Washington — The NCAA’s yearslong efforts to get lawmakers to address myriad problems in college sports could finally pay off in the new, Republican-controlled Congress.
Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican who is set to take over as chair of the powerful Commerce Committee, said recently that a college sports bill will be a top priority, accusing Democrats of dragging their feet on needed reforms. He still needs Democratic support for any bill to pass the necessary 60-vote threshold in the Senate, and that means some compromise with lawmakers who are more concerned about athlete welfare than giving the NCAA more authority.
“Clearly the situation is much more doable with Republicans in control,” said Tom McMillen, a former Democratic congressman who played college basketball and for several years led an association of Division I athletic directors. “From the standpoint of the NCAA’s perspective, this is sort of an ideal scenario for them.”
What’s at stake
Cruz and others want to preserve at least parts of an amateur athlete model at the heart of college sports that has provided billions of dollars in scholarships and fueled decades of success by the United States at the Olympics.
The broad outlines of a bill have been debated for years, with those conversations influenced by millions of dollars in lobbying by the NCAA and the wealthiest athletic conferences. The NCAA has found a more receptive audience on Capitol Hill since Charlie Baker, a former Republican Massachusetts governor, took over as its president in March 2023.
There is some bipartisan consensus that Congress should grant the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption that would allow it to make rules governing college sports without the constant threat of lawsuits, and that national standards for athlete name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation are needed to override a patchwork of state laws.
Those are the key elements of legislation that Cruz has backed for more than a year. Staffers from his office and those of fellow Republican Jerry Moran of Kansas and Democrats Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Cory Booker of New Jersey spent months negotiating a bill that would have been introduced in the current, divided Congress, but those talks stalled.
Bipartisan support key
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., the outgoing Commerce Committee chair, has been working to advance college sports reform since 2019 but struggled to build consensus on legislation. Still, she agrees with Cruz on at least one problem that Congress could solve — one she saw play out in her home state with the dissolution of the Pac-12 Conference.
“Right now, big schools and their boosters are pitted against smaller schools. We need a predicable national NIL standard that will ensure a level playing field for college athletes and schools,” Cantwell said in a statement to The Associated Press.
A Supreme Court decision in 2021 paved the way for athletes to receive NIL compensation, and now a pending $2.8 billion settlement of multiple antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA has set the table not only for damages paid to past athletes for the NIL money they couldn’t earn but revenue-sharing by schools to their current and future college stars.
Beyond those changes the NCAA was forced to make by the courts, the organization has expanded health benefits for athletes and made new scholarship guarantees. Those new rules took effect Aug. 1, and the NCAA argues they obviate the need for Congress to mandate such benefits.
“We believe that in the next session, members of Congress are going to see the results of those positive changes, and our goal is to build on those and address the remaining issues that only Congress can address,” said Tim Buckley, the NCAA’s senior vice president of external affairs.
Prickly employment issue
The NCAA’s chief goal — and one that seems achievable with Republicans in charge — is “preventing student-athletes from being forced into becoming employees of their schools,” Buckley said.
There are several pending efforts by athletes seeking the ability to unionize, with at least one already tied in up court.
The NCAA has sent athletes to Capitol Hill to tell Congress they don’t want employee status, and some Democrats who previously supported athlete employment have acknowledged the potential drawbacks. Those include drastic cuts to women’s and Olympic sports that might be needed for universities to meet their payroll obligations and financial complications for athletes whose scholarships and other benefits would become taxable.
“For example, the historically Black colleges and universities came together and said, ‘If you force us to treat student-athletes as employees, it’s going to cause us to cancel most of our athletic programs.’ That would be a disastrous outcome,” Cruz said in an appearance at Texas A&M University in September.
Still, overly broad anti-employment language in any bill could imperil its chances of passage. Democrats are hesitant to approve legislation that is seen as too friendly to the NCAA. Booker, a moderate on the issue of athlete employment and a former football player at Stanford, nonetheless emphasized in a statement that he would only support an athlete-friendly bill.
“For too long, the college sports system put power and profits over the rights and well-being of college athletes. And while we’ve made some hard-fought progress in recent years, there’s still more to do,” Booker said. “My advocacy on their behalf will continue in the next Congress.”
Cruz could also face pressure from his own side of the aisle. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., who spent more than two decades as a Division I football coach, has called for Congress to mandate penalties for players who break NIL contracts.
While Cruz understands the need for compromise, he intends to use the power he has to advance his — and, to some extent, the NCAA’s — priorities.
“As chairman, I can convene hearings. I’m in charge of every hearing the Commerce Committee has,” Cruz said on a recent episode of his weekly podcast. “I can decide what bills get marked up and what bills don’t, and it gives you the ability to drive an agenda that is just qualitatively different.”
