Members, student-athletes pick up steam on congressional engagement

In an ever-changing landscape, stakeholders at every level of athletics are advocating for the future of college sports.

Across Capitol Hill, several sets of lawmakers have united for bipartisan legislation to address collegiate athletics and name, image and likeness consumer protections. Recent bipartisan bills have been introduced in both chambers of Congress, with more expected in the coming months.

Meanwhile, 28 states have active laws or executive orders related to name, image and likeness, with more in progress, leaving schools with different sets of rules even when they might be within the same conference or NCAA division.

Administrators and student-athletes have stepped up their efforts to advocate for change, with several writing letters, making phone calls and taking in-person meetings with their federal elected officials to express the gravity of the situation and need for federal support.

"I'm not sure all of them are as aware of what is at stake. This is an opportunity to bring them along," Mary-Beth Cooper, president of Division III Springfield College and an NCAA Board of Governors member, said of lawmakers. "It's tough when you come off the Final Four or championship season and for people not to focus on one segment of the student-athlete population versus all.

"Many lawmakers have either played at DIII or have a child, grandchild or next-door neighbor that played at DIII. From my perspective, it's reminding them of the different funding that DI, DII and DIII students receive."

This week, the NCAA hosted a listening session with stakeholders in the NIL space to garner feedback on student-athlete protections, recruiting and school-level assistance. The feedback is intended to inform the DI NIL working group's ongoing legislative efforts. The solutions-focused discussion included an assortment of stakeholders from various conferences, including administrators and current student-athletes.

Leaders from each of the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committees sent letters to Congress in June supporting legislation to guide the future of college sports. The SAAC groups represent more than 520,000 college athletes from more than 1,100 member schools. Support from SAAC for federal legislation came after added attention from Capitol Hill and the White House hosting College Athlete Day on June 12.

Thoughts on name, image and likeness protections for student-athletes

"Name, image and likeness was intended to be the next significant benefit for student-athletes. True NIL provides tremendous opportunities and puts our student-athletes on equal footing with their university peers in permissibly monetizing their reputation and platform. Unfortunately, the current NIL environment has become toxic and wrought with misinformation and inequity. Only with greater transparency can student-athletes understand the market and know the entities that occupy it, reducing the risk of artificially inflated offers, empty promises and false expectations."

"The student-athlete voice needs to be at the forefront of whatever is put forward just because it directly impacts the student-athletes. Whether it's Division I, II or III, we all have a shared experience of collegiate athletics. Division III SAAC feels very strongly that our voice should be heard and at the forefront of what we do.

"As a DIII student-athlete, these don't directly impact me, but more through trickle-down effects. We don't get a lot of NIL."

"Currently we are operating like the Wild, Wild West, and my fear is that some student-athletes are being taken advantage of by individuals who do not have their best interest in mind. We are seeing a lack of transparency in the NIL marketplace, leaving student-athletes vulnerable to exploitation."

"Federal action to enhance safeguards and provide resources for student-athletes, mitigating the risk of bad actors in the NIL market and ensuring that contracts and commitments are honored, is necessary. While the opening of NIL opportunities is a welcomed development, it is vital that we establish comprehensive mechanisms to protect student-athletes from potential exploitation or unfair treatment. Robust oversight and enforcement mechanisms, including clear guidelines and a regulatory framework, are critical to safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.

"Student-athletes, often young and inexperienced in navigating the business world, may be susceptible to exploitation or unfair treatment by unscrupulous individuals or entities seeking to take advantage of their NIL. Without proper safeguards, student-athletes could find themselves entering into unfavorable or exploitative contracts that could harm their personal and financial well-being."  

"While I feel that any person should have the right to use their name, image and likeness, there definitely needs to be systems in place to educate individuals on how to best protect themselves from being taken advantage of and how to avoid conflicts of interest and potential legal and social consequences. As we progress toward legislation that provides student-athletes opportunities, we should also pair that progress with supportive measures such as with life skills education around how to best navigate NIL endeavors."

Thoughts on employment status 

"My institution like many across the country depends on the student-athlete experience for enrollment. We're at about 3,200 students, and almost 40% of our incoming class will play a sport. For enrollment purposes, it matters to me to ensure that (we have) student-athletes, not just because the numbers matter, but they come to get a degree and play a sport. And if we find ourselves in a situation where we can't offer that to them, it will be incredibly problematic for Springfield College, as well as many other small- to medium-sized institutions."

"Being reclassified as an employee would be detrimental to the student-athlete experience across all three divisions. Student-athletes around the country advocated strongly for NIL opportunities to build a brand for ourselves and benefit from our name, image and likeness. If student-athletes were considered employees, we would no longer be able to truly represent ourselves, and we'd essentially just be overshadowed by the institutions we play for.

"The NCAA is composed of a very unique, diverse group of stakeholders that all require different needs to pursue our education, as well as reach our full potential as an athlete. Specifically for Division II, our division revolves around the "life in the balance" philosophy, advocating for student-athletes to have appropriate balance between these two very demanding ventures.

"Finally, most Olympic sports would be at jeopardy, as this model would merely only support sports that generate enough revenue to provide this employee-based model. Minimum wage is different by state, and international student-athletes already have to face the burden to find opportunities to work. An employee-based model would complicate the attainment of work visas exponentially. 

"Student-athletes are all struggling with the mental health phenomena and are all advocating for ways to better support the rigorous balances that come with being a college athlete. This reclassification could potentially create a pressure to perform, as expectations and income could become justified by performance, experience and talent. This directly contradicts the current framework that the NCAA works under."

"My institution, and hundreds of other small colleges, would likely not survive if we were forced to pay athletes. Over 70% of Adrian College students are recruited for athletics. It is unaffordable to consider paying these students even a nominal salary or hourly rate to participate in sports. It is absolutely unaffordable at nearly every Division III school in the country, except for the wealthy few.

"Additionally, as a nonscholarship school, student-athletes as employees would fundamentally change the coach-student relationship by injecting hiring/firing expectations, employer/employee dynamics, pay raise pressure and potential unionization discussions into what has traditionally been a coach/player relationship."

"A pay-for-play model of employment would disrupt amateur sports, our membership's ability to provide the intended mission of intercollegiate athletics and the conference's … ability to … assist with the financial strains.  

"At most of our universities, the only sports that produce net revenues are men's basketball and football. We use these revenues, often supplemented with university funds, to subsidize the additional sports programs our schools sponsor not only to fulfill NCAA required sport sponsorship, but also because outside of tuition and board, I believe intercollegiate sports provide student-athletes with opportunities for development of leadership, job access, teamwork and other interpersonal skills outside the classroom.

"I do believe the model should change and give support in the way NIL does for our student-athletes, but paying student-athletes is not the response to a problem that has existed in college athletics for decades."

"As a DII student-athlete, the thought of employment becoming a reality for college athletics is concerning. While not immediately impactful, the precedent that could be set by mandating employment status for student-athletes would have an effect on all sports across the three NCAA divisions. Much of the current buzz around employment is centered on Division I institutions and specific sports (men's and women's basketball and football), but little thought is given to the impact that will be felt on other sports at the Division I level and all sports at the Division II and III levels. 

"The threat is especially imminent to Olympic and women's sports, which, while not always hugely revenue-generating, are an integral part of the college athletics landscape and even more significant to the athletes who compete in them. The physical, emotional and financial strains that both institutions and student-athletes will face if an employment model is adopted would benefit neither party in the long run and could instead completely alter what it means to be a student-athlete."

"Overall, treating student-athletes as employees would have a profound impact on the student-athlete experience. It would significantly increase time commitments, potentially compromising our ability to balance academics, athletics and personal life. The added pressure and demands associated with employment could lead to heightened stress levels, limited flexibility and potential challenges in managing academic coursework. Financial considerations, including compensation, benefits and tax implications, would also arise, potentially altering the existing scholarship model. Furthermore, reclassifying student-athletes as employees could disrupt the unique collegiate culture, identity and sense of pride associated with representing their educational institutions, as their focus shifts more toward professional obligations rather than the holistic development and educational experience that college sports aim to provide."

Thoughts on varying state laws governing college sports

"The need for a federal NIL standard is greater now than ever. As states continue adopting laws that conflict with one another and, in some cases, explicitly rebuke the NCAA, NIL becomes more difficult for student-athletes and institutions to navigate. A federal standard providing transparency and enforceable safeguards can mitigate the negative impact of the existing environment and ensure student-athletes benefit from the full potential of their NIL. It is my opinion that the current state-by-state approach to governance is best replaced by congressional action that affirms the current relationship between student-athletes and institutions, provides protection and value to student-athletes, and holds institutions and third parties accountable for complying with a set of standardized NIL rules and policies."

"While the vast majority of higher education administrators support students earning NIL revenue, the current environment lends itself to student exploitation by dishonest and unprincipled people. Students are young and still learning about contracts, legal agreements, enhancing revenue and earning their fair share of NIL proceeds. Without clear policies and standards, consistent across states and legally enforceable, unscrupulous people will prey on college athletes.

"Moreover, the current patchwork of laws illustrated by 31 states legalizing 31 separate NIL sets of rules* makes it nearly impossible for competitive equity to exist across sports. Institutions in states that don't currently allow students to earn NIL revenue will be disadvantaged in recruiting top athletes who will likely only attend institutions that allow NIL revenue.

"The only answer to this problem is congressional action to pass legislation that supersedes state law, thereby creating a level playing field for everyone."

* 31 states have enacted NIL legislation. Three states (Alabama, South Carolina and Florida) have since repealed the legislation, leaving 28 states with active NIL laws.

"Our conference crosses state lines between Ohio and Indiana for our core members, as well as Pennsylvania and Kentucky for our affiliate field hockey members. Thinking about managing different laws in each of those states is simply overwhelming. Any conference that crosses state lines has concerns over trying to maintain a level playing field for their members. It is so inequitable to have student-athletes in the same conference have differing opportunities simply based on the location of their institution.

"Since the passing of NIL legislation, there has been a severe lack of education for student-athletes. A good portion of my teammates do not understand the basic concepts of NIL because the only time they hear about it is in the news and when I talk to them. This not only leaves student-athletes susceptible to being taken advantage of by agents but also prevents student-athletes to make use of the many benefits of NIL. 

"It would be helpful to have a national law around NIL to make it so all states have the same NIL rules. The conversations about these topics have been very beneficial, and I believe that student-athletes are very interested and ready to engage. We all just want to find the best way possible to make our voices heard."