[House Report 118-573]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress   }                                       {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                       {     118-573

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



 
       PROTECTING STUDENT ATHLETES' ECONOMIC FREEDOM ACT OF 2024

                                _______
                                

  July 5, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Ms. Foxx, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 8534]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 
referred the bill (H.R. 8534) to prohibit a student athlete 
from being considered an employee of an institution, a 
conference, or an association based on participation in certain 
intercollegiate athletics, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Student Athletes' Economic 
Freedom Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYMENT STANDINGS.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a 
student athlete (or former student athlete) may not be considered an 
employee of an institution, a conference, or an association under any 
Federal or State law or regulation based on participation of the 
student athlete (or former student athlete) in a varsity 
intercollegiate athletics program or a varsity intercollegiate 
athletics competition, or the existence of rules or requirements for 
being a member of any varsity sports team.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) Association.--The term ``association'' means an 
        organization that--
                  (A) has multiple conferences and institutions as 
                members;
                  (B) arranges championships for varsity 
                intercollegiate athletics programs;
                  (C) sets rules for varsity intercollegiate athletics 
                programs;
                  (D) sets rules for varsity intercollegiate athletics 
                competitions; and
                  (E) is not a conference.
          (2) Conference.--The term ``conference'' means an 
        organization that--
                  (A) has multiple institutions as members;
                  (B) sets rules for varsity intercollegiate athletics 
                competitions;
                  (C) arranges championships for varsity 
                intercollegiate athletics programs; and
                  (D) is not an association.
          (3) Institution.--The term ``institution'' means an 
        institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of 
        the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that 
        sponsors a varsity intercollegiate athletics program in the 
        United States.
          (4) Student athlete.--The term ``student athlete'' means an 
        individual who participates in a varsity intercollegiate 
        athletics program.
          (5) Varsity intercollegiate athletics competition.--The term 
        ``varsity intercollegiate athletics competition'' means a 
        competition involving 2 or more varsity intercollegiate 
        athletics programs sponsored by different institutions.
          (6) Varsity intercollegiate athletics program.--The term 
        ``varsity intercollegiate athletics program'' means a team or 
        other program unit of an institution participating in a sport--
                  (A) played at the intercollegiate level;
                  (B) administered by an athletic department; and
                  (C) for which eligibility requirements for 
                participation by student athletes are established by an 
                association.
          (7) Varsity sports team.--The term ``varsity sports team''--
                  (A) means a team of student athletes organized by a 
                varsity intercollegiate athletics program to 
                participate in a varsity intercollegiate athletics 
                competition; and
                  (B) does not include a team that is traditionally 
                characterized as an intramural or club team.

                                PURPOSE

    H.R. 8534, the Protecting Student Athletes' Economic 
Freedom Act, prevents the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB 
or Board) from misclassifying student-athletes as employees. 
The bill also clarifies that student-athletes are not 
considered employees of a collegiate institution, conference, 
or association under federal or state law or regulation based 
on participation in varsity intercollegiate athletic programs 
or competitions.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

                             113TH CONGRESS

Full Committee Hearing on Unionizing Student-Athletes

    On May 8, 2014, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing titled ``Big Labor on College 
Campuses: Examining the Consequences of Unionizing Athletes.'' 
Witnesses were Patrick Eilers, Managing Director, Madison 
Dearborn Partners, Chicago, IL; Bradford Livingston, Partner, 
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL; Bernard Muir, Director of 
Athletics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Andy Schwarz, 
Partner, OSKR LLC, Emeryville, CA; and Ken Starr, President and 
Chancellor, Baylor University, Waco, TX. Witnesses discussed 
the NLRB's efforts to classify student-athletes as employees 
under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

                             114TH CONGRESS

Full Committee Hearing on Expanding Opportunity in Schools and 
        Workplaces

    On February 2, 2015, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing titled ``Expanding Opportunity in 
America's Schools and Workplaces.'' Witnesses were Mike Pence, 
Governor of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN; Michael Amiridis, 
Provost, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC; Drew 
Greenblatt, President and CEO, Marlin Steel, Baltimore, MD; and 
Lawrence Mishel, President, Economic Policy Institute, 
Washington, D.C. Witnesses discussed, among other things, 
attempts by the NLRB to misclassify student-athletes as 
employees under the NLRA.

                             118TH CONGRESS

Joint Subcommittee Hearing on Student-Athletes

    On March 12, 2024, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 
Labor, and Pensions and the Subcommittee on Higher Education 
and Workforce Development held a joint hearing titled 
``Safeguarding Student-Athletes from NLRB Misclassification.'' 
Witnesses were Jill Bodensteiner, Vice President and Director 
of Athletics, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA; 
Tylere Sims, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson, Tampa, FL; Matthew 
Mitten, Professor of Law and Executive Director, National 
Sports Law Institute, Marquette University Law School, 
Milwaukee, WI; and Mark Gaston Pearce, Executive Director, 
Workers' Rights Institute at Georgetown Law, Washington, D.C. 
Witnesses discussed the negative implications of the 
misclassification of student athletes as university employees 
subject to unionization.

Legislative Action

    On May 23, 2024, Representative Bob Good (R-VA) introduced 
H.R. 8534, the Protecting Student Athletes' Economic Freedom 
Act, with Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and 
Representatives Burgess Owens (R-UT), Eric Burlison (R-MO), 
Andrew Ogles (R-TN), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Rick Allen (R-GA), 
Mike Kelly (R-PA), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Mary E. Miller (R-IL), 
and Robert B. Aderhold (R-AL) as original cosponsors. The bill 
was referred solely to the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
    On June 13, 2024, the Committee considered H.R. 8534 in 
legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to 
the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 23-16. 
Representative Good offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute making a technical change. The amendment was adopted 
by voice vote.

                            COMMITTEE VIEWS

Introduction

    President Biden promised to be the most pro-union President 
in U.S. history, and his actions have met that promise. The 
Biden administration has taken an all-of-government approach 
that is steadily chipping away at workers' rights and 
empowering unions to entrench themselves in workplaces in every 
sector, regardless of worker preference.
    At the epicenter of this coordinated approach by government 
agencies to impose unionization on workers is the NLRB. Under 
Chairman Lauren McFerran, the NLRB has issued decisions and 
rules that overturned commonsense policies and tilted the 
playing field in favor of labor unions at the expense of worker 
free choice and commonsense workplace standards. Part of this 
radical pro-union agenda is the NLRB's efforts to expand the 
agency's jurisdiction over individuals who have never before 
been considered employees under the National Labor Relations 
Act (NLRA), including student-athletes.

Background on NLRB Actions Concerning Student-Athletes

    In the face of declining union membership, labor unions 
have sought to organize individuals traditionally not 
considered employees under the NLRA. A recent target of this 
effort has been student-athletes.
    In March 2014, in the Northwestern University case, the 
NLRB Regional Director for Region 13 found that ``grant-in-aid 
scholarship players for [Northwestern University's] football 
team who have not exhausted their play eligibility are 
`employees' under the NLRA.''\1\ The bargaining unit excluded 
``walk-on'' players who do not receive an athletic scholarship. 
The Regional Director ordered a representational election in 
April 2014 to determine whether a majority of the scholarship 
athletes supported the College Athletes Players Association 
(CAPA) union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Northwestern Univ., 13-RC-121359 (NLRB Mar. 6, 2014) (decision & 
direction of election).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Northwestern appealed the Regional Director's decision to 
the full Board. In August 2015, the Board unanimously declined 
to assert jurisdiction and dismissed the representation 
petition filed by CAPA concerning Northwestern University 
football players who receive grant-in-aid scholarships. The 
Board found that ``it would not effectuate the policies of the 
Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.''\2\ In large part, 
the Board reasoned that asserting jurisdiction ``would not 
serve to promote stability in labor relations'' because a 
majority of schools that compete in college football and the 
Big Ten Conference are public institutions not subject to the 
NLRA.\3\ The Board declined to rule on whether or not student-
athletes are statutory employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Northwestern Univ., 362 NLRB No. 167, at 1 (2015).
    \3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Early in the Biden administration, NLRB General Counsel 
(GC) Jennifer Abruzzo signaled she would bring the issue of 
whether student-athletes are employees to the Board. In 
September 2021, GC Abruzzo issued a memorandum providing 
updated guidance to all NLRB field offices regarding her 
position that certain student-athletes are employees under the 
NLRA.\4\ The memo states that ``the law fully supports a 
finding that scholarship football players at Division I 
Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) private colleges and 
universities, and other similarly situated Players at Academic 
Institutions, are employees under the NLRA.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-general-
counsel-jennifer-abruzzo-issues-memo-on-employee-status-of.
    \5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The memo relies on a common law definition of employee, 
which includes a person ``who perform[s] services for another 
and [is] subject to the other's control or right of control.'' 
The memo also argues that payment is ``strongly indicative of 
employee status.'' The memo further claims that student-
athletes perform services for their respective academic 
institutions and the National Collegiate Athletic Association 
(NCAA) in return for compensation and are subject to their 
control. In support of this position, the memo cites the 
``significant developments in the law, NCAA regulations, and 
the societal landscape.'' Specifically, the memo notes the 
NCAA's suspension of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rules for 
student-athletes and the collective action that is occurring at 
``unprecedented levels'' by student-athletes.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since this memo was issued, two cases involving the status 
of student-athletes have reached NLRB regional offices. In May 
2023, GC Abruzzo filed a complaint against the University of 
Southern California (USC), the Pac-12 Conference, and the NCAA, 
seeking that these entities ``cease and desist from 
misclassifying'' players as student-athletes and instead label 
them as employees.\7\ The complaint says misclassifying 
student-athletes as non-employees intentionally discourages 
student-athletes from exercising their rights to engage in 
protected concerted activity under the NLRA. The complaint also 
alleges that the three entities maintained illegal ``handbook 
rules,'' and it highlights USC's social media and interview 
policies that require student-athletes to ``be positive'' and 
not ``do anything to embarrass yourself, the team, your family, 
or the University.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\https://www.law360.com/articles/1679404/attachments/0.
    \8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a remedy, GC Abruzzo is seeking an order from the NLRB 
directing USC, the Pac-12, and the NCAA to reclassify the 
``student athletes'' as ``employees'' in their files, 
handbooks, and rules.\9\ In December 2023 and January 2024, 
NLRB Region 31 held hearings on the GC's unfair labor practice 
charges against USC, the Pac-12, and the NCAA.\10\ Region 31 
has not yet issued a decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\University of S. Cal., 31-CA-290326, at 5-6 (NLRB May 18, 2023) 
(complaint & notice of hearing) https://www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-290326.
    \10\ https://apnews.com/article/usc-ncaa-nlrb-
b261dd0164b4bd17e00e4c7da5ca3f98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 5, 2024, in the Dartmouth College case 
involving Dartmouth men's basketball players petitioning for a 
union, the NLRB Region 1 Director found that because 
``Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the 
Dartmouth men's basketball team, and the players perform that 
work in exchange for compensation, I find that the petitioned-
for basketball players are employees within the meaning of the 
[NLRA].''\11\ The bargaining unit consists of all basketball 
players on the men's varsity basketball team. The Regional 
Director issued a direction of election on union representation 
to allow the 15 members of the team to vote on whether a 
majority support the Service Employees International Union 
(SEIU), Local 560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Trustees of Dartmouth Coll., 01-RC-325633, at 2 (NLRB Feb. 5, 
2024) (decision & direction of election), https://www.nlrb.gov/case/01-
RC-325633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Regional Director determined that the NLRA defines 
``employee'' broadly to include ``any employee'' subject to 
only a few enumerated exceptions that do include players at 
academic institutions or students. She also found that the 
basketball players at issue perform work that benefits 
Dartmouth; that Dartmouth exercises significant control over 
the players' work; that the players are required to provide 
their basketball services to Dartmouth only; and that the 
student-athlete handbook in many ways functions as an employee 
handbook, detailing the tasks athletes must complete and the 
regulations they may not break.
    Finally, the Regional Director found that the Dartmouth 
men's basketball team performs work in exchange for 
compensation. She noted the basketball players receive the 
benefits of ``early read'' for admission prior to graduating 
high school. The players also receive equipment and apparel--
including basketball shoes valued in excess of $1,000 per 
player per year--as well as tickets to games, lodging, meals, 
and the benefits of Dartmouth's ``Peak Performance'' program.
    On March 5, 2024, the Dartmouth men's basketball players 
voted to form the first labor union in college sports. The 15-
player roster voted 13-2 in favor of joining SEIU Local 560. 
Hours after the vote, Dartmouth administrators filed a formal 
appeal to the full NLRB to challenge the vote.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Trustees of Dartmouth Coll., 01-RC-325633 (NLRB Mar. 5, 2024) 
(request for review of decision & direction of election), https://
www.nlrb.gov/case/01-RC-325633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Courts and State Legislatures Have Not Considered Student-
        Athletes To Be Employees

    Federal courts have consistently recognized the difference 
between professional and college athletes. Professional 
athletes are full-time employees paid cash compensation by for-
profit leagues. Student-athletes are full-time students at 
nonprofit institutions of higher education with limits on how 
much time can be dedicated to athletic pursuits and with 
educational standards that must be met to remain eligible to 
compete in athletics.
    On March 12, 2024, Matthew Mitten, Professor and Executive 
Director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette 
University Law School, testified before joint subcommittees of 
the Committee about how federal courts and state legislatures 
have consistently held that student-athletes are not employees:

          Federal and state appellate courts have rejected 
        assertions that college athletes are university 
        employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 
        Berger v. NCAA, 843 F.3d 285, 293 (7th Cir. 2016), or 
        state worker's compensation laws. See, e.g., Rensing v. 
        Indiana State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 444 N.E.2d 1170 
        (Ind. 1983); Waldrep v. Texas Employers Insurance 
        Ass'n, 21 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).
          For purposes of worker's compensation insurance 
        coverage, no state legislatures have characterized 
        college athletes as university employees. Some states 
        expressly exclude intercollegiate athletes from 
        coverage under their worker's compensation laws. See, 
        e.g., Cal. Labor Code Sec.  3352(a)(7) (``employee'' 
        excludes ``[a] person, other than a regular employee, 
        participating in sports or athletics who does not 
        receive compensation for the participation other than 
        the use of athletic equipment, uniforms, 
        transportation, travel, meals, lodgings, or other 
        expenses incidental thereto'').; N.Y. Workers' Comp. 
        Law Sec. 2(4) (McKinney 2022) (```employee' shall not 
        include persons who are members of a supervised amateur 
        athletic activity operated on a non-profit basis''). 
        Notably, without characterizing intercollegiate 
        athletes as ``employees,'' Nebraska has legislatively 
        mandated that the University of Nebraska ``establish an 
        insurance program which provides coverage to student 
        athletes for personal injuries or accidental death 
        while participating in university-organized play or 
        practice in an intercollegiate athletic event.'' Neb. 
        Rev. St. Sec. 85-106.05 (West's 2024).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Safeguarding Student-Athletes from NLRB Misclassification: 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Health, Emp't, Lab. & Pensions and the 
Subcomm. on Higher Educ. & Workforce Development of the H. Comm. on 
Educ. & the Workforce, 118th Cong. (2024) (statement of Matthew Mitten, 
Exec. Dir. of the Nat'l Sports Law Inst., Marquette Univ. Law Sch., at 
5), https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/mitten_testimony.pdf.

    Tyler Sims, a shareholder at Littler Mendelson, testified 
at the same hearing that states have enacted various laws 
limiting public employees' right to bargain collectively and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
classifying student-athletes to not be employees:

          Ohio and Michigan have laws stating that student-
        athletes at public universities are not employees. See 
        Ohio Rev. Code Sec. 3345.56; Mich. Comp. Laws Sec. 
        423.201(1)(e)(iii). Wisconsin and several other states 
        have laws limiting public sector union collective 
        bargaining. See Wis. Stat. Sec. 111.91(3)(a) (wages 
        only). And other states like North Carolina, Texas, and 
        Georgia prohibit public sector collective bargaining 
        all together. See N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. Sec. 95-98; Tex. 
        Gov't Code Sec. 617.002(a); Ga. Code Ann. 20-2-
        09989.10.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Id. (statement of Tyler Sims, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson, 
at 8), https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sims_testimony.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

College Athletes Are Not Employees Under the NLRA

    As stated in the Northwestern decision, Congress did not 
explicitly address ``whether the Board should exercise 
jurisdiction'' over student-athletes.\15\ Without any clear 
direction from Congress, it is important to note that the 
NLRA's overall statutory scheme's purpose and focus is to 
address economic relationships between employers and employees 
in an industrial setting, not an academic one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Northwestern Univ., 362 NLRB No. 167, at 1 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2014, Bradford Livingston, partner at Seyfarth Shaw, 
testified before the Committee about why student-athletes are 
not employees under the NLRA:

          Students who participate in intercollegiate athletics 
        are not ``employees,'' regardless of whether the 
        program generates revenue for the university. The term 
        ``employee'' in Section 2(3) of the NLRA is not defined 
        in any meaningful way, and as a result, its parameters 
        must be examined based on the Act's purpose and focus, 
        which is to address economic relationships between 
        employer and employees. But ``principles developed for 
        the industrial setting cannot be imposed blindly on the 
        academic world.'' Yet claiming that college student-
        athletes are employees begets ``the problem of 
        attempting to force the student-university relationship 
        into the traditional employer-employee framework.'' An 
        analysis of the relationship between the academic 
        institution and its student-athletes can only lead to 
        the conclusion that the NLRA's fundamental purpose does 
        not cover such a relationship, nor should it.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Big Labor on College Campuses: Examining the Consequences of 
Unionizing Student Athletes: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Educ. & the 
Workforce, 113th Cong. 25-26 (2014) (statement of Bradford Livingston, 
Partner, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP).

    Another reason why treating student-athletes as employees 
under the NLRA is unworkable is that it would undermine a key 
goal of the NLRA to limit industrial strife and create labor 
stability. Mr. Sims testified on March 12, 2024, about how 
treating student-athletes as employees would undermine the goal 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the NLRA to improve labor stability:

          Union representation and bargaining will be 
        complicated for student-athletes because of the rapid 
        turnover of college sports teams. At most, a student-
        athlete will graduate and leave the school every 4-5 
        years. However, there are new rules related to the 
        transfer portal, which make it more likely that 
        student-athletes will transfer to a new school before 
        their four years of athletic eligibility are over. In 
        short, students who transfer schools are no longer 
        required to sit out for a year, which was the case when 
        I played at P[rovidence]C[ollege], and students who 
        transfer multiple times can play immediately as well. 
        There are also student-athletes who will choose to 
        leave the team or leave school to turn pro or for other 
        reasons. The Board has recognized the serious 
        administrative issues involved in conducting elections 
        and effectively remedying alleged violations of the 
        NLRA within industries with this type of employee 
        turnover. It is possible that at the end of the CBA 
        [collective bargaining agreement], there will be an 
        entirely new bargaining unit that never voted on 
        unionization. As such, the instability of the potential 
        bargaining unit comprised of student-athletes does not 
        promote stability in labor relations and is 
        inconsistent with the purpose of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Statement of Tyler Sims, supra note 16, at 4-5, https://
edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sims_testimony.pdf.

    Recent NLRB decisions make treating student-athletes as 
employees under the NLRA unworkable. Nearly all institutions of 
higher learning impose a number of commonsense rules on student 
behavior that student-athletes must follow, including basic 
standards of decorum that students and collegiate athletes must 
follow. However, under the current Board doctrine, employers 
are limited in their ability to maintain rules requiring 
civility in the workplace.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) (broadening the 
standard for evaluating employer worker rules that are challenged as 
facially unlawful).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Negative Impact of Employee Status on College Athletics

    Classifying student-athletes as employees with the ability 
to unionize will cause immense legal uncertainty and will harm 
athletes participating in intercollegiate sports as well as 
academic institutions sponsoring intercollegiate athletics. In 
recent years, the NCAA has undergone transformational change 
and has improved conditions for student-athletes. Treating 
student-athletes as employees would undermine recent NCAA rule 
changes that have been beneficial to intercollegiate athletes.
    Mr. Sims testified about some of the potential consequences 
of classifying student-athletes as employees:

          In a typical workplace (or in professional sports), 
        employees must perform well, or they risk losing their 
        job. If student-athletes were to unionize and be 
        subject to the typical terms of a collective bargaining 
        agreement (``CBA''), would schools insist on a clause 
        allowing them to terminate or ``cut'' a student-athlete 
        for poor performance, which is what happens in 
        professional sports?
          The federal tax code exempts certain scholarships 
        from gross income, including those given to student-
        athletes. However, if scholarships are provided as 
        compensation in exchange for their athletic services, 
        those scholarships are not tax-exempt. The tax code 
        specifically states that the exemptions for a 
        ``qualified scholarship'' do not apply to any ``portion 
        of any amount received which represents payment for 
        teaching, research, or other services by the student 
        required as a condition for receiving the qualified 
        scholarship.'' Athletic scholarships can cover the 
        traditional tuition, room, board, books, meals, and 
        fees, but also may include the incidental costs of 
        attending college like transportation and miscellaneous 
        personal expenses. If all of this is classified as 
        ``compensation'' to employees, that compensation would 
        be in exchange for a service, i.e. playing college 
        sports, and would be taxable.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Statement of Tyler Sims, supra note 16, at 9, https://
edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sims_testimony.pdf.

    Jill Bodensteiner, Vice President and Director of Athletics 
at Saint Joseph's University, testified before joint 
subcommittees of the Committee on March 12, 2024, about how 
universities would not be able to afford the increased costs of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
treating student-athletes as employees:

          Current NCAA rules require institutions to sponsor a 
        minimum number of sports to compete in Division I. 
        Several institutions (including Saint Joseph's) exceed 
        the minimum required sports, so they can maximize the 
        benefits of intercollegiate athletics for the student-
        athletes who participate. Those additional sports most 
        often do not generate revenue for institutions. If 
        colleges and universities are required to deploy the 
        resources necessary to support an athlete workforce, 
        such as human resources personnel to manage hundreds 
        (or thousands, at some institutions) of student-athlete 
        job postings; compensable time; hiring, termination and 
        discipline; union negotiations; workers' compensation; 
        and more, those institutions likely will not be able to 
        support many sports that do not generate revenue for 
        the institution. The outcome, therefore, could be many 
        fewer opportunities for student-athletes to participate 
        in collegiate athletics at all.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Safeguarding Student-Athletes from NLRB Misclassification: 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Health, Emp't, Lab. & Pensions and the 
Subcomm. on Higher Educ. & Workforce Development of the H. Comm. on 
Educ. & the Workforce, 118th Cong. (2024) (statement of Jill 
Bodensteiner, Vice President & Dir. of Athletics, Saint Joseph's Univ., 
at 4), https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
bodensteiner_testimony.pdf.

    Professor Mitten also discussed the potential negative 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consequences of classifying student-athletes as employees:

          The broad scope of mandatory subjects of collective 
        bargaining (i.e., ``wages, hours, and other terms and 
        conditions of employment'') between a union 
        representing intercollegiate athletes and their 
        respective educational institutions and possibly others 
        (e.g., athletic conference and/or national governing 
        body) potentially includes: a) a sport-specific player 
        draft, which would result in the loss of or 
        restrictions on intercollegiate student-athletes' 
        current individual freedom to initially chose to attend 
        a particular educational institution; b) collectively 
        bargained wages, which are less than the value of a 
        full costs of attendance scholarship and other cash and 
        in-kind educational benefits permitted under current 
        NCAA rules; c) more restrictive limits on student-
        athletes' NIL earning capacity; for example, the 
        collectively bargained NBA Uniform Player Contract 
        13(a)(b) prohibits all players from ``sponsor[ing] 
        commercial products without the written consent of the 
        Team, which shall not be withheld except in the 
        reasonable interests of the Team or the NBA; d) reduced 
        team size limits (e.g., the current maximum of 85 
        football scholarships for each Division I FBS team is 
        30 more than the maximum 55 players for NFL team 
        rosters); and e) contract and free agency restrictions 
        resulting in student-athletes'' lost or limited current 
        freedom to transfer schools.
          Absent applicable CBA protections, intercollegiate 
        athletes legally characterized as unionized employees 
        who are de facto professional athletes generally could 
        be fired with resulting loss of wages and/or other 
        adverse economic consequences for unsatisfactory 
        athletic performance or simply the coach's desire for 
        replacements who will play better.
          The legal characterization of private university 
        student-athletes as ``employees'' and their 
        unionization under the NLRA results in adverse economic 
        consequences to them under federal intellectual 
        property law. Most courts have ruled that the Copyright 
        Act preempts professional athletes' claims that media 
        broadcasts of games or athletic competitions in which 
        they participate violate their state law NIL or 
        publicity rights.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Id. (statement of Matthew Mitten, Exec. Dir. of the Nat'l 
Sports Law Inst., Marquette Univ. Law Sch., at 15-16), https://
edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/mitten_testimony.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    Classifying collegiate athletes as employees does far more 
harm than good. Student-athletes receive considerable 
benefits--predominantly free or reduced tuition--from competing 
in the sports they love. Treating student-athletes as employees 
would put these benefits at risk and strip many future 
collegiate athletes of the opportunity to compete. There are 
more than 20,000 intercollegiate sports teams with 
approximately 530,000 student-athletes. Without preserving 
collegiate athletes' status as students, the current 
intercollegiate sports model will be destroyed to the detriment 
of most current and future intercollegiate athletes.

                                SUMMARY

                  H.R. 8534 SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY

    Section 1 provides that the short title is the ``Protecting 
Student Athletes' Economic Freedom Act.''
    Section 2 clarifies that student-athletes are not employees 
of an institution, a conference, or an association based on 
participation in a varsity intercollegiate athletics program or 
competition under any federal or state law or regulation.
    Section 3 defines the following terms related to student-
athletes and intercollegiate athletics programs and 
competitions: ``association,'' ``conference,'' ``institution,'' 
``student athlete,'' ``varsity intercollegiate athletics 
competition,'' ``varsity intercollegiate athletics program,'' 
and ``varsity sports team.''

                       EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

    The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, are explained in the body of this report.

              APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch. H.R. 8534 prohibits student athletes from being 
considered employees of an institution, a conference, or an 
association under any federal or state law. H.R. 8534 is 
applicable to student-athletes who participate in a varsity 
intercollegiate athletics program or competition and therefore 
does not apply to the Legislative Branch.

                       UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

    Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344 (as amended 
by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-4), the Committee adopts as its own the 
estimate of mandates prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    H.R. 8534 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

                            ROLL CALL VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for 
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter 
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the 
total number of votes for and against and the names of the 
Members voting for and against.


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the 
goal of H.R. 8534 is to provide that student-athletes are not 
employees under federal or state law.

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    No provision of H.R. 8534 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

  STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in the body of this report.

                       REQUIRED COMMITTEE HEARING

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII the 
following hearing held during the 118th Congress was used to 
develop or consider H.R. 8534: On March 12, 2024, the 
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions and the 
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development held 
a joint hearing on ``Safeguarding Student-Athletes from NLRB 
Misclassification.

               NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee adopts as its 
own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee adopts as its 
own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Legislation summary: On June 13, 2024, the House Committee 
on Education and the Workforce ordered to be reported eight 
bills and one joint resolution. This document provides 
estimates for seven of those bills and the resolution.
    Generally, the legislation would:
           Repeal a rule submitted by the Department of 
        Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis 
        of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving 
        Federal Financial Assistance;''
           Allow nurse practitioners and physician 
        assistants to diagnose, treat, and certify an injury 
        and extent of disability for the purposes of federal 
        workers' compensation;
           Require elementary and secondary schools and 
        institutions of higher education to meet new 
        requirements in order to maintain eligibility for 
        funding from the Department of Education;
           Prevent student athletes from being 
        considered the employees of an institution of higher 
        education; and
           Authorize appropriations for the educational 
        activities of the United States Holocaust Memorial 
        Museum.
    Estimated Federal cost: The estimated costs of the 
legislation fall within budget function 500 (education, 
training, employment, and social services).
    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
legislation will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2024. 
The estimated costs do not include any interaction effects 
among the pieces of legislation. If all seven bills and the 
resolution were combined and enacted as a single piece of 
legislation, the estimated costs could be different than the 
sum of the separated estimates, although CBO expects that any 
difference would be small.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 8606 would cost $8 
million over the 2024-2029 period. Implementing the remaining 
bills and the joint resolution would each cost less than 
$500,000 over the same period. Any related spending would be 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
    H.J. Res. 165, a joint resolution providing for 
Congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex 
in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial 
Assistance:'' H.J. Res 165 would disapprove the rule submitted 
by the Department of Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination 
on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities 
Receiving Federal Financial Assistance,'' as published in the 
Federal Register on April 29, 2024.
    The rule amends title IX of the Education Amendments of 
1972 (title IX), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of 
sex in any education program or activity receiving federal 
financial assistance. The rule clarifies definitions related to 
sex-based discrimination and harassment and specifies the 
requirements for grievance procedures, and requirements for 
preventing sexual discrimination and remedying its effects.
    Institutions that fail to comply with title IX, as amended 
by the rule, could lose federal funding. However, CBO expects 
that institutions will comply with the regulations to avoid 
doing so. On that basis, CBO estimates that disapproving the 
rule would not affect institutions' eligibility for federal 
student aid.
    Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO estimates 
that implementing the resolution would cost less than $500,000 
over the 2024-2029 period. Any related spending would be 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
    H.R. 618, Improving Access to Workers' Compensation for 
Injured Federal Workers Act: H.R. 618 would allow nurse 
practitioners and physician assistants to diagnose, prescribe 
treatment, and certify an injury and the extent of disability 
for the purpose of compensating federal workers under the 
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). Using information 
from the Department of Labor, CBO expects that nonphysician 
providers would be compensated at the same rate as physicians 
and that total benefits provided to injured federal workers 
would not significantly change. Some people may receive 
treatment more quickly under the bill, which could increase 
costs over the 10-year period because some payments to medical 
providers that would have occurred in 2035 under current law 
could be paid in 2034. On the other hand, if injured workers 
receive treatment faster, some may return to work more quickly, 
which could reduce costs. CBO has no basis to estimate which 
effect would predominate, but we expect that those effects 
would roughly offset each other. Thus, CBO estimates that 
enacting H.R. 618 would affect net direct spending by an 
insignificant amount.
    The FECA payments are mandatory. The costs of those 
payments are charged to a claimant's employing agency, which 
reimburses the Department of Labor out of its salaries and 
expense accounts. Any effect on discretionary spending would be 
subject to future appropriation actions.
    H.R. 5567, CLASS Act: H.R. 5567 would require public 
elementary and secondary schools that receive funding from the 
Department of Education to disclose to the department funds 
received or contracts signed with foreign sources that are more 
than $10,000.
    CBO expects schools would comply with the new requirements; 
thus, enacting the bill would not affect their eligibility to 
receive federal funds. Based on the costs of similar 
activities, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost 
the Department of Education less than $500,000 over the 2024-
2029 period. Any related spending would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    H.R. 6816, PROTECT Our Kids Act: H.R. 6816 would prohibit 
elementary and secondary schools that receive direct or 
indirect support from the government of the People's Republic 
of China (including Confucius Institutes), from receiving funds 
from the Department of Education.
    The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act prohibited 
institutions of higher education from using federal funding for 
Chinese language programs at Confucius Institutes. As a result, 
nearly all Confucius Institutes at postsecondary institutions 
have closed, according to a Government Accountability Office 
report released in 2023.\1\ On that basis, CBO expects schools 
would comply with the new requirements; thus, enacting the bill 
would not affect their eligibility to receive federal funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Government Accountability Office, China: With Nearly All U.S. 
Confucius Institutes Closed, Some Schools Sought Alternative Language 
Support, GAO-20-105981 (October 2023), www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-
105981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO estimates 
that implementing the bill would cost the Department of 
Education less than $500,000 over the 2024-2029 period. Any 
related spending would be subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds.
    H.R. 8534, Protecting Student Athletes' Economic Freedom 
Act: The bill would prohibit student athletes from being 
considered an employee of an institution based on the athletes' 
participation in a varsity intercollegiate athletic program or 
competition. Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO 
estimates that implementing the bill would cost the Department 
of Education less than $500,000 over the 2024-2029 period. Any 
related spending would be subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds.
    H.R. 8606, Never Again Education Reauthorization and Study 
Act of 2024: H.R. 8606 would authorize the appropriation of $2 
million each year from 2026 through 2030 for the Director of 
the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to support 
education and training related to the lessons of the Holocaust. 
Under current law, the authorization of appropriations for 
those activities expires at the end of 2025. The bill also 
would require the Director to conduct a study on the 
educational activities being carried out at the state and local 
level. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts and 
using historical spending patterns for those activities, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 8606 would cost $8 million 
over the 2024-2029 period and $2 million after 2029.
    H.R 8648, Civil Rights Protection Act of 2024: H.R. 8648 
would require any institution of higher education that receives 
federal student aid to make publicly available its process for 
addressing violations of title VI of the Civil Rights Act and 
any complaints received regarding alleged violations. The bill 
also would require the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at 
the Department of Education to give monthly briefings on 
violations specific to race, color, or national origin, and 
report the findings of institutional complaints.
    CBO expects institutions would comply with the new 
requirements; thus, enacting the bill would not affect their 
eligibility for federal student aid. Based on the costs of 
similar activities, CBO estimates that implementing the bill 
would cost the Department of Education less than $500,000 over 
the 2024-2029 period. Any related spending would be subject to 
the availability of appropriated funds.
    H.R. 8649, Transparency in Reporting Adversarial 
Contributions to Education Act: The bill would require 
elementary and secondary schools that receive funding from the 
Department of Education to disclose to parents and the public 
any contributions received from foreign countries and the terms 
or conditions of such contributions.
    CBO expects schools would comply with the new requirements; 
thus, enacting the bill would not affect their eligibility to 
receive federal funds. Based on the costs of similar 
activities, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost 
the Department of Education less than $500,000 over the 2024-
2029 period. Any related spending would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 618 would affect net 
direct spending by less than $500,000 over the 2024-2034 
period.
    Increase in long-term net direct spending and deficits: CBO 
estimates that enacting the joint resolution or any of the 
seven bills in this estimate would not increase net direct 
spending or deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year 
periods beginning in 2035.
    Mandates: H.R. 8534 would impose an intergovernmental 
mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
by prohibiting states from designating varsity athletes of a 
school, conference, or association as employees of that entity. 
CBO estimates that the net costs of the direct effects of the 
legislation would not result in additional expenditures or 
losses in revenue; therefore, the cost of the preemption would 
not exceed the threshold established in UMRA for 
intergovernmental mandates ($100 million in 2024, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    The bill would not impose a private-sector mandate as 
defined in UMRA.
    Enacting the legislation may result in other secondary 
effects on private entities by denying employment-related 
benefits to varsity athletes that they may otherwise have 
qualified for as an employee. However, CBO's estimate of those 
effects is subject to uncertainty because the question of 
whether athletes affected by the bill should be recategorized 
as employees of their institutions remains unsettled as court 
rulings, administrative decisions, and changes in policies of 
the National Collegiate Athletics Association are announced. 
What effect, if any, the bill would have on private entities 
would depend on the final adjudication of the matter.
    None of the remaining pieces of legislation contained in 
this estimate would impose intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Meredith Decker 
(Department of Labor); Leah Koestner (Department of Education); 
Susanne Mehlman (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum); 
Garrett Quenneville (Department of Education). Mandates: Erich 
Dvorak, Brandon Lever, and Grace Watson.
    Estimate reviewed by: Elizabeth Cove Delisle, Chief, Income 
Security Cost Estimates Unit; Justin Humphrey, Chief, Finance, 
Housing, and Education Cost Estimates Unit; Kathleen 
FitzGerald, Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit; H. Samuel 
Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
    Estimate approved by: Phillip L. Swagel, Director, 
Congressional Budget Office.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the 
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 8534. 
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when, as with the present report, 
the Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate for the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    As reported by the Committee, H.R. 8534 makes no changes to 
existing law.

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                              INTRODUCTION

    H.R. 8534, the Protecting Student Athletes' Economic 
Freedom Act (Student Athletes Act), would exclude current or 
former ``student athletes'' from being determined under any 
federal or state law to be employees of their school or any 
collegiate athletics body on the basis of their participation 
in covered varsity sports or any control exerted over them as a 
condition of athletics participation.
    Putative employers who would be shielded from any 
employment-related liability under this bill are institutions 
of higher education that sponsor varsity intercollegiate 
athletics; varsity intercollegiate athletic conferences; and 
the NCAA and any other associations that serve as governing 
bodies for varsity sports.
    H.R. 8534 is opposed by the AFL-CIO, American Association 
for Justice, College Football Players Association, National 
College Players Association, and the Service Employees 
International Union. Additionally, individual college athletes 
have submitted letters in opposition to the bill.

                               BACKGROUND

The Business of College Sports
    The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an 
association that regulates college athletics among nearly 1,100 
member colleges and universities across 102 athletic 
conferences in North America.\1\ NCAA member institutions are 
divided into three divisions: Division I (DI), Division II 
(DII), and Division III (DIII).\2\ DI is the most competitive 
level of college athletics and is primarily populated by 
sizeable institutions with large athletic budgets, meanwhile 
DIII is not associated with the same intensity as DI and 
DII.\3\ Each division is governed by the member schools in the 
division through committees.\4\ In the 2021-2022 season, 
approximately 190,000 athletes participated in DI, 130,000 in 
DII, and over 200,000 in DIII.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Overview, NCAA, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/16/
overview.aspx (last viewed Mar. 4, 2024); What is the NCAA?, NCAA, 
https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/10/about-resources-media-center-
ncaa-101-what-ncaa.aspx (last viewed Mar. 4, 2024).
    \2\What is the NCAA?, NCAA, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/10/
about-resources-media-center-ncaa-101-what-ncaa.aspx (last viewed Mar. 
4, 2024). (Of the 1,098 members schools in the NCAA, 350 are in DI, 310 
in DII, and 438 in DIII.)
    \3\The Differences Between NCAA Divisions, NCSA College Recruiting, 
https://www.ncsasports.org/recruiting/how-to-get-recruited/college-
divisions (last viewed Mar. 4, 2024).
    \4\Our Three Divisions, NCAA, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2016/1/7/
about-resources-media-center-ncaa-101-our-three-divisions.aspx (last 
viewed Mar. 4, 2024).
    \5\NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report, NCAA 
(Oct. 27, 2022), https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/sportpart/
2022RES_SportsSponsorshipParticipationRates
Report.pdf at 87 & 88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NCAA has long asserted that the draw of collegiate 
sports is amateurism.\6\ Meanwhile, college sports have become 
a multi-billion-dollar industry.\7\ In the 2022-2023 fiscal 
year, the NCAA brought in almost $1.3 billion in revenue, a 
$140 million increase from the prior fiscal year.\8\ The NCAA's 
Power Five conferences--the most prominent athletic 
conferences--collectively reported ``more than $3.3 billion in 
revenue during their 2022 fiscal years.''\9\ In 2019, NCAA 
member institutions across the three divisions generated more 
than $18.9 billion in revenue from athletics, with DI schools 
accounting for $15.8 billion.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Safeguarding Student-Athletes from NLRB Misclassification: 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on H, Employ., Lab., & Pensions of the H. 
Comm. on Educ. & the Wrkf., 118th Cong. (2024) (statement of Mark 
Gaston Pearce, Exec. Dir., Workers' Rights Inst. at Geo. L. Ctr.) 
(accessible at https://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
31424pearcetestimony.pdf) [hereinafter Pearce Testimony].
    \7\Andrew Zimbalist, Analysis: Who is Winning in the High-Revenue 
World of College Sports?, PBS (Mar. 18, 2023), https://www.pbs.org/
newshour/economy/analysis-who-is-winning-in-the-high-revenue-world-of-
college-sports.
    \8\NCAA Generates Nearly $1.3 Billion in Revenue for 2022-23, ESPN 
(Feb. 1, 2024), https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/
39439274/ncaa-generates-nearly-13-billion-revenue-2022-23.
    \9\Steve Berkowitz, NCAA's Power Five Conferences Are Cash Cows. 
Here's How Much Schools Made in Fiscal 2022, USA Today (May 19, 2023), 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2023/05/19/power-5-
conferences-earnings-billions-2022/70235450007/.
    \10\15-Year Trends in Division I Athletics Finances, NCAA Research, 
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/Finances/2020RES_D1-
RevExp_Report.pdf (last viewed Mar. 5, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Students who participate in varsity intercollegiate 
athletics report significant time demands, being subject to 
substantial control by colleges over their time and activities, 
and constraints on their ability to pursue their studies. One 
NCAA survey found that,``[o]n average, football, men's 
basketball, women's basketball, and baseball players in [DI] 
spend about 40 hours a week on athletic activities.''\11\ The 
issue persists in the offseason, with a majority of DI and DII 
college athletes engaging in athletic related activities for 
the same or greater number of hours as their regular 
season.\12\ Beyond the hours spent on the activity, college 
athletes have also spoken out about the control institutions 
have on their lives off the field. As noted in Mark Gaston 
Pearce's testimony before the Committee in March 2024:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Jake New, What Off-Season?, Inside Higher Ed. (May 7, 2015), 
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/08/college-athletes-say-
they-devote-too-much-time-sports-year-round.
    \12\Id.

          Former University of Southern California football 
        players testified that USC officials retained rigid 
        control over their lives almost year-round including 
        fingerprint scanning players to mark their presence at 
        daily meals and conducting hydration testing and weigh-
        ins multiple times a week. USC hired other students to 
        check that the athletes went to class. One former 
        football player testified that there was so much 
        pressure to attend practices that he would rather study 
        into the wee hours of the night than miss practice.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Pearce Testimony, supra note 6, at 10.

    Moreover, the demands of sports reportedly impinge on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
students' ability to pursue the academic path of their choice:

          Student athletes at NCAA [DI] schools must schedule 
        classes around their required NCAA athletic activities 
        and cannot reschedule their NCAA athletic activities 
        around their academic programs. As a result, Villanova 
        University only excuses a student athlete from 
        participating in required athletic activities if there 
        is a conflict between practice and a mandatory core 
        class. For example, when [one student] played football 
        at Villanova University he was required to participate 
        in NCAA athletically related activities on weekdays 
        between 5:45 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. and could not enroll 
        in a non-core class during that time, including classes 
        that were prerequisites for academic degree programs. . 
        . . Because student athletes have to schedule their 
        classes around their required athletic activities, many 
        student athletes have reported that participation in 
        NCAA [DI] sports have prevented them from taking 
        classes that they wanted to take. Many student athletes 
        have also reported that their participation in NCAA 
        [DI] sports has prevented them from majoring in their 
        preferred major.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Johnson v. NCAA, 556 F. Supp. 3d 491, 496-97 (E.D. Pa. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Workplace Laws

    Many laws afford protections or allot responsibilities 
based on an employment relationship.\15\ These laws differ in 
their definitions and the tests used to determine the existence 
of an employment relationship, but the relevant factors tend to 
include the nature of the enterprise, the distribution of 
capacity to control the nature of the work performed, and the 
economic relationship between the putative employer and 
putative employee. Two laws of particular relevance for this 
bill are the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA)\16\ and 
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\See generally Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Employees, Employers, and 
Quasi-Employers: An Analysis of Employees and Employers Who Operate in 
the Borderland Between an Employer-and-Employee Relationship, 14 U. 
Penn. J. Bus. L. 605 (2012); Noah D. Zatz, Working Beyond the Reach or 
Grasp of Employment Law, in The Gloves-Off Economy: Workplace Standards 
at the Bottom of America's Labor Market 31 (Annette Bernhardt et al. 
eds. 2008).
    \16\Pub. L. No. 75-718, 52 Stat. 1060 (1938) (codified at 29 U.S.C. 
Sec. 201 et seq.).
    \17\Pub. L. No. 74-198, 49 Stat. 449 (1935) (codified at 29 U.S.C. 
Sec. 151 et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FLSA is the core federal workplace standards law governing 
the minimum wage,\18\ overtime,\19\ oppressive child labor,\20\ 
discrimination in pay on the basis of sex,\21\ and the right of 
nursing mothers to take paid breaks at work for the purpose of 
expressing breast milk.\22\ FLSA is enforced by both the U.S. 
Department of Labor and private litigants.\23\ In FLSA, the 
term ``employ'' includes ``to suffer or permit to work.''\24\ 
When establishing this broad definition of employment, Congress 
consciously rejected the narrower common law standard of 
employment, which turns on the degree to which the employer has 
control over an employee. Congress instead sought to expand the 
employment relationship to hold accountable employers who would 
not be liable for violations under a control test.\25\ Courts 
test the applicability of this definition using the ``economic 
realities'' test, which looks underneath whatever terms the 
parties to a relationship use to describe it and focuses 
instead on the reality of the relationship based on the 
totality of the circumstances to determine whether the putative 
employee is economically dependent on the potential 
employer.\26\ Ultimately, the application of the economic 
realities factors is guided by the overarching principle that 
the FLSA should be ``construed liberally to apply to the 
furthest reaches consistent with congressional direction.''\27\ 
The FLSA definition of employment is the ``broadest definition 
that has ever been included in any one act.''\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Id. Sec. 6.
    \19\Id. Sec. 7.
    \20\Id. Sec. 12.
    \21\Id. Sec. 6(d).
    \22\Id. Sec. 18D.
    \23\Id. Sec. 16.
    \24\Id. Sec. 3(g).
    \25\Bruce Goldstein et al., Enforcing Fair Labor Standards in the 
Modern American Sweatshop: Rediscovering the Statutory Definition of 
Employment, 46 UCLA L. Rev. 983, 991 (1999).
    \26\Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 301 
(1985) (reiterating that the test of employment under the FLSA is 
economic reality); Goldberg v. Whitaker House Co-op, Inc., 366 U.S. 28, 
33 (1961).
    \27\Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Assocs., 358 U.S. 207 (1959).
    \28\United States v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360, 363 (1945) (quoting 
81 Cong. Rec. 7,657 (1938) (remarks of Sen. Hugo Black)). The FLSA's 
definition of ``employ'' is a standard of ``striking breadth'' that 
``stretches the meaning of `employee' to cover some parties who might 
not qualify as such under a strict application of traditional agency 
law principles.'' Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323 
(1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NLRA is the foundational federal law governing labor 
relations. Administered by the National Labor Relations Board 
(NLRB), the NLRA protects the rights of employees to organize 
and collectively bargain with their employers for improved 
working conditions and benefits, among other things. Under the 
NLRA, the question of whether a worker is an employee or an 
independent contractor is governed by a common law test of 
control.\29\ Among the factors courts and the NLRB apply when 
examining whether workers are employees within the meaning of 
the NLRA are ``the extent of control the employer has over the 
work; . . . whether the worker is engaged in a distinct 
occupation or business . . . ; whether the kind of occupation 
is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a 
specialist without supervision; [and] whether the employer is 
or is not in business.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\See FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB, 849 F.3d 1123, 1125 (D.C. Cir. 
2017).
    \30\Id. (internal citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Workplace Law and College Sports Before 2021

    Challenges around student athletes and labor and employment 
law date back decades. In fact, the term ``student-athlete'' 
was originally concocted by ``the NCAA's president and legal 
team in the 1950s as part of a legal strategy designed to avoid 
paying a worker's compensation claim.''\31\ Student athletes 
also attempted, generally unsuccessfully in the past, to bring 
wage theft claims under FLSA.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Pearce Testimony, supra note 6, at 3.
    \32\See, e.g., Dawson v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 932 F.3d 
905 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that a student athlete was not an 
``employee'' of either NCAA or conference under FLSA or under 
California Labor Code); Berger v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 843 
F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that former student athletes had not 
been employees of university).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    College athletes attempted in 2014 to unionize. The College 
Athletes Players Association filed an election petition seeking 
to represent football players at Northwestern University who 
received grant-in-aid scholarships.\33\ An NLRB Regional 
Director determined that players on Northwestern University's 
football team who received grant-in-aid scholarships were 
employees within the meaning of section 2(3) of the NLRA\34\ 
and directed that a representation election be conducted. On 
review, the NLRB explicitly did not decide whether the 
scholarship football players were employees. Instead, the NLRB 
determined that, even if the players were statutory employees, 
asserting jurisdiction in the case would not effectuate the 
policies of the NLRA. Essentially, the NLRB was concerned that 
if Northwestern University players were determined to be 
statutory employees there would be a risk of unionized, non-
unionized, and non-employee teams all in the same conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Northwestern University, 362 NLRB 1350 (2015) (docket 
accessible at https://www.nlrb.gov/case/13-RC-121359).
    \34\See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151(2)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Turning Point: NCAA v. Alston

    The distinctive nature of amateurism in college sports and 
the student athlete was questioned in a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court 
case applying antitrust law. In NCAA v. Alston, the Court 
considered claims by college athletes that the NCAA system's 
limits on education-related compensation amounted to an undue 
restraint of trade. A unanimous Court recognized that college 
sports are a profit-making enterprise and rejected the NCAA's 
antitrust defense based on the supposed distinctiveness of 
amateurism in college athletics.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\NCAA v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141, 2158 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Alston Court did not explicitly address employment 
status of college athletes, but Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence 
suggested a direct line from that case to the applicability of 
workplace laws. ``[T]he NCAA['s argument] that colleges may 
decline to pay student athletes because the defining feature of 
college sports . . . is that the student athletes are not paid 
. . . is circular and unpersuasive,'' wrote Justice Kavanaugh. 
``[I]t is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member 
colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share 
of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining 
characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not 
pay student athletes. . . . Nowhere else in America can 
businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a 
fair market rate on a theory that their product is defined by 
not paying their workers a fair market rate.''\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Id. at 2168-2169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Workplace Law Challenges in the Wake of Alston

    A FLSA case brought by student athletes is now moving in 
the federal courts. Johnson v. NCAA, a post-Alston case raising 
FLSA and state wage and hour claims in addition to common law 
unjust enrichment claims, survived a motion to dismiss in 2021, 
with the federal district court extensively quoting Justice 
Kavanaugh's Alston concurrence.\37\ The court certified that 
decision for interlocutory appeal,\38\ which was recently 
argued before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\Johnson, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 501.
    \38\Johnson v. NCAA, No. 19-5230, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246324 
(E.D. Pa. Dec. 28, 2021).
    \39\Maryclaire Dale, NCAA Asks US Appeals Court to Block Pay for 
Student-Athletes, Assoc. Press (Feb. 15, 2023), https://apnews.com/
article/sports-compensation-in-education-college-
6f6feb3a3973dee785ad2b778a490e0e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Players on Dartmouth College's men's varsity basketball 
team voted March 2024 by a margin of 13 to 2 in favor of 
representation by the Service Employees International Union 
(SEIU), Local 560--becoming the first ever bargaining unit 
comprised of college athletes.\40\ The union election came 
after a NLRB Regional Director concluded that the players were 
employees for the purposes of the NLRA.\41\ The school has 
filed a Request for Review of the Regional Director's decision, 
and the NLRB's decision is pending on the matter.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\Jimmy Golen, Dartmouth Men's Basketball Team Votes to Unionize, 
Though Steps Remain Before Forming Labor Union, AP News (Mar. 5, 2024), 
https://apnews.com/article/dartmouth-union-ncaa-basketball-players-
2fd912fade62ffd81218a6dc91461962; NLRB Certifies Union to Represent 
Dartmouth Basketball Players, AP News (Mar. 14, 2024), https://
apnews.com/article/dartmouth-basketball-union-
b27e5702df9a92d0f2ec0ae791ca1916.
    \41\Decision and Direction of Elections, Trustees of Dartmouth 
College (No. 01-RC-325633 Feb. 5, 2024), https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/
document.aspx/09031d4583c5ebe4.
    \42\Trustees of Dartmouth College, 01-RC-325633, https://
www.nlrb.gov/case/01-RC-325633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Neither the Johnson litigation nor the Darthmouth College 
basketball unionization effort has reached a final disposition.

                               DISCUSSION

Open Door for Abuse

    With its broad carve-out from state and federal laws, the 
Student Athletes Act appears to exclude varsity athletes from 
any and all laws protecting employees in any way--including 
labor rights, wage and hour protections, occupational safety 
standards, and workers' compensation programs. It is a 
categorical exclusion no matter what facts on the ground exist 
that might demonstrate arrangements of compensation, control 
over students' time and conditions, or limitations on their 
educational opportunities belying the ``student-athlete'' 
ideal. It would preempt any contrary state law.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\See, e.g., Rick Maese, Proposed Legislation Would Give Maryland 
College Athletes the Right to Organize, Wash. Post (Feb. 8, 2019), 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/proposed-legislation-
would-give-maryland-college-athletes-the-right-to-unionize/2019/02/07/
d3f80368-2b0c-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oddly, the Student Athletes Act does not explicitly limit 
its applicability to actual students. Section 3(4) of the bill 
defines student athlete as ``an individual who participates in 
a varsity intercollegiate athletics program.'' Neither that 
definition nor the interrelated definitions in the bill of 
varsity intercollegiate athletics program and competition limit 
the coverage to athletes who are students enrolled in 
institutions of higher education. The only limiting factor 
beyond athletics participation is any rule of eligibility set 
by intercollegiate sports governing bodies (although, even 
then, the bill does not restrict the exclusion to student 
athletes who actually comply with an association's eligibility 
rules).
    Moreover, the Student Athletes Act does not explicitly 
limit the employment and labor law exclusion to involvement in 
athletics. It declares that employment status cannot be 
established under any law ``based on participation . . . in 
[varsity sports] or the existence of rules or requirements for 
being a member of any varsity sports team.'' Students in the 
Johnson v. NAACP lawsuit have pointed out that varsity 
athletics participation requires much more of them than just 
training and competing: for example, NCAA Division 1 rules 
``require student athletes to participate in Required 
Athletically Related Activities like fundraising and community 
service.''\44\ The bill could, conceivably, exclude student 
athletes from workplace protections in any work required of 
them as a condition of continued participation in college 
sports--including work other than just playing sports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\Johnson, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 497 (internal citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Premature Action

    This bill appears to be a solution in search of a problem. 
Decisions about employment status under employment and labor 
laws are still pending. Instead of letting the process play 
out, this bill would simply push college athletes out of all 
employment and labor protections before it is even clear if 
they apply.

Nostalgia for a Lost Cause

    The Majority's case for the bill calls for the preservation 
of the amateur athletics ideal. Bill sponsor Rep. Bob Good (R-
VA-5) invoked ``America's long tradition of college 
sports.''\45\ Rep. Rick W. Allen (R-GA-12) referred to the 
``distinctive and valuable experience of being a student 
athlete'' and the ``invaluable lessons'' of college sports.\46\ 
The thrust of the Majority's argument was that defining the 
economic relationship between college athletes and the 
collegiate sports industry would be an affront to the spirit of 
amateur sports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\Rep. Good Protects Economic Freedoms for Student Athletes, Rep. 
Bob Good (May 23, 2024), https://good.house.gov/media/press-releases/
rep-good-protects-economic-freedoms-student-athletes.
    \46\Comm. on Educ. & Wrkf. Dems., Markup: H.R. 618, H.R. 8606, H.R. 
8648, H.J. RES. 165, H.R. 6816, H.R. 5567, H.R. 8649, H.R. 7227, H.R. 
8534, Youtube (June 13, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
CfZUIFBSR0 [hereinafter June 13 Markup].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The history of college athletics tells a different story. 
In Alston, the Supreme Court traced a path in the history of 
American college sports that starts with money and ends with 
more money:

          American colleges and universities have had a 
        complicated relationship with sports and money. In 
        1852, students from Harvard and Yale participated in 
        what many regard as the Nation's first intercollegiate 
        competition--a boat race at Lake Winnipesaukee, New 
        Hampshire. But this was no pickup match. A railroad 
        executive sponsored the event to promote train travel 
        to the picturesque lake. He offered the competitors an 
        all-expenses-paid vacation with lavish prizes--along 
        with unlimited alcohol . . . .
          [I]t was football that really caused college sports 
        to take off. ``By the late 1880s the traditional 
        rivalry between Princeton and Yale was attracting 
        40,000 spectators and generating in excess of $25,000 . 
        . . in gate revenues.'' Schools regularly had 
        ``graduate students and paid ringers'' on their teams.
          Colleges offered all manner of compensation to 
        talented athletes. Yale reportedly lured a tackle named 
        James Hogan with free meals and tuition, a trip to 
        Cuba, the exclusive right to sell scorecards from his 
        games--and a job as a cigarette agent for the American 
        Tobacco Company. The absence of academic residency 
        requirements gave rise to ``tramp athletes'' who 
        ``roamed the country making cameo athletic appearances, 
        moving on whenever and wherever the money was better.'' 
        One famous example was a law student at West Virginia 
        University--Fielding H. Yost--``who, in 1896, 
        transferred to Lafayette as a freshman just in time to 
        lead his new teammates to victory against its arch-
        rival, Penn.'' The next week, he ``was back at West 
        Virginia's law school.'' College sports became such a 
        big business that Woodrow Wilson, then President of 
        Princeton University, quipped to alumni in 1890 that 
        ``Princeton is noted in this wide world for three 
        things: football, baseball, and collegiate 
        instruction.''\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\Alston, 141 S. Ct. at 2148.

    The institution that ultimately became the NCAA, born to 
address the crisis of death and disabling injury in college 
football, quickly ruled that ``[n]o student shall represent a 
College or University in any intercollegiate game or contest 
who is paid or receives, directly or indirectly, any money, or 
financial concession,''\48\ but ``[r]eality did not always 
match aspiration'':\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\Id.
    \49\Id. at 2149.

          [Just] two decades [after creation of the NCAA], the 
        Carnegie Foundation produced a report on college 
        athletics that found them still ``sodden with the 
        commercial and the material and the vested interests 
        that these forces have created.'' Schools across the 
        country sought to leverage sports to bring in revenue, 
        attract attention, boost enrollment, and raise money 
        from alumni. The University of California's athletic 
        revenue was over $480,000, while Harvard's football 
        revenue alone came in at $429,000. College football was 
        ``not a student's game''; it was an ``organized 
        commercial enterprise'' featuring athletes with ``years 
        of training,'' ``professional coaches,'' and 
        competitions that were ``highly profitable.''
          The commercialism extended to the market for student-
        athletes. Seeking the best players, many schools 
        actively participated in a system ``under which boys 
        are offered pecuniary and other inducements to enter a 
        particular college.'' One coach estimated that a rival 
        team ``spent over $200,000 a year on players.'' In 
        1939, freshmen at the University of Pittsburgh went on 
        strike because upperclassmen were reportedly earning 
        more money. In the 1940s, Hugh McElhenny, a halfback at 
        the University of Washington, ``became known as the 
        first college player `ever to take a cut in salary to 
        play pro football.''' He reportedly said: ``[A] wealthy 
        guy puts big bucks under my pillow every time I score a 
        touchdown. Hell, I can't afford to graduate.'' In 1946, 
        a commentator offered this view: ``[W]hen it comes to 
        chicanery, double-dealing, and general undercover work 
        behind the scenes, big-time college football is in a 
        class by itself.''
          In 1948, the NCAA sought to do more than admonish. It 
        adopted the ``Sanity Code.'' The code reiterated the 
        NCAA's opposition to ``promised pay in any form.'' But 
        for the first time the code also authorized colleges 
        and universities to pay athletes' tuition. And it 
        created a new enforcement mechanism--providing for the 
        ``suspension or expulsion'' of ``proven 
        offenders''. .     . .
          The rules regarding student-athlete compensation have 
        evolved ever since. In 1956, the NCAA expanded the 
        scope of allowable payments to include room, board, 
        books, fees, and ``cash for incidental expenses such as 
        laundry.'' In 1974, the NCAA began permitting paid 
        professionals in one sport to compete on an amateur 
        basis in another. In 2014, the NCAA ``announced it 
        would allow athletic conferences to authorize their 
        member schools to increase scholarships up to the full 
        cost of attendance.'' The 80 member schools of the 
        ``Power Five'' athletic conferences--the conferences 
        with the highest revenue in Division I--promptly voted 
        to raise their scholarship limits to an amount that is 
        generally several thousand dollars higher than previous 
        limits.
          In recent years, changes have continued. The NCAA has 
        created the ``Student Assistance Fund'' and the 
        ``Academic Enhancement Fund'' to ``assist student-
        athletes in meeting financial needs,'' ``improve their 
        welfare or academic support,'' or ``recognize academic 
        achievement.'' These funds have supplied money to 
        student-athletes for ``postgraduate scholarships'' and 
        ``school supplies,'' as well as ``benefits that are not 
        related to education,'' such as ``loss-of-value 
        insurance premiums,'' ``travel expenses,'' 
        ``clothing,'' and ``magazine subscriptions.'' In 2018, 
        the NCAA made more than $84 million available through 
        the Student Activities Fund and more than $48 million 
        available through the Academic Enhancement Fund. 
        Assistance may be provided in cash or in kind, and 
        there is no limit to the amount any particular student-
        athlete may receive. Since 2015, disbursements to 
        individual students have sometimes been tens of 
        thousands of dollars above the full cost of attendance.
          The NCAA has also allowed payments ``incidental to 
        athletics participation,'' including awards for 
        ``participation or achievement in athletics'' (like 
        ``qualifying for a bowl game'') and certain ``payments 
        from outside entities'' (such as for ``performance in 
        the Olympics''). The NCAA permits its member schools to 
        award up to . . . two annual ``Senior Scholar Awards'' 
        of $10,000 for students to attend graduate school after 
        their athletic eligibility expires. Finally, the NCAA 
        allows schools to fund travel for student-athletes' 
        family members to attend ``certain events.''\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\Id. at 2149-2150 (emphasis added and internal citations 
omitted).

    If the world imagined by the Majority ever had existed, it 
is long over. At the end of May 2024, the NCAA and its major 
conferences announced settlements in three post-Alston 
antitrust cases brought by college athletes. The proposed 
settlement would, among other things, implement a new revenue 
sharing model to distribute a portion of proceeds from revenue 
streams such as broadcast rights, ticket sales, and 
sponsorships to the athletes. In the first year, each school 
would be allowed to distribute as much as $20 million to 
athletes, and that amount would increase with total 
revenues.\51\ The deal is ``a change that would crush any last 
notions of amateurism in major college sports.''\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\Becky Sullivan, What We Know and What We Don't About a Historic 
Settlement to Pay College Athletes, NPR (May 24, 2024), https://
www.npr.org/2024/05/24/nx-s1-4978680/house-ncaa-settlement-pay-college-
athletes.
    \52\Jesse Dougherty, In Major Change, College Athletes Set to Be 
Paid Directly by Schools, Wash. Post (May 23, 2024), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/05/23/ncaa-settlement-revenue-
sharing/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    College athletes, acting through counsel in the context of 
antitrust litigation, advocated for their interests in these 
negotiations. If the pending NLRB case is decided in favor of 
college athletes, future negotiations could take place in the 
context of labor relations, with workers acting through their 
own democratically elected leadership. There is no better way 
to safeguard the economic freedom of college athletes.

Real Problems Being Ignored

    Ranking Member Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA-3) and 
Workforce Protections Subcommittee Ranking Member Alma Adams 
(D-NC-12) have asked twice for the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce to hold a hearing on the crisis of child labor 
and consider the legislation offered to solve that crisis.\53\ 
Democratic members also have been pressing for action to raise 
the minimum wage, address heat stress, expand protections for 
workers to exercise their rights to join a union and bargain 
collectively, and much more.\54\ H.R. 8534, the so-called 
Protecting Student Athletes' Economic Freedom Act, does nothing 
to address the very real problems that Americans face. In fact, 
as Ranking Member Scott put it during the Committee's markup, 
the only ``freedom'' it protects is Committee Republicans' 
freedom to strip varsity athletes of their rights and 
protections under fundamental labor and employment 
statutes.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\See Letter from Reps. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott & Alma S. Adams 
to Rep. Virginia Foxx (Sept. 13, 2023), https://democrats-
edworkforce.house.gov/download/scott-adams-second-letter-to-foxx-re-
request-for-child-labor-hearing; Letter from Reps. Robert C. ``Bobby'' 
Scott & Alma S. Adams to Rep. Virginia Foxx, (June 6, 2023), https://
democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/download/scott-adams-letter-to-foxx-re-
request-for-child-labor-hearing.
    \54\See, e.g., Asuncion Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality 
Prevention Act of 2023, H.R. 4897, 118th Cong. (2023); Protecting 
America's Workers Act, H.R. 2998, 118th Cong. (2023); Protecting 
Children Act, H.R. 4440, 118th Cong. (2023); Protecting the Right to 
Organize Act of 2023, H.R. 20, 118th Cong. (2023); Raise the Wage Act, 
H.R. 3264, 118th Cong. (2023); Wage Theft Prevention and Wage Recovery 
Act, H.R. 5402, 118th Cong. (2023; Workplace Violence Prevention for 
Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, H.R. 2663, 118th Cong. 
(2023).
    \55\June 13 Markup, supra note 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    For the reasons stated above, Committee Democrats 
unanimously opposed H.R. 8534 when the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce considered it on June 13, 2024. We urge the 
House of Representatives to do the same.

                                   Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
                                   Suzanne Bonamici,
                                   Mark Takano,
                                   Mark DeSaulnier,
                                   Pramila Jayapal,
                                           Members of Congress.

                                  [all]