to sort of try to
figure out a lot of that for him, and I was barely 23 years old
myself, right? And so these kids, they need--there needs to be
some protections for them.
You know, Gervon Dexter was recruited to play football at
Florida, signed with an agent, and agreed to pay his--this
agent 15 percent of his future NFL earnings. And now, as a
second-round draft pick, he owes this agent $1 million. Like,
kids--I mean, and these kids need to be able--and these
families need to be able to get in and out of these contracts
with much more ease than that, and so those are the type of
things that I think that we need to fix, and we need to
simplify a lot that is in this bill.
And in the remaining time that I have left, I wanted to ask
Mr. Huma if he could elaborate on whether NIL legislation
should guarantee student-athletes the freedom to transfer
without administrative hurdles, because I think that that is
the biggest piece of all of this--my personal opinion--because
college football coaching was closed to so many Black coaches.
I don't think that a Deion Sanders--my son is a freshman at
CU--I don't think a Deion Sanders ever gets a chance to coach
big-time college football without this transfer portal deal.
Please, if you could talk about the question that I just asked
you, that would be great.
Mr. Huma. Sure. I think it is important to protect the
transfer opportunities, as you mentioned. Schedule them at
different times, you know, and the NCAA can do that right now.
They don't need to schedule them during postseason playoff
games and championships and spring football. So I think that is
something they can do, as well.
I think an important part--and you are talking about
graduation rates--one thing that shifted when players got these
freedoms: Prior to that, if a player wanted to transfer, the
school couldn't take their scholarship away just for saying,
``Hey, I am interested.'' Now when they gave athletes the
freedom, they say the moment you step foot in that portal we
can cut your scholarship and close your opportunity. And
players are being blamed for a lot of this. Many of these
players are being forced into these portals because the coaches
are running them off, and they--and players need to be
protected from that as well.
Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back. I appreciate it.
And we have--now I will recognize Mr. Kean from the great State
of New Jersey for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
distinguished witnesses for being here today.
As we look at supporting student-athletes around the
country, it is important that we provide a consistent legal
framework that allows our student-athletes to thrive. Federal
NIL legislation is an important step towards this end.
Mr. King, in the New Jersey State Senate I voted to advance
NIL rights through the New Jersey Fair Play Act. This bill
ensured that New Jersey student-athletes could receive
compensation for use of their NIL. Could you share how the
SCORE Act would ensure that students have equal opportunities
for NIL rights not just in New Jersey but across this country?
Mr. King. Yes, thank you for the question.
And as we have talked about the House settlement, the draft
discussion incorporates some of the key parts of the House
settlement, and one of those is regulation of NIL agreements
other than with the university, outside or third-party NIL. And
the settlement and the draft discussion as I read it, both have
the common goal of no limit on student-athlete compensation,
with one exception. And that is if it is not NIL, it is fake
NIL or pay-for-play and it involves a payor, a company that is
associated or affiliated with the university.
Other than that--and I am not--I am sorry, I am not
familiar with the New Jersey law, but other than that, the--an
athlete's ability to earn NIL income from people outside the
university remains the same.
Mr. Kean. Thank you.
Ms. Montgomery, is there anything that you would like to
add on the important impact of Federal legislation protecting
NIL rights?
Ms. Montgomery. The only thing I will add is--and I think
you alluded to this--is the importance of how this will benefit
our student-athletes in being able to be informed and being
educated as they make these life-changing decisions.
A Federal framework will now--regardless if you are being
recruited by an institution in the State of New Jersey or an
institution in the State of Georgia, student-athletes now know
what that standard is instead of having to deem which one is
appropriate and/or the competitiveness that starts there.
Mr. Kean. OK, thank you.
Ms. Cozad, as a student-athlete yourself, you know
firsthand the importance of maintaining academic integrity
while allowing students to receive reasonable compensation for
their name, image, and likeness. Could you share how this
legislation would benefit student-athletes like yourself?
Ms. Cozad. Thank you for that question.
Legislation of this nature would benefit student-athletes
like me because I am the type of student-athlete you don't hear
about on the SEC Top 10. And yet there are hundreds of
thousands of us out there that are just as capable on
capitalizing on NIL and doing a really great job at it. So
having universal NIL rules would create that environment where
we could all capitalize equally and move forward. Thank you.
Mr. Kean. Thank you.
Ms. Montgomery, it is important that higher education
institutions can ensure academic integrity while supporting
their student-athletes' NIL rights. What provisions are
important to ensure academic integrity is maintained?
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you again for that question.
I think, first and foremost, the ability from an NCAA
perspective to maintain our academic eligibility standards,
that is something that keeps college athletics at its core, and
that is the academic component.
When it comes to the name, image, and likeness, I look at
this as an enhancement for our student-athletes. But it is
important that, regardless of the framework and the direction
that moves forward, higher education and academic and the
current eligibility status remain prominent.
Mr. Kean. Thank you.
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you.
Mr. Kean. Thank you all to every one of our witnesses here
today.
And I yield back.
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. I thank you, the gentleman yields back. Now
I will recognize Mrs. Fedorchak, who has waived on for this
particular subcommittee.
You are recognized for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. Good morning, all of you. It is
still morning. I am Julie Fedorchak. I represent the entire
State of North Dakota, which includes both the University of
North Dakota and North Dakota State University, two Division I
FCS schools. So we are very proud of our schools, but they are
probably the exact size school that is going to be particularly
challenged in this new environment, so I really appreciate you
all sharing your expertise and your experiences here today, and
I just have a couple questions for you.
Mr. King, given the wide disparity in budgets and resources
among Division I institutions--from 10 million to 300 million--
how can we ensure that national NIL policies don't
disproportionately benefit the Power 5 programs while
effectively marginalizing nonautonomy conferences like the Big
South, or institutions like the University of North Dakota or
North Dakota State?
Mr. King. Yes, so from a national standpoint as opposed to
50 different State laws, like, having uniformity is obviously
important, and then allowing as much freedom as possible for
the student-athletes while achieving the goal of having some
regulations, some structure, rather than just completely
unregulated, which is where we basically are now.
The House settlement, which, if it is codified as part of
Federal legislation, maintains that. But it provides structure
in that the NIL agreements will be submitted and reviewed to
make sure that they are not pay-for-play and that they are not
fake NIL. I am speculating, but I would imagine that that is
less of an issue at North Dakota and North Dakota State,
although I will note that you have really, really good
football, and that----
Mrs. Fedorchak. And hockey. Don't forget our hockey.
Mr. King. We don't--
Mrs. Fedorchak. It has been a little down lately, but it is
coming back.
Mr. King. We don't do hockey, so I am not so familiar, but
I know you are good in football.
And that--the type of regulation I am talking about would
make it more difficult for someone to come to one of your
players and say, ``Please transfer, we have this deal to give
you,'' which is not really NIL, it is fake NIL. That sort of
regulation would be uniform.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK, thank you.
Ms. Montgomery, thank you for your honesty today and your
great testimony.
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you.
Mrs. Fedorchak. You have raised concerns about the current
lack of regulation around NIL agents and the risk of roster
tampering. That is also a concern that our institutions have
expressed. Can you provide examples of how this is affecting
student-athletes' or smaller schools' ability to retain talent?
And what would be some of the solutions for addressing
that--those issues?
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you so much for that question. I will
probably pick up where Mr. King left off and the uniformity of
those laws.
While it will not completely abolish tampering, I do think
it could curtail that aspect that is a very real concern. An
example of that is if you were to have a football student-
athlete that decided they would like to reopen their
recruitment process, they are now going to be able to confirm
that the NIL opportunities that they are being offered and
received are actually legitimate prior to making that decision.
So I think that that is one example of how uniformity in the
name, image, and likeness space will once again not abolish
tampering, but it can curtail it from a standpoint of student-
athletes being able to ensure they are considering legitimate
opportunities instead of nefarious activity and/or pay-for-
play.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK, thank you.
And then do any of you have concerns about the--this
governing commission that was established in the settlement,
and thoughts on what needs to be done to clarify their roles
and responsibility, their oversight authority, how we are going
to have some enforcement through that group, or whoever else is
going to be enforcing these new rules and regs?
Mr.--Huma?
Mr. Huma. Huma, thank you. Thanks for that question.
I think, in the context of Congress, if Congress looks to a
third-party enforcement mechanism, it should not be one where
the conferences solely select. You know, there should be--it
should be neutral, number one, and it shouldn't just focus on
whatever the parameters may be economically. It needs to focus
on safety standards. Any benefit protection that athletes have,
the athletes need a referee.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
Mr. Huma. Because otherwise, it would be--they would be
taken advantage of.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you.
I have 15 seconds. Anybody else, thoughts on that?
Mr. King. I tried to get in ahead of Mr. Huma, but failed.
The College Sports Commission has been created to bring
life to the settlement, to create a mechanism nationally to
regulate and monitor institutional revenue share, to make sure
that people don't exceed the limit, to regulate NIL, as I
talked about, to ferret out pay-for-play or fake NIL and make
sure that it is legitimate, and to enforce--to create rules and
enforce those. It has already created rules to bring to life
the specifics of the settlement, and then there will be rules
made in the future to try to prevent people from circumventing
or getting around the settlement.
So absolutely, I am very confident in the ability of that
commission to regulate in this area effectively moving forward.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentlelady. Now I will recognize
my fellow Florida Gator, Mrs. Cammack, for her 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Voice. I didn't [inaudible].
Mrs. Cammack. He did do it, because you are a Georgia
Bulldog. He is just much nicer than I am.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Obviously,
college athletics is something that is all very near and dear
to our heart. I am very proud to represent the Gator Nation up
here in our Nation's capital, and appreciate everyone's
contributions to this hearing today.
I am just going to start with you, Mr. King, talking about
the SCORE Act and how the IIAA enforces rules on revenue
sharing and NIL disclosures. Now, you flagged the risk of
constant litigation any time the rules change. However, should
we be thinking about how to structure the IIAA oversight to
avoid these future lawsuits, for example, through transparency
mandates or safe harbor triggers that are built into the
Federal law itself?
Mr. King. Yes, thank you for the question, and you really
hit on some of the key issues.
So the IIAA--we will just call it the College Sports
Commission, or CSC--has been created to regulate in this area.
You are correct that one of the concerns that I raised earlier,
one of the needs in the legislation is to preempt the State
laws, codify the rules coming out of the settlement, and
provide protection so long as schools follow those rules--
conferences, associations--that they will not be subject to
liability. We need that structure to give this a chance to
work. It is a really good settlement.
I want to be respectful of your time, but there--it is--
contrary to Mr. Huma's views, there are some incredible
positives in this settlement for athletes that I think no one
10 years ago would have ever thought. Things that were
requested or put forth in legislation 4 or 5 years ago that
have now been done, they need to be codified. Revenue share,
medical guarantees, postparticipation--codify those things and
create a structure where this commission can enforce them, give
them a chance to succeed, and see what happens, rather than
immediately being in lawsuits left and right while trying to
start this new system.
Mrs. Cammack. OK, I appreciate that. Now, of course, the
bill would also require that student-athletes disclose NIL
deals over $600, as we have talked about a couple times here
today, and it allows interstate intercollegiate athletic
associations to collect and share aggregated data.
My question is this: Now, under the framework of the SCORE
Act, how do we ensure that the data collected through the
process actually gets turned into useful, accessible,
comparative information both for schools looking to maintain
compliance for student-athletes trying to understand if fair
market value is there, or what oversight or reporting should
Congress be considering to make sure that this isn't a one-way
data collection exercise?
Mr. King. Yes, so the data collection is an issue that
really has not been talked about a lot, but I think it will be
a huge advantage for athletes, for people on campus, and--but
it will be respectful of the athletes' privacy. So it will be
aggregated, it will be anonymized. It will not--you will not be
able to learn specifically what Joe Jones gets from his
university or he gets from this deal. That will be protected.
But Joe Jones will be able to know what an average at his
position for an autonomy for school or for an SEC school, what
is average in NIL or in institutional rev share, those sorts of
things.
Likewise, the agents, their agents will have access to that
information, as will the university. So it will be a much more
candid discussion.
Now, we are still working out the details on how that will
be shared and with whom it will be shared, how public will it
be. But respecting the athletes' privacy while giving everyone
involved in this new system the information they need to make
informed decisions, I think, is a real benefit. And then
obviously, there is some legal concerns about how the
information is shared, as well, and we are obviously monitoring
and aware of those. But I think it will be a huge positive for
everyone when this information is shared.
Mrs. Cammack. Excellent. Well, and going completely in a
different direction here, in talking about section 3 of the
SCORE Act it says that under this legislation it affirms the
right of student-athletes to enter into NIL agreements which
cannot be restricted by their school, the IIAA, or the
conference. And exceptions exist for schools that can restrict
deals that, one, violate the student code of cnduct, or, two,
conflict with the school's existing contracts.
Now, I know I am built for comfort not for speed these
days, but back in the day I was actually cheering as an
undergrad, and there was a situation where several of my
teammates engaged in foxy football. It got into a gray area of
the school's code of conduct. Under this, is there a preemption
that should be required in this legislation? Because school
code of conducts are all over the map. Is there something that
you see being potentially problematic moving forward, where
maybe there is a bit of a gray area, maybe adult content that
students may be engaging in, while lawful and legal, that could
potentially become problematic moving forward?
I would like to open this up to the entire panel, and I
will start with you, Ms. Montgomery.
I am sorry, quickly, because I got 30 seconds.
Ms. Montgomery. Yes, I do think that that could be
problematic not only as it is written here, but I think there
is also currently an expectation when it comes to name, image,
and likeness opportunities, that they do not fall outside of
the expectation code of conduct with institutions. With the
example that you specifically raised, I do see that potentially
being a gray area, one of concern.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
Mr. Huma?
Mr. Huma. You know, I think a baseline, good test could be
if the school is not partnering with these types of industries
for moral reasons and reputational reasons, that might be a
good balance. But I think right now, as written, is very, very
broad restrictions that really need to be reeled in.
Mrs. Cammack. Mr. King?
Mr. King. I just looked at the language quickly. It says an
institution ``may,'' not ``shall,'' restrict. So it is left to
the campus. And I would imagine that in some parts of our
country what would be objectionable behavior to, let's say, an
institution with a religious affiliation might not be a problem
at all at others. So those can be made at the campus level,
based on institutional values and also between the university
and the athlete, depending on the circumstance. We have already
seen very high-profile athletes signed shoe deals with
companies other than the company their university is using.
So it is--I think this--rather than view this as, boy, this
is a stonewall, there is no way that athlete--this will be
handled at the campus level, I would imagine maybe in some
areas a policy, but otherwise on a case-by-case basis.
Mrs. Cammack. OK. And finally--and I know I am way over
time. She is going to go real fast, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very fast.
Ms. Cozad. Thank you. I would echo Mr. King. Our
institutions are so unique and so different. I come from a mid-
major school that is very much smaller than the University of
Florida. And what is OK in our university is probably different
than what is OK at a big Power 5 school. And so it is really
important that it is left in the institution's hands. Thank
you.
Mr. Bilirakis. And I will say that your school has a great
reputation, and I have quite a few constituents and family
members that attend your school.
OK, now we will yield to Ms. Clarke, her 5 minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Ranking
Member Schakowsky for holding today's hearing. I want to thank
our expert witnesses for bringing your expertise to the table
this morning.
The topic of NIL and college sports is one this committee
has been grappling with for years. And with the recent
settlement in House v. NCAA, it is more important than ever
that we reach some consensus on what exactly our role is here.
Unfortunately, in its current form, the discussion draft
before us today is something I cannot support. I appreciate
Chairman Bilirakis's good-faith attempt to create a national
standard for NIL deals and desire to create a more level
playing field for athletic programs while providing athletes
more clarity moving forward, but I have some real concerns with
the current iteration of this bill, as well as some of the
provisions of the settlement of the House lawsuit.
First and foremost, let me state that, even though this may
not be within our committee's wide jurisdiction, I am extremely
hesitant to grant any kind of liability limit or antitrust
exemptions at this stage, given that antitrust lawsuits are the
driving factor in bringing about this long-overdue era of fair
compensation for college athletes.
Second, major universities have made clear their belief
that these athletes should not be classified as employees, and
I am sensitive to that, especially because it could be an
existential threat to HBCUs if such a classification were to be
made.
However, the House settlement and the discussion draft
before us today make clear to me that there needs to be some
kind of legitimate collective bargaining between college
athletes and the NCAA and its member institutions. It makes no
sense to me to give rules laid out by the NCAA, the institution
originally responsible for the decades-long exploitation of
college athletics, the power of law as a response to a growing
number of antitrust lawsuits challenging that exploitation. You
don't protect young people by putting into law the rules
regarding their exploitation and providing no mechanism to
ensure them a properly fair--and fairly administered.
Further, if we are going to arbitrarily allow conferences
to cap the amount that schools can directly pay through revenue
sharing their college athletes, we should not put up additional
barriers around NIL collectives that supplement this income for
deserving young athletes. There is more than enough money to go
around in college sports, but it seems the NCAA and many
universities want to make sure that that money, once donated,
directly to their programs to enrich themselves and their
coaches and administrators rather than the college athletes.
That is not about a level playing field. That seems like greed
to me.
So, Mr. King, do you know how much money the athletic
departments of the 15 public universities in the SEC spent in
fiscal year 2024 on severance for coaches they fired?
Mr. King. I do not--
Ms. Clarke. According to one report, the number is over $72
million. And again, that is just for last year. This is part of
the reason I am not particularly sympathetic to any arguments
for--in favor of capping the amount of money players can
receive.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter an article I
have on severance pay from AL.com into the record.
Mr. Bilirakis. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much.
Mr. Huma, thank you for joining us once again. It is great
to see such a forceful advocate for college athletes before
this committee once again.
Can you tell this committee where you think the House
settlement and discussion draft of the SCORE Act falls short
and could be improved?
And is there anything we can do to strengthen health
protections for college athletes, for example?
Mr. Huma. I think, number one, you mentioned the boosters.
You know, they want to shut down boosters' ability to pay
players. It is just to remonopolize it. As you mentioned,
boosters before, they could only pay the schools. Once the
athletes had their freedom, the boosters can make a decision,
and some of that money was flowing to the players. It is now
being demonized as fake NIL and this is bad. The schools just
want their money back, and they want to monopolize it.
And they are actually excluding--in this draft they exclude
the booster money from being shared with the players. This is
just a money grab, $2 billion back in their pockets and they
pay maybe, what, 1.3 on the way out to revenue share if they
max out. They actually make money in this situation.
And as you mentioned, unless they are going to cap coaches'
salaries, facilities, and share evenly--I know there was a
question about, you know, North Dakota. Why would they support
something like this? This benefits the richer, most powerful
conferences.
So we can't fantasize and pretend that is not happening.
And in that situation, college athletes should be not the only
people excluded from the free market. That is what this model
is. It is a free market model. And that is OK, if that is going
to be the model. If it is going to be something different, then
let's talk about revenue sharing with Florida and Florida
Atlantic and everyone else in between. But that is not the
discussion. It is only about how to hammer the players and
remonopolize that money.
Ms. Clarke. And could you tell a little bit about the
health protections for college athletes?
Mr. Huma. Absolutely.
Ms. Clarke. How can we strengthen it?
Mr. Huma. From our perspective, Congress has a duty. You
know, they have a duty to help make sure that athletes not just
at the places where maybe there could be collective bargaining
and players have the leverage to protect their athletes, but
North Dakota athletes need protections as well. You know, no
matter what level, community colleges all the way up, everyone
needs protections.
Congress, it is you or no one. And if this is going to be
that moment, then let it be that moment.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. The gentlelady yields back. Now I will
recognize the vice chairman of the full committee for his 5
minutes of questioning.
And I am sorry, Buddy, I am not doing this on purpose, I
promise you. You are my SEC partner, so I wouldn't be doing
that to you.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. You are recognized.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for your
understanding.
And to the panel, thank you for being here. And please
understand that some of us have dueling committees, and it is
not a rudeness thing. I did not get to hear my predecessors'
questions, but I did get a chance to look at some of the
written testimony. And so if this is a duplicate, please
forgive me.
But a question for Mr. King. In regard to the transfer
portals, it is my understanding that there is really no
requirement in there that takes into consideration a student-
athlete's credits. And I am personally--I am concerned about
this thing that colleges and universities are supposed to
ultimately serve the purpose for, and that is an education. And
so should there be an inclusion of what happens to a student-
athlete's credits when they make a transfer through the portal?
Mr. King. Yes, that is--it is something that was discussed
previously but not framed the way you did, and you framed it
exactly the way I would, so thank you for that.
So right now, basically, unlimited transfers. You could
transfer as many times as you want. And the focus has been
entirely on tampering, and competitive, and rebuilding rosters.
And really, no one talks much about what you raised, and that
is, what does it do to the education?
And the truth is that the vast majority of the athletes,
well over 90 percent, are not going to play professionally when
they finish, and the education must remain front and center in
this. And I have talked directly with athletes on our campus
who found out after they transferred from somewhere outside in
that some of their credits didn't come with them, and it was
going to take a semester or a year longer to graduate, maybe
beyond their eligibility. So it is absolutely something that we
need to be tracking on.
And what I don't have to share with you is, because we are
2, 3 years into this--actually, really, a year and a half into
unlimited transfers--we don't have the data yet, but I fully
expect that you will see that the athletes who enter the
portal, especially multiple times, that their rate of success
academically will be significantly lower.
Mr. Fulcher. And that is my concern, so thank you for that
thoughtful answer. And I believe that is something that we need
to consider from our perspective, as well. So thank you for
clarifying that.
A followup question to you, and this is in regard to
collectives. Is there anything in the House settlement that
limits a collective from giving directly to a school?
And do you see that as an important component to keeping a
program competitive or perhaps helping fund those programs that
aren't self-sufficient?
Mr. King. So there is nothing in this House settlement
specific to collectives because that was not at issue, the
collective specifically, in the lawsuit. But from a regulation
standpoint--and this is--applies to everyone, not just
collectives--third-party agreements with entities or
individuals associated with an institution--and that is
defined, and it is set forth in the draft discussion as well,
that those will be subject to review to make sure they are
real, that they are actual NIL and not pay-for-play. Other than
that, there is really nothing coming out of the settlement that
would specifically relate there.
To your question about the donation, there is nothing that
would limit a collective's ability to gather money and then
give it to the school. I think many people believe that if the
settlement goes forward and works as it should, that the
individuals who have donated to the collectives in the past
will be--you know, might redirect the money or decide to give
money directly to the school.
Mr. Fulcher. I am going to thank you for that. I have only
got a minute left, so I am going to abbreviate this. Hopefully,
it will make sense, but it is along that same line.
Personally, I have been concerned about some of the
transparency in some of these NIL deals and the potential bad
actors that get involved as agents who are taking advantage of
students. And in terms of the revenue-sharing model, you
mentioned the pay-for-play. Are you confident that a future
revenue-sharing model will prevent that pay-to-play thing?
And who is the appropriate channel to oversee that?
Mr. King. So the settlement agreement gives the
conferences--and the NCAA, but the conferences the ability to
create a structure to make rules and enforce to implement the
settlement. And the four conferences have created an entity
called the College Sports Commission. It went live after the
settlement was approved, but it has been months in the planning
and making. That will enforce the rules to make the settlement
work.
And so that--yes, that is already--that is in place and
will be a work in progress in the coming months. But it is--it
exists now.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. King.
Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate your patience and the same
to Mr. Carter. Thank you for your patience, and I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Now I will yield back to my good friend--I mean, I will
yield to my good friend from the great State of Georgia, Mr.--
Chairman Carter for his 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you for
your patience.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We
are going to make the Georgia boy go last, I guess. But I
really appreciate all of you all being here. And sincerely, Mr.
Chairman, I appreciate your work and this subcommittee's work
on this most important issue. It is very impressive not only
for a Member of Congress to put in that much work, but a member
of the Florida Gator Nation. But nevertheless, thank you all
for being here.
One thing I want to talk to you about real quickly--
particularly you, Mr. King--is the walk-on situation. I know
that you all just recently--or the NCAA just recently removed
the scholarship limits and put in roster limits to allow more
flexibility, particularly for schools that are funding
nonrevenue sports. And this is of concern.
If you will remember back when the University of Georgia--
Go, Dawgs--won the national championship back to back, we had a
walk-on quarterback. And that is very important. I have a lot
of--I know a lot of people who walked on and played in college
as walk-ons. And I am just concerned, and I would like to ask
you, Mr. King, if you could comment on what you think is--the
impact of this is going to be if we have the availability of
walk-on opportunities limited.
Mr. King. Yes, thank you. That is a really important
question, so thank you for raising it.
So for those of you who have been following the House--
actually, for those of you who have not been following it, one
of the issues that is addressed in the settlement is it
eliminates scholarship limits under NCAA rules. So, for
example, baseball has had a scholarship limit of 11.7, and it
was the only sport that had a roster limit before the
settlement, and the roster limit was 34. So the coaches had to
spread 11.7 over 34 players.
After the settlement those limits are gone, but each sport
now has a roster limit. And I believe baseball will stay at 34,
if--my recollection. So Georgia can offer 34 full scholarships,
provided--in baseball if it chooses. So where in the past some
of the athletes on the baseball roster would have been walk-ons
because they didn't receive scholarship aid, now they will be
able to. And that is true across all sports. So the ability of
walk-ons to be a part of the program is still there, it is just
they may not be a walk-on anymore. They may be on scholarship.
All right, one.
Two, let's just focus on football, because you mentioned
Stetson Bennett. The football----
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Who, by the way, is from my district
and whose parents are pharmacists like me. I just want to make
sure I got that in. I am sorry.
Mr. King. Yes, get a good plug in.
[Laughter.]
Mr. King. The roster limit will be 105, scholarship limit
has been--is 85 before. So school has--any school has the
ability to go up to 105 scholarships. They also have the
ability to have more than 105 athletes in their preseason camp,
they just have to reduce the roster to 105 before the first
game.
Three, as part of the settlement Judge Wilken really did
not like the fact that some athletes, primarily walk-ons, were
going to lose their roster spot, and so she asked us to address
that, and we did. So any athlete who was going to lose their
roster spot is given a special status designated as--designated
student-athlete, where they don't count. So you will be able to
go to the roster limit and keep any walk-ons or other athletes
above that number. And if you have that designated tag, you can
transfer anywhere and it goes with you where you don't count.
So----
Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK, so maybe it----
Mr. King [continuing]. Have been taken care of.
Mr. Carter of Georgia [continuing]. It looks worse than it
is actually going to be----
Mr. King. Yes.
Mr. Carter of Georgia [continuing]. Is what it sounds like.
The rest of it, we got about a minute and a half here left,
although I believe my Florida counterpart--you gave 2 minutes--
not that I am--no, I am not counting, I am just saying.
Mr. King, another thing. I know that this has been a long
hearing, and I couldn't help but hear the question from my
colleague on the other side of the aisle about the number of
coaches in the SEC who had been fired and how much we are
paying. I just wanted to give you an opportunity if you want to
respond to that or anything else that has been said today,
because it--correct me if I am wrong, but most of that is
coming from one school, from Auburn. It is----
Mr. King. You know you can't put me on the spot to----
Mr. Carter of Georgia. I am sorry.
Mr. King [continuing]. Anybody. So there have been a number
of things that I--this format does not lend itself well to jump
in and say, wait a minute, particularly around the area of
medical care for athletes. I am not in any way denigrating or
downplaying any of those instances that Mr. Huma talked about,
but the way he describes healthcare is just--in college
athletics--is completely contrary to what I see on our
campuses.
He also omitted that, you know, one of the--in the--I have
been doing--coming to DC for over 5 years now. And in the first
draft bills, particularly in the Senate, Senator Booker and
Senator Blumenthal--thank them very much for their continued
work, as well as Senator Cruz, but those bills included revenue
share and they included guaranteed healthcare beyond the
athlete's career. Well, the autonomy conferences were already
doing that. In this 5-year period, now the NCAA is doing it for
Division I, II, and III, out-of-pocket is covered for 2 years.
So it is omitted in that conversation that these things are
already happening now, and so I just wanted to make that clear.
The new scholarships in House, we have touched on it. I
would love to walk through the House settlement, but I know we
don't have time. But the scholarship limits going away is--it
is just not a real sizzle issue. People don't want to talk
about it. But the benefit of that change, particularly for the
nonrevenue sports, is really hard to quantify
And every scholarship that is offered to a male athlete
must be matched for a female athlete. So if someone decides to
go all in on baseball and add 20-plus scholarships, they have
to do it across the board. And several schools have already
come out and said--these are higher-resourced schools--that
they are going to do it for every athlete. That is an
incredible benefit as part of this settlement.
And I would love to talk about more about the collective
bargaining issues there, but--
Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK, I am getting the gavel here, so
I will have to go.
But one last thing: Go, Dawgs.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bilirakis. All right, well, thank you very much, and I
am glad you cleared up that--the roster, because I know that
was a sticking point at the end with regard to the settlement's
concern too. So I understand it a lot better. Thanks for asking
that question, Buddy, I appreciate it.
And listen, this was a great hearing, I thought, very
informative. And I know we are going to follow up with some
questions. I tell you, you were outstanding.
And--yes, anybody? You need something? No? OK.
I was going to give her the opportunity to speak, but I
know I am going to follow up with questions.
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. But great testimony, and you cleared up a
lot of issues.
So I ask unanimous consent that the documents on the staff
document list be submitted for the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bilirakis. I would like to thank all your--thanks for
your patience, and thanks for asking--answering all the
questions.
Members may have additional written questions for all of
you. I remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit
questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to respond to
the questions promptly. Members should submit their questions
by the close of business day on Friday, June 20.
So if there is nothing further, without objection, the
committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]