[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GAME CHANGER: THE NLRB, STUDENT-ATHLETES,
AND THE FUTURE OF COLLEGE SPORTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH,
EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 8, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-445 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Virginia,
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JAMES COMER, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
BURGESS OWENS, Utah ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana LUCY McBATH, Georgia
KEVIN KILEY, California JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri GREG CASAR, Texas
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington JOHN W. MANNION, New York
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina VACANCY
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
VACANCY
R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
RICK ALLEN, Georgia, Chairman
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri Mark DeSaulnier, California,
JOE WILSON, South Carolina Ranking Member
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
JAMES COMER, Kentucky DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
BURGESS OWENS, Utah LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio GREG CASAR, Texas
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington JOHN W. MANNION, New York
MARK TAKANO, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 8, 2025.................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Allen, Hon. Rick, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health,
Employment, Labor, and Pensions............................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
DeSaulnier, Hon. Mark, Ranking Member, Subcommittee Health,
Employment, Labor, and Pensions............................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
WITNESSES
Nash, Daniel L., Shareholder, Littler........................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Wynne, Morgyn, Former Softball Student-Athlete, Oklahoma
State University........................................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Huma, Ramogi, Executive Director, National College Players
Association................................................ 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
McWilliams Parker, Jacqie, Commissioner, Central
Intercollegiate Athletic Association....................... 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Chairman Allen:
Letter to Congress from the NCAA Division I Student-
Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC)...................... 124
Letter to Congress from the NCAA Division II Student-
Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC)...................... 128
Letter to Congress from the NCAA Division III Student-
Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC)...................... 130
Letter dated February 17, 2025, from HBCU commissioners.. 133
Lee, Hon. Summer, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Pennsylvania:
Article dated May 6, 2020, titled ``Survey: Nearly A
Quarter of Division I Athletes Face Food Insecurity''.. 106
McBath, Hon. Lucy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia:
Ways and Means Committee memo............................ 52
GAME CHANGER: THE NLRB,
STUDENT-ATHLETES, AND THE FUTURE OF
COLLEGE SPORTS
----------
Tuesday, April 8, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and
Pensions,
Committee on Education and Workforce,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Allen
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Allen, Onder, Foxx, McClain,
Baumgartner, Walberg, DeSaulnier, Courtney, McBath, Hayes, Lee,
Mannion, and Scott.
Staff present: Vlad Cerga, Director of Information
Technology; Maren Emmerson, Intern; Libby Kearns, Press
Assistant; Katerina Kerska, Legislative Assistant; Trey Kovacs,
Director of Workforce Policy; Campbell Ladd, Clerk; R.J.
Laukitis, Staff Director; Georgie Littlefair, Clerk; Danny
Marca, Director of Information Technology; Brad Mannion,
Professional Staff Member; John Martin, Deputy Director of
Workforce Policy/Counsel; Audra McGeorge, Communications
Director; Eli Mitchell, Legislative Assistant; Daniel Nadel,
Legislative Assistant; Ethan Pann, Deputy Press Secretary and
Digital Director; Kane Riddell, Staff Assistant; Sara
Robertson, Press Secretary; Ann Vogel, Director of Operations;
Heather Wadyka, Professional Staff Member; Ali Watson, Director
of Member Services; James Whittaker, General Counsel; Ariel
Box, Minority Intern; Ilana Brunner, Minority General Counsel;
Ni'Aisha Banks, Minority Staff Assistant; Bryan Gonzalez,
Minority Grad Intern; Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications
Director; Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Research Assistant; Raiyana
Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Marie McGrew, Minority Press
Assistant; Ben Noenickx, Minority Intern; Mason Pesek, Minority
Labor Policy Counsel; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff
Director; Elizabeth Tomoloju, Minority Intern; Dylan Dunson,
Minority Intern; Banyon Vassar, Minority Director of IT.
Chairman Allen. The Subcommittee on Health, Employment,
Labor and Pensions will come to order. I note that a quorum is
present. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to call a
recess at any time. We are here this morning to discuss a topic
that is very important to me, and many of the constituents I
represent, which is the future of college sports.
As you know, there have been significant changes to the
landscape of intercollegiate athletics of the last few years
following the NCAA's updated policy to allow student-athletes
to receive compensation for their name, image and likeness, or
we will refer to it as NIL.
Just recently, a judge held a hearing for a final approval
of the historic potential settlement agreement in the House vs.
NCAA case, which will allow schools that opt into the agreement
to direct a share of revenue with their student-athletes.
One threat, that still looms large to the foundation of
college athletics, is efforts by activists and the National
Labor Board Appointees by the BidenHarris administration to
deem student-athletes as employees.
Because of this, there are many unresolved questions
regarding how college sports will look in the future. Despite
more money than ever flowing into college athletics,
universities are supporting fewer sports teams due to a range
of challenges.
This reality results in fewer scholarship opportunities for
young American athletes, many of them will not become
professional athletes, but rather play sports as part of their
educational pursuits. At its core, college sports are about
enhancing student-athletes in their academic experience as well
as enhancing their careers after graduation.
Unfortunately, that mission was threatened by President
Biden's radical NLRB stemming from former General Counsel
Jennifer Abruzzo's memo providing guidance to all NLRB field
offices that certain student-athletes are employees under the
National Labor Relations Act. The mandate to reclassify
student-athletes as employees would have devastating
consequences.
The increased cost of unionization and administrative
headaches would have threatened the viability of many college
athletic programs, including many women's sports and small
school athletic programs, resulting in fewer teams, fewer
scholarships, and fewer opportunities for our young people.
Additionally, employee status would have triggered
unintended consequences for student-athletes, and could have
led them to receiving fewer benefits, having scholarships
revoked for poor performance, and having scholarships taxed by
the IRS.
While the Trump NLRB Acting General Counsel rightfully
withdrew the Abruzzo memo in the relevant cases before the NLRB
have been withdrawn, it is still incumbent upon the Committee
to discuss whether Federal legislation is needed to ensure a
future board does not attempt to impose the same wrong-headed
policy.
I now yield to the Ranking Member for an opening statement.
[The statement of Chairman Allen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank all the witnesses for being here today. As I mentioned
during the hearing, we convened on this subject last March.
College athletics should be--college athletes should be treated
like people, first and foremost, and students, not just sources
of revenue for their college and universities.
We should stand with them, ensure their well-being, and
reject any effort to strip away their right to organize and
collectively bargain if necessary. Organizations, like the
NCAA, boast massive revenues from the hard work of college
athletes. While these college athletes are often taken
advantage of and mistreated, college athletes put in long hours
on top of their classes, homework, extracurriculars and even a
job, if they are permitted to have one.
In the 2023 to 2024 fiscal year, the NCAA raked in almost
$1.4 billion in revenue, a $91 million increase from the prior
year. In 2023, Division I schools spent over $3.6 billion on
coach's salaries, making up the largest spending category of
these schools' athletic finances.
College athletes are understandably looking for ways to
level the playing field and gain more of a voice.
Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have pushed to
unilaterally prevent any college athlete from being designated
as an employee. This measure would essentially grant the NCAA a
blank check to avoid all responsibility for employment
liability and allow rampant mistreatment of athletes without
recourse.
Additionally, providing any special carveout to the NCAA
where college athletes would be exempt from employee
classification would inevitably rob athletes of rights to which
they are entitled, while also creating a new category outside
of traditional employment that would be ripe for exploitation
and abuse.
We should not be in the business of creating loopholes that
allow athletes to be exploited, potentially harming their
health and safety. Many of us on this side are not advocating
to broadly classify all college athletes as employees. We
recognize that there is a large spectrum of college athletics,
and that some programs have greater resources and exert more
control over athletes than others, particularly concerned about
money and support from the major sports, football and
basketball, to minor sports, which are such a big part of the
college environment and athletics.
That is why in many ways our existing labor and employment
laws are rooted in a fact-specific analysis. This is a
complicated issue that only grows more complex as the years go
on, and the college sports industry gets bigger and bigger.
That being said, if an athlete meets the legal standard of
being an employee, as set out in the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the National Labor Relations Act, then that athlete should
be afforded the same considerations and protections of any
other employee, including the protected right to form a union
and bargain for better conditions and a greater share of the
product, which is enormous, of their labor.
Even President Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett
Kavanaugh stated, ``College and student-athletes could
potentially engage in collective bargaining or seek some other
negotiated agreement to provide student-athletes a fair share
of the revenues that they generate for their colleges,'' from
Justice Kavanaugh.
College athletes should be treated with fairness and
dignity. I hope we can have a constructive conversation about
this today, and as I have said, it is complicated. One rule
does not apply, except that if you are clearly an employee by
Federal law, then you are an employee.
Finally, I think it is important to acknowledge the broader
context in which this hearing is happening. Last month, the
President issued an executive order dismantling the Department
of Education and cutting its workforce in half. This decision
seems bound to impact the Department work administrating
student loans and Pell Grants among other key areas.
In the coming weeks, my Republican colleges on this
Committee are likely to cut critical student loan programs--
hopefully they will not--to help finance their multi-trillion-
dollar tax cut for the wealthy. In the next month or so,
college students will be graduating and entering a working
world that is currently being thrown into chaos, thanks to the
administration's regressive tariffs that economists fear could
spur a recession.
College athletes and all college students and their
families could suffer real harm from these decisions. We must
be thoughtful when we make these decisions, and we cannot
divorce the conversation we're having today from the policies
being pursued by the administration.
I thank the Chair, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Ranking Member DeSaulnier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Allen. I thank the Ranking Member. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 8-C, all members who wish to insert written
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the
Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5
p.m., 14 days after this hearing.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material
noted during the hearing to be submitted for the original
hearing record.
I will now turn to the introduction of our four
distinguished witnesses. The first witness is Daniel L. Nash, a
Shareholder of Littler, a law firm here in Washington, DC.
Our second witness is Ms. Morgyn Wynne, a former Softball
Student-Athlete at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater,
Oklahoma, and I understand you all won a lot of championships
there, thank you. I congratulate you on that.
Our third witness is Mr. Ramogi Huma, the Executive
Director of the National College Players Association in Norco,
California. Our last witness is Ms. Jacqie McWilliams Parker, a
Commissioner for the Central Intercollegiate Athletic
Association in Charlotte, North Carolina.
We thank the witnesses for being here today, and we look
forward to your testimony. Pursuant to Committee Rules, I would
ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a 3-minute
summary of your written statement. The clock will count down
from 3 minutes, as Committee members have many questions for
you, and we would like to spend as much time as possible on
those questions.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8D, and Committee practice,
however, we will not cutoff your testimony until you reach the
5-minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be
aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information
to the Subcommittee. I will first recognize Mr. Nash for your
opening testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL L. NASH, SHAREHOLDER, LITTLER,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Nash. Thank you, Chairman Allen, Ranking Member
DeSaulnier, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you very
much for the opportunity to testify today, particularly
concerning the question whether students who participate in
intercollegiate athletics should be treated as employees of
their schools.
I am a lawyer that has practiced labor and employment law
for over 30 years, particularly in the sports industry,
including in matters both involving professional sports and
college athletics. Until recently, the question was well
settled under our labor and employment laws.
Historically, participation in college athletics has never
been deemed to create an employment relationship between the
students and their schools. Rather, intercollegiate sports have
always been viewed no differently than the many other
extracurricular activities in which students participate as an
important part of their college education.
However, as this Subcommittee knows, in recent years the
colleges and universities have faced considerable litigation.
Some of it existential, claiming that college athletes should
be paid and entitled to join labor unions. In my view, there
has been a great deal of misunderstanding in these cases about
the law and their implications for student-athletes and their
schools.
In that regard, let me just suggest a few points worth
keeping in mind during today's hearing. First, and perhaps most
importantly, we should be clear about which students we are
talking about, and which student-athletes have been largely
ignored in this debate.
It is no secret that the effort to reclassify student-
athletes have primarily concerned two and only two sports, and
that is football and basketball. The argument in these cases
has been that the law should be changed for these student-
athletes because the amount of revenue in those sports has
changed.
It is unfair for those students not to share in that
revenue in the same way that professional athletes do. The
argument has been they are really professional athletes.
However, as a matter of labor and employment law, revenue has
never been a factor, never, in determining whether someone
should be classified as an employee.
The arguments about fairness, ignore that unlike a
commercial business whose revenue is distributed to its
shareholders as profit. The revenue received by colleges and
universities related to sports, like football and basketball,
helps provide scholarships and other financial support to all
of their student-athletes, including the many Olympic and
women's sports programs.
Second, the suggestion that student-athletes should be
permitted to engage in collective bargaining under a
professional sports model simply misunderstands how collective
bargaining works under the labor laws.
The NLRB recognized this in the Northwestern case in making
it clear that a single school's team having collective
bargaining would not be viable, and there would be no plausible
way to have a broader unit of collective bargaining because
many of the colleges and universities are public, are
religiously affiliated and are outside of the NLRB's
jurisdiction.
Finally, I want to emphasize one important point. I do not
believe that it is helpful to frame the arguments surrounding
the status of student-athletes under the labor laws as either
pro-union or anti-union. I have worked very closely with, and I
respect the unions in the professional support leagues who ably
represent those athletes.
The young students who attend college and participate in
extracurricular activities, including intercollegiate sports,
are not remotely equivalent to professional athletes. Treating
them as such would not solve the issues facing college sports.
In fact, I believe the opposite is true, and that Congress
should make clear that students who participate in
intercollegiate sports are not employees of their colleges and
universities.
I look forward to the Subcommittee's questions.
[The statement of Mr. Nash follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Allen. Thank you, Mr. Nash. I now recognize Ms.
Wynne for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MS. MORGYN WYNNE, FORMER SOFTBALL STUDENT-ATHLETE,
OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY, STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA
Ms. Wynne. Chairman Allen, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My time as a softball
student-athlete at Oklahoma State was about more than just
athletic success. It was about the relationships I built, the
lessons I learned, and the constant support system that shaped
me into the person I am today.
I fear that shifting student-athletes into an employment
model would erode the very essence of what makes college
athletics so transformative. My experience as OSU was rooted in
a culture of academic support, athletic excellence and personal
development, values that should be protected and preserved for
generations of student-athletes to come.
As an underclassman, I struggled not just on the field, but
in ways beyond the game, especially as a 17-year-old first
generation college student. When I entered the transfer portal,
I saw an environment where I could thrive, not just as an
athlete, but as a student and person, and OSU provided exactly
that.
I found a coaching staff that prioritized our academics and
our futures, ensuring that our education remained the
foundation of our experience. Unlike some programs where
academic choices are restricted, my teammates and I were
empowered to pursue any major and career path we desired.
Practice schedules were built around our class commitments,
demonstrating our coach's genuine care for our futures beyond
the game. Because of this I was named an academic all American
and graduated in the top 1 percent of my senior class in 2023.
More than just academic and athletic success, what defined my
time as OSU was the culture of trust, respect, and open
communication.
Our coaches curated a sense of family and camaraderie that
is something I cherish, and I deeply fear may be lost if
student-athletes transition into an employment model. As former
Co-Chair of Division 1 Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, and
a current Board of Governors voting member, I have visited with
hundreds of athletes across the divisions virtually and in
person on this subject.
I have truly witnessed firsthand the fear and uncertainty
this conversation brings to athletes across the country. It is
easy to frame this issue as one of fairness, and of athletes
getting what they deserve, but the reality is that many mid-
major institutions and non-revenue sports simply do not have
the financial resources to sustain an employment model.
This conversation is not just about the implications for
current student-athletes. It is about the generations of
student-athletes who will come after us. If schools are forced
to cut sports to afford employment costs, we are losing life-
changing and transformational opportunities for thousands of
aspiring NCAA athletes.
The collegiate model, while unperfect, has provided so many
of us the chance to pursue both an education and the sport we
love. We should be working to enhance support and resources for
student-athletes, not implementing a system that could limit
access and opportunity. I urge decisionmakers to truly listen
to the voices of those who will be impacted the most.
College athletics should not be dictated by financial gain
alone, or reduced to a business transaction, silencing the
voices of the majority. We cannot afford to lose what makes
this experience so invaluable. The education, the growth, and
the chance to be a part of something bigger. It should be
protected and preserved with this at the forefront of our
minds. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Wynne follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Allen. Next, I will recognize Mr. Huma for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. RAMOGI HUMA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
COLLEGE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, NORCO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huma. Good morning. My name is Ramogi Huma. I am a
former UCLA football player, and the Executive Director of the
NCPA, the National College Players Association. The NCPA is a
nonprofit advocacy organization with a mission to protect
future, current, and former college athletes of all sports. The
NCPA spearheaded the college athletes' rights movement since
its launch in 2001.
First, I would like to thank Chairman Walberg and Allen,
and Ranking Member Scott and DeSaulnier for inviting me to
testify today. College sports is an $18 billion a year
industry, where men's basketball coaches can earn $9 million
per year. Football coaches can make $13 million per year, and
even athletic directors now make more than $3 million per year.
The NCAA conferences and schools are enriching themselves while
working to strip equal rights and deny basic protections from
college athletes whose talents generate this revenue.
The NCPA continues to advocate that college athletes
deserve equal rights under the law. Ensuring all Americans have
equal rights under the law should not be a matter of debate.
This includes labor law. However, it is important to highlight
that college athlete employment status and collective
bargaining is not an urgent issue. There are no active NLRB
cases, and any new case would take many, many years to resolve.
However, there are urgent issues in college sports that
Congress should address immediately. NCAA sports is a predatory
industry that exploits college athletes physically, sexually,
and economically. To date, the NCAA and conferences refuse to
impose any consequences for 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.
I have met too many grieving, devastated parents, like the
parents of Calvin Dickey Jr. and Jordan McNair who died
preventable deaths in NCAA football workouts at Bucknell
University and the University of Maryland. I do not want to
have to have any more conversations from survivors, like former
San Jose State gymnast Amy LeClair, whose team athletic trainer
sexually abused her and other female athletes for 14 years
under the guise of medical treatment while their university
failed to adequately respond to the request for help.
We have all read the headlines of hundreds of college
athletes at colleges who have suffered the same fate, while the
NCAA and conferences turn a blind eye. Make no mistake, these
abuses are not--they are not rare; they are rampant. In
surveys, half of Division I athletic trainers report being
pressured by coaches to play athletes before they are ready and
returning players with concussions to the same game.
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. All legal pathways to address these
serious problems should be available to athletes: Federal and
State legislation, judicial action, and a path toward
collective bargaining.
The solution certainly will not come from the NCAA, which
coldly asserts that it has no duty to protect college athletes.
This is an indefensible position, but it begs the question: who
is responsible? Because universities that are abusing athletes
receive Federal funds, it is the NCPA's position that Congress
shares responsibility in addressing these issues. Instead of
solving these issues, the NCAA and conferences are now
demanding Congress eliminate athletes' ability to collectively
bargain for these protections.
They are also demanding Congress enshrine into Federal law
exploitative restrictions included in the House vs. NCAA
lawsuit settlement. The parties are actually trying to liken
this terrible settlement to a collective bargaining agreement.
No pro-athlete union in America would agree to these terms.
This supposed collective bargaining agreement includes no
safety standards, no medical coverage, zero dollars in
guaranteed money, loopholes that can ban all athlete and IO
compensation from universities, the elimination of about $2
billion in NIL pay from collectives so schools can re-
monopolize money from athletic boosters, and a requirement that
participating universities cut their rosters. It is a
requirement.
These unfair terms only underscore why college athletes
should have a seat at the table, and why Congress should
intervene to help. The NCAA and conferences need accountability
from Congress on these issues, not a bailout. The NCPA requests
that Congress only pass legislation to adopt broad-based
reform, including the enforcement of safety standards to
prevent serious injury, abuse, and death among college
athletes. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Huma follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Allen. Thank you, Mr. Huma. Last, I recognize Ms.
McWilliams Parker for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MS. JACQIE MCWILLIAMS PARKER, COMMISSIONER,
CENTRAL INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, CHARLOTTE, NORTH
CAROLINA
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman
Allen, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and distinguished
Subcommittee members. My name is Jacqie McWilliams Parker, and
for more than three decades my life has been immersed in
college athletics, as a student-athlete, a coach, and now a
Commissioner of the Central Intercollegiate Athletic
Association, I have experienced a life-changing pattern of
college sports in so many ways.
My mission is to ensure college sports continues to create
opportunities for generations like it once created for me. As
Commissioner of the CIAA, first established HBCU Conference,
one of four conferences of historically black colleges and
universities, it is our responsibility as leaders to be gate
keepers to protect and advocate for our member institutions and
student-athletes in our conferences.
That is why I'm here today, to express my great desire for
Congress to pass legislation that supports a future for college
sports that allows athletic departments of all sizes and
varieties, including HBCUs to thrive. In recent years, there
has been a massive and long overdue effort to elevate and
support--the support and the benefits provided to our student-
athletes, including expanded scholarships guarantees, the
creation of a new post-eligibility health insurance program,
and enhanced access to academic and career services.
Meeting the needs of our student-athletes remains an
ongoing effort. Progress has been tremendous, and the
commitment from college sports leaders to driving continued
change runs deep. As these positive changes have moved forward
it has become clear that there are limits to what we in college
sports alone can address.
I am greatly concerned that without congressional action,
policies that negatively impact the student-athlete's
experience and financial viability of our HBCUs are at risk of
taking hold. In particular, there are two areas where I believe
congressional action is essential to assuring college sports
provides opportunities for schools and sports of all types.
First, we need to confirm that student-athletes are not
employees, unlike the large institutions that generate
significant revenue through media rights, sponsorships, and
ticket sales, HBCUs often struggle to cover the full cost of
athletic programs.
Transitioning student-athletes to an employment model would
exacerbate the strain and deficit on our already strapped
athletic department budgets, likely leading to downgrading or
outright eliminating certain sports, or reducing the number of
scholarships and other resources available to student-athletes.
Second, we need to ensure that NCAA receives sufficient
limited liability protections so that it can perform its
purpose, working with student-athletes, member institutions,
and conferences like mine to make and enforce basic rules to
determine student-athlete eligibility limits, and so that
schools across the country are competing on a level playing
field.
Much of my life story is a testament to the power of
college sports, and it is a privilege to be here today to
advocate for HBCUs and future generations of student-athletes.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my voice.
[The statement of Ms. McWilliams Parker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Allen. Thank you, Ms. McWilliams Parker. Under
Rule--Committee Rule 9, we will now question witnesses under
the 5-minute rule. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. Ms.
Wynne, you said in your written testimony that as former Co-
Chair of Division 1 Student Athletic Advisory Committee, you
had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of student-athletes
who expressed fears about what employment status could mean for
them and the future of college sports.
What were some of the top concerns you heard from your
peers?
Ms. Wynne. Thank you for the question. The top concern from
the student-athletes I have spoken to is the ongoing threat of
cutting athletic opportunity for thousands of student-athletes
to pay for the student-athletes that generate the most revenue,
which would ultimately create an uneven playing field between
the athletes.
Another fear is the potential decline in the prioritization
of academics, sorry. Most student-athletes who play in college
do not go on to play professionally and choose their schools to
pursue academics. We fear becoming employees would put a
substantial emphasis on job security through athletic
performance over the current academic eligibility centric
model.
Chairman Allen. Thank you. Mr. Nash, like other college
students, student-athletes must satisfy certain academic
standards to gain admission to the universities and to
participate in extracurricular activities, including their
sport. If student-athletes are deemed to be employees under the
National Labor Relations Act, could grade point averages or
course credit requirements become subjects of collective
bargaining?
Mr. Nash. Thank you, Chairman Allen. We do not know the
answer to that and nor do the advocates of converting student-
athletes to employees and attempting to have collective
bargaining. It is certainly conceivable that the academic rules
that apply to student-athletes and how they are enforced, and
other rules, other rules related to their education, and the
academic environment would be subject to bargaining.
Those are things that are just simply not present in the
professional sports leagues.
Chairman Allen. OK. Could this unionization undermine
academic standards? In other words, the young people would
prioritize, you know, their work responsibilities over actually
getting an education when less than 2 percent of these young
people go on to play in professional sports.
Mr. Nash. I think the reality of that is probably obvious,
right? I think almost certainly if we are talking about what is
essentially making the student-athletes on these sports as
professionals, that is going to be the focus, not academics.
Chairman Allen. Right. Thank you. Ms. McWilliams Parker,
fewer than 2 percent of NCAA student-athletes turn professional
in their respective sports, as I mentioned earlier. What impact
would employee status have on ensuring these college athletes
can continue to focus first and foremost on being students, and
on their academic success to make sure that they have
successful careers after college?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Look, this conversation about--
particularly for our HBCUs and our smaller institutions. I mean
I am highly concerned about employment because the fact of the
matter our institutions were built in this country to give us
an education.
Athletics is an ancillary opportunity to allow our students
to engage way beyond just getting their degree. Making them
employees, or changing that status, it really changes the
opportunities that we get to create at our institutions in our
smaller schools, being able to give them the resources that
they need for academic support, for travel, for uniforms, all
those things that are important and necessary, especially for
students that are first generational students.
I hope we never lose the focus on why education was
established in this country in the first place. Athletics has
just been the benefit that we all have. It is a privilege to be
able to be a college student-athlete, and I hope we do not take
that away from them.
Chairman Allen. Yes. Many young people have been able to
get their education, and also participate in their sport of
choice on the field, and then go on to very successful careers.
Whatever we do as Members of Congress, we want to keep that as
the first priority, and I think that is behind the scenes here.
We are putting other things first, like you know, collective
bargaining, unionization, and employee status, and you know,
all these other things.
I think we have got to work to make sure that academics is
priority one. I would yield then to the Ranking Member for your
questions. OK. Ms. McBath, I am sorry, Ms. McBath, I recognize
you for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Chair and Ranking Member
DeSaulnier, for hosting this year, and to our witnesses that
are here with us this morning. Thank you so much for taking the
time to testify.
College athletics have such an important place in our
education system and American society. They represent more than
just a sports team. They carry the legacy of a town, an
institution, and the past players' dreams and accomplishments.
These things are incredibly meaningful, and we need to be sure
that nothing that we do here in Congress will further
complicate things for folks back home or put these
opportunities further out of reach for students and their
families.
Student-athletes must be treated with the dignity and the
respect that they deserve. They must be fairly compensated for
their efforts while ensuring that schools both large and both
small can continue to provide the high-quality education and
athletic opportunities for our students.
Athletic scholarships have, and continue, to play a very
important role in making sure that every student who wants to
better themselves through higher education has an opportunity
to do so without going into a lifetime of debt, regardless of
how much money their parents make, or whether anyone in their
family has ever been to college before. They are directly
responsible for helping people lift themselves up from lower
income levels and into a better quality of life, sometimes
breaking generational cycles of poverty.
While most student-athletes may not go on to play
professional sports, all of them will be more likely able to
finish their degree and have the skills that are necessary to
provide a decent life for themselves after they graduate. They
are true engines of social mobility, and it would be
devastating to students, families, and athletic programs if
athletes had to worry about being taxed on those very
scholarships. That exact proposal is unfortunately being
floated by our House Republicans.
This memo, circulated by the majority, which I would like
to submit digitally for the record, outlines the potential ways
that Republicans want to raise revenue this Congress, and you
can see that this proposal to make all scholarships income-
taxable--this is right here, written out on page 11.
This proposal would impose a new tax on students and
families, and force students and athletic recruits with the
lowest incomes to reconsider whether or not they can afford to
accept a scholarship, because of the new tax burden that would
come with it. Student-athletes should be focused on success on
the field and in the classroom, not on whether they will have
to pay a new tax on the scholarships that they have earned.
Chairman Allen. Without objection.
[The information of Mrs. McBath follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. McBath. Ms. McWilliams Parker, can you talk about the
negative impact that taxing scholarship opportunities would
have on student-athletes if this proposal by my House
Republican colleagues to tax all scholarships were to become
law?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Thank you, Ms. McBath, for that
question. I was a walk-on student-athlete at Hampton
University. My parents had to pay for me to go to college, and
I depended on the package to be a student-athlete that year. I
earned a scholarship thereafter, and I think about that
question. If we had to tax that scholarship, that is an extra
burden on my family, one that they could not afford. They could
not afford for me to go to Hampton, so the fact of the matter
of being able to get a scholarship and able to get the
resources that I had on campus was extremely important.
We are smaller institutions. We are Division II. All of our
student-athlete and scholarship packages in our division--so
when you talk about exposure, and what we are seeing for
football and basketball, that is not the reality of our
students and our first generational students at our
institutions. There is a need--they need the support. They need
the Pell Grants. They need the financial aid. That is part of
their scholarship package at our Division II schools, and in
Division I, I would imagine that they depend on some of that
scholarship money as well, so taxing it is not helping us at
all.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you for that. I, too, come from Virginia
State University. I graduated there--I am not going to say
when--but that is also a Division II school as well, and so I
have spoken with our president there several times, and I
understand unequivocally how devastating it would be if we were
to tax these scholarships. In the State of Georgia too, we have
scholarships that are being taxed as well, so thank you for
your testimony.
Mr. Onder [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. The
Chair recognizes Mr. Baumgartner of Washington for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baumgartner. Well, thank you Mr. Chair, and I very much
appreciate the distinguished panel and this hearing being held.
Trying to restore college sports is one of the reasons I came
to Congress in the interest of--it is very interesting to me.
I certainly do not believe that college athletes are
employees, but I also think many of the aspects of collective
bargaining should be brought to--the results of collective
bargaining should be brought to the collegiate athlete system.
College athletics are highly subsidized public goods, and I
think they should be regulated as such.
What our goal should be is we have more money in the system
now, but we have less athletic opportunities than ever before.
What our underlying principle should be is to create a new
opportunity, both for the benefit of the student-athletes, but
in this day and age as American society becomes more political
and more partisan, there is an important piece of social
cohesion and camaraderie and societal benefit that just comes
from everything that we love about college athletics.
I think it needs to be restored. Personally, I think the
NCAA is a defunct and derelict institution. I do not think it
can be fixed. I think there needs to be a new institution put
under Presidential control and authorized by Congress for these
public goods.
I think there has to be a system of fairness and
competitive balance across the system, both the athletes and
the schools, and if all the money goes into SEC Football and
Big Ten Football, and a little bit to basketball, then the
Olympic sport athletes are going to be the ones that are going
to suffer. If we can treat the system equally amongst all
sports and all athletes, I think we will get the solution that
is in the best public interest.
I believe that coaches' salaries need to be capped at ten
times the total cost of the average student going to college.
Again, this is not free market unfettered capitalism, this is a
highly subsidized public good. There is not a lot of societal
benefit of a football coach making over 10 million dollars a
year.
What you want is competitive balance. All of us that
enjoyed college football, and I grew up watching Power Five
Football, it was just as much fun for the fans and the students
when the coaches were making $200,000 or $500,000 a year as
when they are making 10 million dollars.
It is this unfettered arms race and this nonsense like
having slides, and these ridiculous whirlpool baths, and these
special chairs in all the locker rooms so they can entice
recruits. There is no benefit to you guys as athletes with
that. Then finally, the idea that we would have
transcontinental conferences where student-athletes are--a
volleyball team is going from Eugene, Oregon to Rutgers in New
Jersey mid-week, that is insane.
That is not what the public wants to pay for. Congress has
all the tools to put this back together. You know, I believe
that we should put NIL into a pool and share equally amongst
all athletes. I think we should pool TV revenue for all sports,
so that your HBCUs are benefiting, and we can create so many
opportunities for the sons and daughters of American taxpayers
and restore the system.
You know, to my question, Ms. Wynne, do you believe, you
know, the future young ladies like yourselves playing softball
right now, I mean what needs to happen so that there would be
more opportunities for young ladies like yourself and not less,
and do you worry when you watch all the money going into
football and men's basketball, that there is going to be less
opportunities for young ladies like yourself?
Ms. Wynne. Thank you for the question. I do worry about the
future of my own sport. I worry about the future of all female
sports in this conversation. I dreamed as a little kid that I
would get to play at the World Series, and fortunately enough I
went to two, and I think that every young softball player now
should continue to have that dream and not have to worry that
those opportunities will not be created for them or still there
for them.
I cannot give you the best solution in my opinion for this,
just because I am here to talk about how I was--my experience
as a student-athlete, but I do think that there needs to be a
balance.
Mr. Baumgartner. Well, you know, I hope we have a unique
opportunity, I think in a bipartisan fashion, you know, with
this President. Again, these are public goods. If we regulate
them in a public manner, highly sized public goods. We realize
that if we could have a--and it rises, I believe, to the
importance of a Presidential appointee, and then authorized by
Congress.
We can get the NCAA out of all this business, put the
proper role with Congress authorizing these things and have
more money. Again, we have more money in the system, and less
opportunities than ever before. If Congress takes action we can
have more opportunities for our athletes, and maintain the
competitive balance across the system, and I yield back, thank
you.
Mr. Walberg [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. I now
recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Representative Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will say that I never
thought that I would hear a Republican colleague call for
socialism and redistribution of wealth and resources, but I am
excited to hear that such proposals do exist on the other side.
I just want to say that if you have been watching college
basketball's March Madness tournament like I have been for the
last few weeks, then it should already be clear why college
athletes deserve the right to organize and bargain
collectively. In case you have not been paying attention, I
would like to take just a moment to break some of it down.
March Madness packed 67 men's and 63 women's basketball
games into an action-packed 21 days. This year for the second
year in a row, this college basketball tournament generated
around a billion dollars in revenue for the NCAA. With such
high revenue, you might assume that players get a nice cut of
that action, but your assumption would of course be wrong.
While the schools behind successful women's basketball and
men's basketball, or excuse me, women's basketball programs are
splitting $15 million in prize money, and the schools of the
successful men's team will share around $216 million, their
triumphant college athletes will walk away completely empty-
handed.
Beyond prize money, many schools will make millions of
dollars off of these young people's backs. Last year the Power
Five Conference generated over $3.5 billion in revenue. You
heard that, a billion with a B. While the NCAA and athletic
conferences raked in billions, the outlook for the college
athletes who made them their money is grim.
In a 2019 survey, almost 25 percent of Division I athletes
reported experiencing food insecurity in the last month, and
nearly 14 percent were homeless over the last year. A study
published by Idaho State University in 2022 found that more
than half of the Division I student-athletes surveyed reported
eating less often than they felt they should because there was
not access to enough food. I request unanimous consent to enter
into the record an article about Wisconsin Public Radio titled
``Survey: Nearly a Quarter of Division I Athletes Face Food
Insecurity.''
Mr. Walberg. Without objection, it will be entered.
[The information of Ms. Lee follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mr. Huma, can you speak about the
financial strain that far too many athletes face?
Mr. Huma. You know it is funny, this organization, my
organization started out as a student group at UCLA when I was
playing football. I formed the group after my teammate was
suspended because groceries were left on his doorstep when he
was broke and hungry. Meanwhile, they were selling his jersey
in the store. They said it was an NIL violation. You could not
have any benefit at all outside of what a regular student would
have received. This entire movement, much of it, at least my
part and my organization's part, stemmed from food and
groceries.
You may have assumed that I played receiver or DB back in
the day; I was a linebacker, and I needed to eat a lot. I was
an undersized linebacker. I went from eating five, six meals a
day at home to three meals a day in a meal cart at UCLA. I
immediately lost within a month, a month and a half, lost ten
pounds. You know, I am trying to hit 300 pounders at 210
pounds. It was tough.
Fast-forward to the surveys you are talking about.
Unfortunately, much of this has not changed. You know, we did a
study several years ago on what a full scholarship, you know,
the room and board included, what that would provide an athlete
to live off of, and found that 80 percent of athletes would be
living below the Federal poverty line on those scholarships.
In the backdrop, all the numbers you mentioned, all the
revenue that these athletes are generating, obviously you talk
about the motivations and people wanting to find some way to
change the system, whether it be collective bargaining or
employee status, all options need to be on the table to make
sure that athletes are treated fairly.
Ms. Lee. Thank you so much. Despite the incredible
financial hardship experienced by many Division I athletes,
NCAA has long argued that the system is fair because they are
student-athletes and often get the value of educational
scholarships at their institutions, so the free housing that we
talked about, the free meal plan.
However, Mr. Huma, I am not sure if most Americans realize
that college athletes like Division I football, basketball, and
volleyball players are managing the equivalent of a full-time
job on top of their academics. While the public only sees them
for a couple hours on television, athletes are putting in
countless hours throughout the week. Very quickly, could you
just describe what a typical schedule of a D1 athlete would
look like?
Mr. Huma. Well, first of all, it is year-round, year-round.
You see them during the season on game day, maybe on TV, but it
is year-round workouts, early morning rises, you finish late.
The Pac-12 did a survey of their athletes, and the average
athlete across all sports reported spending 50 hours a week on
their sport alone. Yes, a full-time job, absolutely.
Ms. Lee. Then a full-time student as well?
Mr. Huma. Correct.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Based on the schedule you described, is
it realistic to think that most D1 athletes can equally balance
school and athletics while in session?
Mr. Huma. No. No. I mean athletics takes priorities, and in
terms of degree completion, which is one of the goals for us to
improve, they need more time to graduate on the back end. They
need less time--less responsibilities put on their shoulders
while they are athletes. You know, without that, you are going
to continue to have lower graduation rates than you otherwise
would.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Huma. As many of my colleagues have
pointed out, a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach may prove
difficult, given the diverse portfolio of sports, divisions,
and athletic conferences the NCAA represents, but giving these
young people the right to bargain for better wages and hours
and work conditions is not that difficult. It is long past time
that we cut the games and start calling out this billion-dollar
business for what it is: student-athlete exploitation. I thank
you all so much for your testimony, and for being with us
today, and I yield back.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Now, I recognize
myself for 5 minutes of questions. I am glad the Subcommittee
is holding this hearing to discuss the future of college
athletics. I do not see the future as bright if we do not get
some control and understanding what athletics are for. As a
former athlete myself, not at the highest level, but the impact
in my life was very positive, and athletics encouraged my
academics, which was the highest priority.
Ms. Wynne, I appreciated your testimony, that really is the
essence of athletics and scholarship. Before I ask questions to
our witnesses, I did want to bring up one college sports
related issue that I have heard a lot about from my
constituents. Division 1 and 2 college athletes who are awarded
scholarships at our universities are increasingly coming from
other countries.
According to NCAA data, international student-athlete
participation has increased by 145 percent since 2001. One
example is Division 1 men's and women's tennis, where foreign
athletes make up over 60 percent of overall participants. In
men's and women's ice hockey, they make up over a third. Sadly,
college sports has become big business, and there is an
increasing pressure to recruit foreign athletes to make money
and win games.
Unfortunately, these scholarship opportunities have come at
the expense of American born student-athletes. This is
additionally troublesome because in the United States college
athletics partially serve as America's Olympic development
program.
In the 2024 Paris Olympics, 65 percent of the U.S. Olympic
team were current, former, or incoming NCAA student-athletes.
The increasing number of foreign athletes in college sports
jeopardizes opportunities for American athletes, and the global
competitiveness of our athletic programs.
Having said that, Mr. Nash, proponents of classifying
student-athletes as employees have cited the substantial amount
of revenue that certain college sports programs bring in, and
the potential for revenue sharing with these athletes as
reasons for employment status.
What does the law say regarding whether revenue generation
is a factor in determining employment status?
Mr. Nash. Thank you. The law has been very clear that the
amount of revenue that an organization receives is not a factor
in determining whether someone is or is not an employee.
Otherwise, if it was, businesses that lose money could claim
that they should not have to pay their employees. What matters,
and the Supreme Court has made this clear many times, is
whether someone meets the test or the definition of a common
law employee.
Student-athletes for decades have been recognized as not
meeting that test. The fact that revenue has increased in
sports like football or basketball should not be a basis for
changing that law.
Mr. Walberg. Appreciate that. Ms. McWilliams Parker, in
your written testimony you State that reclassifying student-
athletes as employees would place an even greater strain on
already strapped athletic department budgets. What are some of
the measures that athletic departments may have to take in
response to an employment model?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. For our member institutions, and I
would just speak for my colleagues as HBCUs, I mean our
conversation is will we be able to sustain sports? Will we be
able to continue to give scholarships? Will we have to reduce
that? I think there is a high concern that we are already
operating in deficit, so all this money in revenue we are
hearing about, that is not funneling to smaller division
schools--Division 2 schools.
All the gate receipts that you see, we are all running
deficits, and there would be a concern that we would not be
able to keep up. Eliminating sports, and as we know, sometimes
the Olympics sports and women's sports go first. That would be
tragic to see when that opportunity for myself and Ms. Wynne,
those are the concerns that we have.
We cannot keep up with the masses of what you all are
talking about. We just want to give these students an
opportunity like I had, to play their sport, and to be able to
get their college degree, and to represent like Ms. McBath is
today and myself.
Mr. Walberg. As a student-athlete, what did you undertake
athletics with the purpose of being a student?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. As I heard a student say the other
day, and as I would say, sports saved my life. It gave me an
opportunity that nothing else did. I could have done a lot of
different things, but it was the pathway for my family, for me
to get a college degree, and to be able to make impact, and to
be prepared to be a commissioner today.
I am no different than any of my other colleagues, I just
have a smaller representation of what you all see on a broader
side of what you watched in March Madness. The opportunity to
play a sport, and to have teammates, and to lead and to guide,
and to go through that strenuous work every single day, has
been necessary. Thank you.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. My time has expired, but I wanted
to hear that. You wanted to be a student-athlete, but a student
first.
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Yes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Thank you.
Mr. Walberg. Now, I recognize Ranking Member Bobby Scott
from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McWilliams Parker,
you mentioned the CIAA in terms of revenue. Do the teams make a
lot of money for the schools?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. No.
Mr. Scott. Is that typical for D2 and D3 schools?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Very typical.
Mr. Scott. Do you pay your coaches millions of dollars a
year?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Absolutely not.
Mr. Scott. OK. Mr. Huma, you mentioned the schedule for a
typical athlete. After college, or after their eligibility
ends, what happens to those students?
Mr. Huma. Well, it depends. Some graduate, some do not. You
know, with the--you know, the reality is that universities
recruit these athletes, some of them are less prepared
academically than regular students, that is just a fact. Those
universities still have a responsibility to create a realistic
pathway for them to graduate. Unfortunately, many of them do
not.
You have increased time demands when it comes with
athletics put on the shoulders of students who are less
prepared. Oftentimes you get poor graduation rates. Many of
these athletes that generate all this money in Division I, they
do not graduate. Although there are a lot of verbal promises,
there is no teeth for schools to actually allow them to
complete their degree, and many athletes do not have the
opportunity, so after that, do not really know, but you know,
that is kind of the scenario.
Mr. Scott. If some go into professional sports, how many
turn pro?
Mr. Huma. Less than 2 percent.
Mr. Scott. The other 98 percent?
Mr. Huma. The other 98 percent, they pour all their heart
and soul into generating this money, but not all of them
graduate.
Mr. Scott. Is it possible to be an employee under the
National Labor Relations Act and not under the Fair Labor
Standards Act where you could have a voice as a union, but not
have the burden on the school for minimum wage, overtime, and
other things?
Mr. Huma. It is possible. Every school would have--every
team would have its own test. You know, just because, let us
say Dartmouth or USC athletes, football or basketball players,
are recognized as employees, it does not automatically mean
anyone on Division II, or other Division I teams or sports
would be recognized as employees. They would have to--first of
all, the athletes would have to want to join a union. If one
team had a union, it does not automatically place everyone else
in a union.
Second, if a school did have a team where there was a
union, say Division II even, the school does not have to enter
into a collective bargaining agreement if it feels like it
cannot afford what the athletes are asking for. It is an
agreement. Two sides have to agree.
I will also point out that none of the employment issues
involving the NLRB affect Division II. There are no campaigns.
Division II really has not been in the, I guess, cross hairs if
you can say, but if they were at that point--the point is that
universities do not have to agree to do anything they cannot
afford.
Again, athletes have--if a softball player at Oklahoma
State does not want to be in a union, they do not have to be.
For those that feel like there is a need, whether it be health
and safety, whether it be compensation issues, they should have
the option to do that, if by law--if the law recognizes them as
employees.
Mr. Scott. They can bargain for workers' compensation
coverage for injuries. What happens now if an athlete is
injured?
Mr. Huma. Right now, it depends on the school. The school--
it is always optional. You know, in Division I they passed what
is another unenforced standard. You know, there are safety
guidelines that are not enforced. Division I recently said any
Division I school is supposed to be able to pay for the medical
expenses while the athletes are there. There is nothing
enforceable about that.
We have had athletes for years come to us with out-of-
pocket medical expenses their schools do not cover. Some of
those bills go into collections, and they do not find out until
they are trying to buy their first car. It is a very deceptive
industry, but a collective bargaining agreement is a legally
binding agreement. If a school says, ``We're going to pay for
your medical'', then it is iron clad.
Mr. Scott. What happens to disability?
Mr. Huma. That is really--you know, there is nothing there
for the athletes unless they are catastrophically injured,
which means $90,000 in deductible payments, which very few
injuries reach. There have been studies finding that about 50
percent of Division I athletes across all sports suffer chronic
injuries. Most of those athletes have no assistance when they
are done.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the
gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses
for being here today. Mr. Nash, in profit generating college
sports, we already see a trend of student-athletes staying long
past the typical 4 years of eligibility. This is for some
athletes the maximum amount of time in college athletics to
profit as long as possible, as if it were a full-time job.
How might this problem be exacerbated if all student-
athletes are considered employees?
Mr. Nash. Thank you for the question. I think there would
be a real danger in that problem being exacerbated, because
there would--one subject of collective bargaining, if it were
to be allowed, would be to remove the eligibility rules, and
demand that student-athletes be able to participate as long as
they like. It would be a potential subject to bargaining.
Mrs. Foxx. What impact do you believe this trend has on the
overall educational mission of a university?
Mr. Nash. Well, I think there is no question that the
movement to reclassify student-athletes as employees has a
significant potential to interfere with education. We have seen
that in the cases that have been brought before the NLRB. We
saw that in the USC case where the general counsel of the NLRB
challenged the USC student-athlete handbook, which provided the
students with guidance on how to deal with interviews and
social media, and encouraged them to speak positively about
their teammates, and be careful about not posting things that
could follow you for life.
According to the NLRB in the complaint that they issued
against USC, that violated the labor laws if they were in
place.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Ms. Wynne, some have noted that the
trend of professional student-athletes could lead to fewer
roster responses for freshman or transfers. As a former
student-athlete, does this trend concern you?
Ms. Wynne. I think that this trend does concern me, and it
concerns my counterparts, other student-athletes because we are
not in favor of cutting athletic opportunity.
Mrs. Foxx. In your written testimony, you mentioned the
importance of academics during your time as a student-athlete
at Oklahoma State University. Can you discuss your academic
experience as a student-athlete, and as part of that, how might
the importance of academics change if student-athletes are
deemed to be employees?
Ms. Wynne. My academic experience was certainly a high
point of my career. I studied strategic communications in
undergrad, and during that time my coach also was very
supportive of joining extracurricular clubs as well, so I had
the ability to join an advertising club in my college.
My coaches took academics very seriously. When we were
playing on the road we had study halls on the road with each
other, and even our academic advisers would travel with us to
ensure that we had the most adequate resources at all times.
They demonstrated a very healthy balance between my athletic
experience and my academic experience.
Mrs. Foxx. Well, that is wonderful to hear that there was
that emphasis on your academics. Ms. McWilliams Parker,
academic achievement and professional development have been the
primary purpose of post-secondary education in the student-
athlete experience.
What educational and other benefits do student-athletes
gain from their athletic experience, and how does this
experience help them in their future careers?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. I would say that the whole team
concept of being on a team, that experience by itself, is
pretty powerful. You learn leadership. You learn perseverance.
I mean even in these discussions of injury and being hungry,
and all those other things. I mean there is something about
athletics that defines who we are as a country, and as we are
as a community, and to provide access and opportunity for our
student-athletes, whether it is careers.
I mean part of my institution helped me get a post-graduate
scholarship to go get my degree at Temple. I have never had to
pay for college, except that 1 year that I talked about as a
walk on. Careers, as we have partners and sponsors, I mean we
have pathways to help them get internships, and those types of
opportunities.
There are just so many benefits of being a student-athlete,
not just on the court, but also off the court, and as leaders
and administrators we have that responsibility to support that
effort.
Mrs. Foxx. Well, thank you very much. My grandson was on
the track team. He was a thrower in high school and in college.
I think he learned a lot about teamwork, and he also told--said
the coach told him if you show up on time, you are late, show
up 10 minutes early, that is a wonderful characteristic to have
in our country. Thank you very much, and I appreciate it.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the gentlelady, and I recognize the
Ranking Member, Representative DeSaulnier from California.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. I want to thank all the
witnesses again. Terrific testimony. Mr. Huma, a lot has
changed other than you have gone from a linebacker's build and
five meals a day to three and a DB, but could you talk a little
bit about--I mean, in our--in sports there has been lots of
arguments for decades about what is an amateur, whether it is
the Olympics or college athletics, and what is a professional.
What has changed, from your perspective, to make this a
more acute need to define the boundaries of professionalism and
amateurism?
Mr. Huma. Thanks for that question. I think, you know,
today the high revenue college sports are almost
indistinguishable from the pros. Obviously, college is
involved, but besides that, again, it was mentioned just
yesterday, there was a hearing. Because there was legal
pressure again, one of the avenues to fight against this
injustice, the NCAA Power Five Conferences are being pushed to
finally share revenue with athletes.
As we speak right now there are recruits, 16, 17 years old
being signed by schools right now to professional agreements,
so--and that is a good thing. That is a great development, and
that is now something even the schools are celebrating, they
kind of have to because they have no choice, but hey, we are
there. That was because athlete's rights were not taken away by
Congress.
I will point out as an athlete, all the athletes we work
with, there are very special things about college sports, you
know, but amateurism has nothing to do with it. It has nothing
to do with it. You can learn leadership if you are an employee.
You know, you can learn all the different things we have talked
about today: teamwork, camaraderie. That does not go away
because someone has rights, because someone is an employee. You
know, the ability to play at a high level and pursue a degree,
that is really what makes college sports special, and I think
if you dissect what everyone is talking about here, that is
what is there.
The employee status issue does not negate that. It does not
take away from being a student. You have students in bookstores
at all the schools we are talking about. They are employees.
You have some students on these campuses, they actually have
the right to form a union, but we are not here talking about
that. This is about taking away rights from athletes, so that
they are not empowered to make the changes this industry has
never wanted to make.
You know, the first year that we actually announced what we
were doing, within months, three football players died in off-
season workouts. Since then, there has been death after death
after death. You can set your watch to it. The very next year I
testified in Congress, 2002, begging Congress, ``Please do
something'', and nothing has been done.
There have been individuals that have talked about it. I
was really in agreement with much of what Congressman
Baumgartner said today. Congress, you have the votes, you can
solve these issues, and this is what I am here pleading for on
behalf of all the families that have suffered, and the families
that will suffer if Congress does not act.
Mr. DeSaulnier. My district is next to the mothership, the
University of California. When I talk to the people in the
football program at Berkeley, or my very dear friend who is the
coach of the rugby team, sort of the rugby program in the
United States, this challenge does not--to Mr. Baumgarten's
comments, and Mr. Nash's too, there seems to be an ability to
fix this. The idea of pooling the revenue, to make sure that
these minor sports--and that is a misnomer from my perspective,
having been a lacrosse player many years ago--to get all the
benefits that you have talked about, so there does--and your
comments about your agreement, I am in agreement too--but
beyond that are these questions--and we always sort of
mythologized the Rudy's of the world--but then underlying, and
that is not just unique to college athletics; there are the
issues you mentioned about sexual exploitation and harassment,
just harassment of people who are in the program anyways.
Defining that, as opposed to what Ms. McWilliams talked about,
is dealing with adversity, that is legitimate adversity.
There it strikes me as sort of the challenge we have here,
is making this work, but also making sure that some of the
cultures that we have unfortunately dealt with for too long do
not get addressed, and the athletes have a chance to defend
themselves, as an employee would.
Mr. Huma. Absolutely. I think there is a big difference
between the challenges that make us stronger as a college
athlete, you know, dealing with adversity within a normal
realm, but that adversity should not include sexual assault.
You know, and UC Berkeley, that was one of--I could have listed
names, but UC Berkeley, 2014, Ted Agu passed away. The
university admitted negligence. Now, the trainer that oversaw
that workout was the same trainer at Central Florida just a few
years before that oversaw another workout death among similar
circumstances: sickle cell, which is completely preventable.
That trainer could be anywhere today, you know.
That is not the type of adversity that people can walk off.
That family is devastated. Ted is gone.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the
gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. McClain.
Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for being here today. Really, what I want to talk about is the
difference between employment status and non-employment status
for the athletes. If you could start, and, Ms. Wynne, I will
start with you, what is the advantage of making student-
athletes employees versus non-employees, or disadvantaged from
your perspective?
Ms. Wynne. From my perspective, I think that employment
status yields more disadvantages than they do advantages
because the majority of a student-athlete, and I am here
representing the female student-athletes, and Olympic sports as
well. I think that employment status will shift the freedom for
student-athletes to explore academic interests, transfer
capabilities, or just playing for the love of the game, and
replace that with legal contracts, performance pressures,
financial decisions.
I know myself I signed by NLI at 16 years old, and so I was
very young, and I started my freshman year as a 17-year-old
student, so opening those conversations, even to minors, I feel
like that is a dangerous future in my opinion.
Mrs. McClain. OK. I mean yesterday in your order to protect
the balance right, I introduced the Protecting Student Athletes
Economic Freedom Act, which clarifies that a student-athlete is
not an employee of a college, conference, or other
associations. Ms. McWilliams Parker, how would you, or excuse
me, how would--this is kind of awkward, but un-unionization of
studentathletes impact the school's ability to support their
students and academic programs?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Yes. Thank you for that question. I
think about the opportunity to continue to give them
scholarships, you know, even the cost of the academic support,
the regular mental health services that we have, the training
support that is needed, the media support, career development
success. I mean all of those things are going to be possibly
compromised because of the costs associated with it from that
department, athletics department.
I mean I shared earlier, our departments are already
operating in a deficit, so the more strain that we put on
financially to provide those resources on top of additional
resources, there would be some concern.
Mrs. McClain. What do you say to the folks that say but we
have to protect these athletes?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. I do not know why we do not think we
are not protecting them already. I work in college athletics.
My job every day is to protect student-athletes, give them the
best opportunity to participate in championships, and make sure
that we have the staffing and the support they need.
We are talking about different subsets of institutions. We
have got private, we have got public, we have got larger, we
have got smaller, we have got bigger resources. We have got
limited resources. I am in limited resources, and so we need to
protect those limited resources institutions, by making sure we
can sustain opportunities for studies like Ms. Wynne, who come
to some of our schools.
Mrs. McClain. If I am understanding it correctly, you think
as a student-athlete, or a former student-athlete, being an
employee is not a good thing. As an administrator, do you also
agree with that?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Absolutely. I mean we are protecting
the Olympic sports. We are protecting Title IX, and Title IX is
not just about women, it is also about our men. We are trying
to protect the disparity of the playing field. I mean there are
a lot of implications here on paying student-athletes.
Mrs. McClain. You actually have some trust in people. You
have some trust in the athletes. You have some trust in each
other. You do not need big brothers in essence to come in and
regulate everything?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Despite what everybody says, I am
part of the NCAA. I am the NCAA. I am one of the administrators
that sits around the table like you all do to make policies and
processes and procedures, so that our institutions and student-
athletes can have that experience. Our student-athletes around
the table, we have leadership around the table, and should we
be getting better? Absolutely.
Are we getting better? Absolutely. Are these conversations
helpful to help us guide to the path of getting better?
Absolutely.
Mrs. McClain. Just to be clear, and I am being a little
sarcastic, which I do not mean to be, but you have the athletes
who participate, you have the administrators, you mean you
actually collaborate to find out what the best course of action
is, and you guys can do that right now?
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Absolutely. We are doing it.
Mrs. McClain. That is great. Good for you. I applaud you.
Ms. McWilliams Parker. Thank you.
Mrs. McClain. I mean I think we need to get back into
having a little bit of faith into our people. Thank you. I know
I am over time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you all.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Now I recognize the
gentlelady from Connecticut, Representative Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you and thank you to our witnesses for
being here today to testify. I apologize for coming in late. I
am juggling multiple hearings.
College athletics has become a multi-billion-dollar
industry with the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or
the NCAA, bringing in nearly $1.4 billion in revenue in 2024. I
can tell you that I have absolute faith in college sports,
being from the basketball championship of the world where our
UConn women just won a 12th national title. It is the only
sport we have. Our college athletes is Connecticut--I mean we
have Connecticut Sun now, but college athletics is Connecticut
sports, and this is a conversation we have often at home.
Immediately after that win, one of the things that Coach
Auriemma spoke about was the disparities for college athletes.
It is very fitting that we are having this hearing here
today. For many young people, an athletic scholarship can be a
pathway out of poverty, but a scholarship alone does not help
an athlete trying to feed themselves or provide for their
families back at home.
These scholarships are typically contingent upon an athlete
being enrolled as a full-time student and meeting specific
academic requirements. Across various sports and divisions,
college athletics report spending between 30--college athletes
report spending between 30 to 50 hours a week on athletic
activities despite NCAA caps on the number of hours athletes
may engage in ``countable athletically related activities.''
In fact, many athletes report feeling pressured to attend
so-called voluntary athletic sessions for fear of retaliation,
or they are worried they may lose their spot on their team or
incur a broader punishment for their teammates.
This is an incredible level of control over how a person
spends their time and fulfills the basic requirements of being
a member of team. While a large part of the conversation around
college athletics and collective bargaining centers around
monetary compensation, a union also provides security for its
members when facing excessive demands.
Mr. Huma, could you please explain how union representation
could help athletes' pressure to invest excessive hours in
outside activities?
Mr. Huma. Absolutely. I mean if you look at the pros, they
have unions, and I think that many people watching today would
love if their sibling, child, if they were in the pros, and
they have unions, and they can negotiate how long their time
demands are on their athletics.
I think first and foremost, anyone that has concern about
the over-emphasis of athletics, overcoming academics and
affecting graduation rates, has to recognize that the athletes,
if they had a union, and could collectively bargain, could try
to reduce hours that are required of them.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. There are more than 500,000 NCAA
college athletes, but fewer than 2 percent of them will go on
to play sports professionally. The NCAA has pointed this out in
social media campaigns in recent years. The demands of an
athletic schedule can often stand in the way of a student
pursuing internships, career workshops, and other types of
training that will help them in their post-graduate years.
Every college athlete should have the flexibility to ensure
that they can pursue their dreams of playing collegiate sports
and invest in their futures after college. Unions provide their
members with a seat at the table and can do the same for
college athletes. Mr. Huma, what benefits could union
representation offer so that college athletes can prioritize
their academics, and post-college goals, while meeting the
vigor of an athletic schedule?
Mr. Huma. That is a great question. You know, beyond just
reducing the time demands, there could be ironclad agreements
that ensure that their scholarship is not revocable at each
year. That a coach can't, ``fire you or run you off,'' because
despite the promises and the rhetoric, that if athletes become
employees they could suddenly be fired--they are getting fired
all the time, for years and years. The coach creates a hostile
work environment, breaks the athlete mentally to the point
where they want to transfer or quit their sport altogether.
That could be negotiated; the terms of whether, you know, a
person could be fired or not, and that is as we have mentioned,
tied to your educational opportunity.
Post-eligibility as well. If you need another semester or
two to graduate because you have been dealing with such high
athletic demands, that could be negotiated. You know, how about
an extra couple of years to graduate? Again, not as a verbal
promise that no one is enforcing, but under an agreement.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Like I said, from a State like
Connecticut where college athletes is our sport, they are
making big money right now in Connecticut off of this
championship. I yield back, thank you.
Mr. Onder. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair recognizes
himself for 5 minutes. You know, I think the question at this
hearing today is whether NCAA college sports are farm teams, or
mere farm teams for the pros. In Missouri we have taken a
position on this issue. In July 2023, Governor Mike Parson
signed into law legislation clarifying that student-athletes at
Missouri's colleges and universities are not employees.
Mr. Nash, as you point out in your written testimony, there
have been efforts in recent years to reclassify student-
athletes as employees and allow for collective bargaining.
Supporters of these efforts often cite professional sports
teams as the model. We have heard that quite a bit today.
Do you agree with claims that student-athletes are no
different than professional athletes, and they should be
treated as such in the eyes of the law, especially Division 1
sports that generate a lot of revenue?
Mr. Nash. Thank you. No. I do not. I do not think that
student-athletes at the college level are remotely equivalent
to professional athletes for the simple reason professional
athletes are not required or not admitted as students under
academic standards at a university.
Their sole focus is to play their sport. A college athlete,
and I would defer to Ms. Wynne on this. She is in a better
position to speak than me, a college athlete has to be admitted
as a student, has to continue to progress toward a degree, and
there is a tremendous amount of focus on their education.
Mr. Onder. Yes. Do you find it ironic that all this
discussion of employment, and the unionization, it centers
around Division 1 sports that are profitable, and as you point
out in two sports, basketball and football. What about--where
is the solicitousness of the worker's rights and all the other
sports that are not profitable?
Mr. Nash. Well, that is a good question, and that is I
think probably the biggest problem that I see with the effort
to turn student-athletes into professionals. It just simply
ignores that the arguments that are being made really are
focused on just the so-called high revenue sports, and really
on just a few individual athletes in those, the sort of
professional free agent kind of model, while ignoring all the
other sports.
Mr. Onder. That is something I wanted to address.
Representative Hayes pointed out, and correct me if this is not
correct, that the NCAA had revenues in 2024 of 1.4 billion
dollars. Do you know what percentage of athletic programs are
profitable? You can express that any way you wish.
It is my understanding that not even all football or
basketball programs are profitable to the schools, much less
lacrosse, cross-country, wrestling and so forth.
Mr. Nash. I defer to the NCAA and the colleges on that.
Mr. Onder. Sure.
Mr. Nash. I think the assumption of your question is
actually quite correct. One example I can give you is in the
NLRB case involving the University of Southern California, the
focus there was on football and basketball.
Mr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Nash. The evidence in the case showed that the revenue
from those sports, not only supported by the more than 20 other
sports, the athletic department as a whole, according to the
reports that were provided to the education department,
operates at a loss.
The revenue did not even support all of the sports and
required further assistance--further financial support from the
university.
Mr. Onder. Yes. Yes, that is when you see a big number like
1.4 billion OK, that is revenue, what is expense?
Mr. Nash. Right.
Mr. Onder. Then to the extent revenue exceeds expense in
the nonprofit world we do not call that profit, but what is
that revenue used for in other things, like supporting the
sports that are not profitable. Mr. Huma, you cited deaths in
college athletics in training and so on, cause of death
generally cardiac issues, heat stroke? What is it generally?
Mr. Huma. Cardiac, heat illness, sickle-cell related, even
asthma, things that--the deaths we are concerned with are
preventable.
Mr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. Huma. You know, and sometimes, you know, there is risk
inherent in sports, but preventable deaths are still around
unfortunately.
Mr. Onder. Yes. I am a medical doctor, and I actually have
a son with congenital heart disease, and his congenital heart
disease was very obvious at birth, but there are congenital
heart diseases, some of which can be tested by--discovered by
pre-screening and precautions taken, and probably in most cases
not participating in athletics at that level among other
things.
Are you aware, is there screening right now at the NCAA
level for these undiagnosed congenital heart problems?
Mr. Huma. No, but what is interesting is that now they are
screening for sickle cells for instance, right?
Mr. Onder. Right.
Mr. Huma. That has given the athletic programs the ability
to say ``Hey, this athlete has sickle cell, let's make sure we
follow the protocols in workouts.'' With Bucknell University,
Calvin Dickey Jr. had that, their athletics program knew, but
they did not follow the protocols, and he passed away.
Mr. Onder. Yes, thank you. My time has expired. I yield
back. The Chair next recognizes the Ranking Member for a
closing statement.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you, and all of us, for being here. I really want to thank the
witnesses again. One, just, observation in the last
conversation is one of the threats to minor league sports is
these subsidies that come from those big sports. There are some
instances where there is more pressure to get rid of minor
sports, so that that money stays in those big programs. If we
want to keep those minor sports going, we have to have an
honest conversation about all of this. I am encouraged by some
of the conversation today, that there is an acknowledgement to
keep your experiences, my experiences, healthy by making sure
that this revenue continues to be generated in such a way that
it continues to support this larger, really beneficial culture
in college sports for all the college athletes.
As I said earlier, our priority in this Committee must
always be the health and well-being of the college athletes.
That benefits everyone, but particularly they should be the
focus of our attention. It is our responsibility to stand with
these students as they stand for themselves.
College sports have changed since the days of amateurism
and leather helmets, as many athletes suffer exploitation and
abuse. It should come as no shock that many are attempting to
exercise their right to defend themselves and organize for
their own protection.
College athletes are not a monolith, as we have talked
about today, and should not be treated as such. It would be
inappropriate to ban all athletes from being classified as
employees, just as it would be inappropriate to call every
single college athlete an employee.
College athletics exist on spectrum, and employment issues
should be addressed according to existing labor laws. As we
speak, the current administration is attacking higher
education, and that also creates a vulnerability for the
college student. While I am grateful for the productive
discussion on college athletics, and I see a potential for us
on this Committee, and in the other Committees of jurisdiction,
to come up with a meaningful solution, Mr. Chairman, let us not
forget that one of the biggest problems and threats facing
public education today is not college athletes unionizing, it
is the policies and priorities of the current administration.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Allen. I thank the Ranking Member, and now I would
like to make my closing statement. First, you know, if there is
any polling available from NCAA from student-athletes on their
interest in joining or not joining a union, I would like for
the Committee to do the research on that, and let us get that
polling, so we can kind of, you know, hear from the athletes
themselves on what they are thinking about this.
Then certainly, on your comment about the Department of
Education, we are spending more money than any other nation and
we are losing ground rapidly in education, so we have got a lot
of work to do on this Committee, and I agree with you, the
Ranking Member, that we have got to correct that process.
We learned a lot today, and in House about student-
athletes, and how they would be negatively affected if they
were classified as employees. Obviously, we do not want our
athletes in danger, and we need to speak to that as well.
Employee status would harm these athletes by restricting their
freedoms, altering their significant benefits they currently
enjoy.
Undermining non-revenue generating sports, triggering
unintended consequences like taxing, scholarships, and taking
the focus off education, which I said earlier, should be our
No. 1 priority, which is central, and really, the whole reason
for the student-athlete experience.
I mean it was college first, then athletics I believe, is
the way it all got started. In response, our Committee
colleague from Michigan, Representative Lisa McClain introduced
the Protecting Students Athletes Economic Freedom Act, which
would shield student-athletes from misguided efforts to deem
them to be employees.
It is my hope that my Committee colleagues will join this
effort and continue to work together with our colleagues on the
other Committees, to find solutions that ensure the viability
of college sports for future generations. I would like to thank
our witnesses again for taking the time to testify before the
Subcommittee today, and without objection, there being no
further business, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Subcommittee on Health,
Employment, Labor and Pensions was adjourned.]
[Additional submissions from Chairman Walberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]