https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2021/6/n...nil-rights

Quote:WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), the Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, will convene a hearing titled “NCAA Athlete NIL Rights” at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 9, 2021. The hearing will address federal legislative proposals to enable athletes participating in collegiate sports to monetize their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”); improve athlete health care; and enhance scholarship protections and academic outcomes, among others. The hearing will also review recent changes in state laws around NIL.

Witnesses:

Mr. Mark Few, Head Coach, Men’s Basketball, Gonzaga University
Dr. Mark Emmert, President, NCAA
Mr. Rod Gilmore, College Football Analyst, ESPN
Dr. Wayne A. I. Frederick, President, Howard University, and Chair, Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference’s Presidents and Chancellors
Mr. Michael McCann, Professor of Law and Sports and Entertainment Law Institute Director, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
Mr. Matthew J. Mitten, Professor of Law and Executive Director, Marquette University Law School

*Witness list subject to change

Hearing Details:

Wednesday, June 9, 2021

10:00 a.m. EDT

Full Committee (Hybrid)

SD-G50

This hearing will take place in the Dirksen Senate Office Building G50. Witness testimony, opening statements, and a live video of the hearing will be available on http://www.commerce.senate.gov.

Due to current limited access to the Capitol complex, the general public is encouraged to view this hearing via the live stream. Social distancing is now lifted for vaccinated members of the press who wish to attend.

Here were some of the things I got from this.

-There is a big push to have a federal law in place by July 1st. "Patchwork" has become the key phrase for what the states are doing.

-Health and safety (H&S) was heavily pushed for being included in the NIL law. Example used was 30 college football players died during workouts vs 1 in the NFL over a 20-year period.

-Having a type of revenue sharing model was mentioned by a senator to cover H&S for schools that can't afford it.

-Title IX was mentioned multiple times.

-Sen. Booker spoke before the witnesses. Mentioned how he has talked with people at Notre Dame about this issue.

-Coach Few would like to see other schools do things for players like they do at Gonzaga after their eligibility if over.

-Dr. Emmert wants to make sure athletes do not become employees. Others believe it's a separate issue from NIL.

-Mr. Gilmore thinks it should be up to schools and/or conferences to decide if they want to do revenue sharing (I’m assuming the context was pay-to-play instead of coverage for H&S).

-Gilmore seemed to be the biggest on player rights and wanting to see free market implemented. He talked about how there is already a gap between the top schools and the rest so that shouldn't be a concern.

-Sen. Blumenthal wants something no worse than Connecticut. I believe he also said that it can't be worse than any state, but someone else may have said that part.

-Sen. Cruz brings up Transgender athletes and asks Emmert about the NCAA’s policy with them. Felt weird since everyone else kept their questions and discussions focused around NIL and health and safety. Well someone brought up sexual assault, but it felt like it fit the discussion.

-Sen. Blackburn was the hardest on what the NCAA has done or lack thereof.

The link in the OP has added the witnesses written testimonies although they don't completely contain what they said during the hearing. Most of the stuff was said during the Q&A part and I only posted some of the key things I noticed while watching.

(06-11-2021 12:47 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Here were some of the things I got from this.

-There is a big push to have a federal law in place by July 1st. "Patchwork" has become the key phrase for what the states are doing.

-Health and safety (H&S) was heavily pushed for being included in the NIL law. Example used was 30 college football players died during workouts vs 1 in the NFL over a 20-year period.

-Having a type of revenue sharing model was mentioned by a senator to cover H&S for schools that can't afford it.

-Title IX was mentioned multiple times.

-Sen. Booker spoke before the witnesses. Mentioned how he has talked with people at Notre Dame about this issue.

-Coach Few would like to see other schools do things for players like they do at Gonzaga after their eligibility if over.

-Dr. Emmert wants to make sure athletes do not become employees. Others believe it's a separate issue from NIL.

-Mr. Gilmore thinks it should be up to schools and/or conferences to decide if they want to do revenue sharing (I’m assuming the context was pay-to-play instead of coverage for H&S).

-Gilmore seemed to be the biggest on player rights and wanting to see free market implemented. He talked about how there is already a gap between the top schools and the rest so that shouldn't be a concern.

-Sen. Blumenthal wants something no worse than Connecticut. I believe he also said that it can't be worse than any state, but someone else may have said that part.

-Sen. Cruz brings up Transgender athletes and asks Emmert about the NCAA’s policy with them. Felt weird since everyone else kept their questions and discussions focused around NIL and health and safety. Well someone brought up sexual assault, but it felt like it fit the discussion.

-Sen. Blackburn was the hardest on what the NCAA has done or lack thereof.

The link in the OP has added the witnesses written testimonies although they don't completely contain what they said during the hearing. Most of the stuff was said during the Q&A part and I only posted some of the key things I noticed while watching.

FYI---Granted, I just did a quick reading of the Connecticut NIL law---but two things stand out to me. Their law DOES limit NIL compensation to fair "market value" to be determined by the school or NCAA. The Connecticut law DOES NOT bar schools or boosters from offering student athletes NIL deals as an inducement to attend a given school. Thats the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law. Contrast that with the Texas NIL law that restricts NIL to fair market value, bars offering NIL as an inducement to attend any given school, and bars anyone "affiliated" with a school (that would include boosters) from offering NIL deals to players. With regard to other states, I have to check, but I think the California law has no limits what so ever on NIL compensation. The Connecticut law would take affect in September.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/searchresults.asp...=%EF%80%82

(06-12-2021 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 12:47 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Here were some of the things I got from this.

-There is a big push to have a federal law in place by July 1st. "Patchwork" has become the key phrase for what the states are doing.

-Health and safety (H&S) was heavily pushed for being included in the NIL law. Example used was 30 college football players died during workouts vs 1 in the NFL over a 20-year period.

-Having a type of revenue sharing model was mentioned by a senator to cover H&S for schools that can't afford it.

-Title IX was mentioned multiple times.

-Sen. Booker spoke before the witnesses. Mentioned how he has talked with people at Notre Dame about this issue.

-Coach Few would like to see other schools do things for players like they do at Gonzaga after their eligibility if over.

-Dr. Emmert wants to make sure athletes do not become employees. Others believe it's a separate issue from NIL.

-Mr. Gilmore thinks it should be up to schools and/or conferences to decide if they want to do revenue sharing (I’m assuming the context was pay-to-play instead of coverage for H&S).

-Gilmore seemed to be the biggest on player rights and wanting to see free market implemented. He talked about how there is already a gap between the top schools and the rest so that shouldn't be a concern.

-Sen. Blumenthal wants something no worse than Connecticut. I believe he also said that it can't be worse than any state, but someone else may have said that part.

-Sen. Cruz brings up Transgender athletes and asks Emmert about the NCAA’s policy with them. Felt weird since everyone else kept their questions and discussions focused around NIL and health and safety. Well someone brought up sexual assault, but it felt like it fit the discussion.

-Sen. Blackburn was the hardest on what the NCAA has done or lack thereof.

The link in the OP has added the witnesses written testimonies although they don't completely contain what they said during the hearing. Most of the stuff was said during the Q&A part and I only posted some of the key things I noticed while watching.

FYI---Granted, I just did a quick reading of the Connecticut NIL law---but two things stand out to me. Their law DOES limit NIL compensation to fair "market value" to be determined by the school or NCAA. The Connecticut law DOES NOT bar schools or boosters from offering student athletes NIL deals as an inducement to attend a given school. Thats the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law. Contrast that with the Texas NIL law that restricts NIL to fair market value, bars offering NIL as an inducement to attend any given school, and bars anyone "affiliated" with a school (that would include boosters) from offering NIL deals to players. With regard to other states, I have to check, but I think the California law has no limits what so ever on NIL compensation. The Connecticut law would take affect in September.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/searchresults.asp...=%EF%80%82

That's the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law.

That's an awfully low bar.

(06-11-2021 12:47 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Here were some of the things I got from this.

-There is a big push to have a federal law in place by July 1st. "Patchwork" has become the key phrase for what the states are doing.

-Health and safety (H&S) was heavily pushed for being included in the NIL law. Example used was 30 college football players died during workouts vs 1 in the NFL over a 20-year period.

-Having a type of revenue sharing model was mentioned by a senator to cover H&S for schools that can't afford it.

-Title IX was mentioned multiple times.

-Sen. Booker spoke before the witnesses. Mentioned how he has talked with people at Notre Dame about this issue.

-Coach Few would like to see other schools do things for players like they do at Gonzaga after their eligibility if over.

-Dr. Emmert wants to make sure athletes do not become employees. Others believe it's a separate issue from NIL.

-Mr. Gilmore thinks it should be up to schools and/or conferences to decide if they want to do revenue sharing (I’m assuming the context was pay-to-play instead of coverage for H&S).

-Gilmore seemed to be the biggest on player rights and wanting to see free market implemented. He talked about how there is already a gap between the top schools and the rest so that shouldn't be a concern.

-Sen. Blumenthal wants something no worse than Connecticut. I believe he also said that it can't be worse than any state, but someone else may have said that part.

-Sen. Cruz brings up Transgender athletes and asks Emmert about the NCAA’s policy with them. Felt weird since everyone else kept their questions and discussions focused around NIL and health and safety. Well someone brought up sexual assault, but it felt like it fit the discussion.

-Sen. Blackburn was the hardest on what the NCAA has done or lack thereof.

The link in the OP has added the witnesses written testimonies although they don't completely contain what they said during the hearing. Most of the stuff was said during the Q&A part and I only posted some of the key things I noticed while watching.

Coach Few needs to stick to coaching. Many schools already do that.

Louisville, for instance, has been allowing former athletes to attend classes free of charge to finish degree work a couple of decades now. This works well for players that leave early for the NFL, NBA and MLB leagues.

Suggestions like Few’s are a smoke screen to keep from putting money in the pockets of players.

Don’t worry Coach Few, you’ll still make millions. The chicken fee schools will pay the help (those actually performing) won’t matter to programs like Gonzaga.

It makes me mad. A bunch of bureaucrats sitting around trying to figure out how not to give players their fair share.

(06-12-2021 02:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 12:47 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Here were some of the things I got from this.

-There is a big push to have a federal law in place by July 1st. "Patchwork" has become the key phrase for what the states are doing.

-Health and safety (H&S) was heavily pushed for being included in the NIL law. Example used was 30 college football players died during workouts vs 1 in the NFL over a 20-year period.

-Having a type of revenue sharing model was mentioned by a senator to cover H&S for schools that can't afford it.

-Title IX was mentioned multiple times.

-Sen. Booker spoke before the witnesses. Mentioned how he has talked with people at Notre Dame about this issue.

-Coach Few would like to see other schools do things for players like they do at Gonzaga after their eligibility if over.

-Dr. Emmert wants to make sure athletes do not become employees. Others believe it's a separate issue from NIL.

-Mr. Gilmore thinks it should be up to schools and/or conferences to decide if they want to do revenue sharing (I’m assuming the context was pay-to-play instead of coverage for H&S).

-Gilmore seemed to be the biggest on player rights and wanting to see free market implemented. He talked about how there is already a gap between the top schools and the rest so that shouldn't be a concern.

-Sen. Blumenthal wants something no worse than Connecticut. I believe he also said that it can't be worse than any state, but someone else may have said that part.

-Sen. Cruz brings up Transgender athletes and asks Emmert about the NCAA’s policy with them. Felt weird since everyone else kept their questions and discussions focused around NIL and health and safety. Well someone brought up sexual assault, but it felt like it fit the discussion.

-Sen. Blackburn was the hardest on what the NCAA has done or lack thereof.

The link in the OP has added the witnesses written testimonies although they don't completely contain what they said during the hearing. Most of the stuff was said during the Q&A part and I only posted some of the key things I noticed while watching.

FYI---Granted, I just did a quick reading of the Connecticut NIL law---but two things stand out to me. Their law DOES limit NIL compensation to fair "market value" to be determined by the school or NCAA. The Connecticut law DOES NOT bar schools or boosters from offering student athletes NIL deals as an inducement to attend a given school. Thats the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law. Contrast that with the Texas NIL law that restricts NIL to fair market value, bars offering NIL as an inducement to attend any given school, and bars anyone "affiliated" with a school (that would include boosters) from offering NIL deals to players. With regard to other states, I have to check, but I think the California law has no limits what so ever on NIL compensation. The Connecticut law would take affect in September.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/searchresults.asp...=%EF%80%82

That's the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law.

That's an awfully low bar.

Im not sure how you arrive at that analysis. The Connecticut bill essentially allows a free market of bidding of NIL deals between boosters of individual teams for the services of a player (as long as the deals are considered to be "market value"--whatever that means). That said, I would add that Blumenthal has made it clear that he wants much more than just an NIL law. He wants an over arching college sports reform that would address long term player heath and safety issues, he wants to grant the the players the right to organize and collectively bargain, and he wants a 50-50 split of all conference revenue (minus scholarship costs) for the players. In other words, he wants a straight up employee-employer pay-for-play relationship to replace the current amateur model. NIL would just be on top of this base pay and long term health insurance provided by the schools.

(06-12-2021 02:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 02:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 12:47 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Here were some of the things I got from this.

-There is a big push to have a federal law in place by July 1st. "Patchwork" has become the key phrase for what the states are doing.

-Health and safety (H&S) was heavily pushed for being included in the NIL law. Example used was 30 college football players died during workouts vs 1 in the NFL over a 20-year period.

-Having a type of revenue sharing model was mentioned by a senator to cover H&S for schools that can't afford it.

-Title IX was mentioned multiple times.

-Sen. Booker spoke before the witnesses. Mentioned how he has talked with people at Notre Dame about this issue.

-Coach Few would like to see other schools do things for players like they do at Gonzaga after their eligibility if over.

-Dr. Emmert wants to make sure athletes do not become employees. Others believe it's a separate issue from NIL.

-Mr. Gilmore thinks it should be up to schools and/or conferences to decide if they want to do revenue sharing (I’m assuming the context was pay-to-play instead of coverage for H&S).

-Gilmore seemed to be the biggest on player rights and wanting to see free market implemented. He talked about how there is already a gap between the top schools and the rest so that shouldn't be a concern.

-Sen. Blumenthal wants something no worse than Connecticut. I believe he also said that it can't be worse than any state, but someone else may have said that part.

-Sen. Cruz brings up Transgender athletes and asks Emmert about the NCAA’s policy with them. Felt weird since everyone else kept their questions and discussions focused around NIL and health and safety. Well someone brought up sexual assault, but it felt like it fit the discussion.

-Sen. Blackburn was the hardest on what the NCAA has done or lack thereof.

The link in the OP has added the witnesses written testimonies although they don't completely contain what they said during the hearing. Most of the stuff was said during the Q&A part and I only posted some of the key things I noticed while watching.

FYI---Granted, I just did a quick reading of the Connecticut NIL law---but two things stand out to me. Their law DOES limit NIL compensation to fair "market value" to be determined by the school or NCAA. The Connecticut law DOES NOT bar schools or boosters from offering student athletes NIL deals as an inducement to attend a given school. Thats the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law. Contrast that with the Texas NIL law that restricts NIL to fair market value, bars offering NIL as an inducement to attend any given school, and bars anyone "affiliated" with a school (that would include boosters) from offering NIL deals to players. With regard to other states, I have to check, but I think the California law has no limits what so ever on NIL compensation. The Connecticut law would take affect in September.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/searchresults.asp...=%EF%80%82

That's the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law.

That's an awfully low bar.

Im not sure how you arrive at that analysis. The Connecticut bill essentially allows a free market of bidding of NIL deals between boosters of individual teams for the services of a player (as long as the deals are considered to be "market value"--whatever that means). That said, I would add that Blumenthal has made it clear that he wants much more than just an NIL law. He wants an over arching college sports reform that would address long term player heath and safety issues, he wants to grant the the players the right to organize and collectively bargain, and he wants a 50-50 split of all conference revenue (minus scholarship costs) for the players. In other words, he wants a straight up employee-employer pay-for-play relationship to replace the current amateur model. NIL would just be on top of this base pay and long term health insurance provided by the schools.

I was referring to allowing schools or the NCAA to determine "fair market value".

Those other issues aren't part of NIL legislation, and his positions on those issues are IMO far too radical to get serious consideration in either house of congress, and as such are little more than political grandstanding.

While I could see the possibility that Congress might override the IRS' policy that scholarship athletes are not deemed to be employees, I can't see them essentially making Congress a party to negotiations with those athletes by dictating issues that would normally be decided by a collective bargaining agreement (like a 50-50 revenue split).

(06-12-2021 06:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 02:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 02:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 12:47 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Here were some of the things I got from this.

-There is a big push to have a federal law in place by July 1st. "Patchwork" has become the key phrase for what the states are doing.

-Health and safety (H&S) was heavily pushed for being included in the NIL law. Example used was 30 college football players died during workouts vs 1 in the NFL over a 20-year period.

-Having a type of revenue sharing model was mentioned by a senator to cover H&S for schools that can't afford it.

-Title IX was mentioned multiple times.

-Sen. Booker spoke before the witnesses. Mentioned how he has talked with people at Notre Dame about this issue.

-Coach Few would like to see other schools do things for players like they do at Gonzaga after their eligibility if over.

-Dr. Emmert wants to make sure athletes do not become employees. Others believe it's a separate issue from NIL.

-Mr. Gilmore thinks it should be up to schools and/or conferences to decide if they want to do revenue sharing (I’m assuming the context was pay-to-play instead of coverage for H&S).

-Gilmore seemed to be the biggest on player rights and wanting to see free market implemented. He talked about how there is already a gap between the top schools and the rest so that shouldn't be a concern.

-Sen. Blumenthal wants something no worse than Connecticut. I believe he also said that it can't be worse than any state, but someone else may have said that part.

-Sen. Cruz brings up Transgender athletes and asks Emmert about the NCAA’s policy with them. Felt weird since everyone else kept their questions and discussions focused around NIL and health and safety. Well someone brought up sexual assault, but it felt like it fit the discussion.

-Sen. Blackburn was the hardest on what the NCAA has done or lack thereof.

The link in the OP has added the witnesses written testimonies although they don't completely contain what they said during the hearing. Most of the stuff was said during the Q&A part and I only posted some of the key things I noticed while watching.

FYI---Granted, I just did a quick reading of the Connecticut NIL law---but two things stand out to me. Their law DOES limit NIL compensation to fair "market value" to be determined by the school or NCAA. The Connecticut law DOES NOT bar schools or boosters from offering student athletes NIL deals as an inducement to attend a given school. Thats the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law. Contrast that with the Texas NIL law that restricts NIL to fair market value, bars offering NIL as an inducement to attend any given school, and bars anyone "affiliated" with a school (that would include boosters) from offering NIL deals to players. With regard to other states, I have to check, but I think the California law has no limits what so ever on NIL compensation. The Connecticut law would take affect in September.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/searchresults.asp...=%EF%80%82

That's the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law.

That's an awfully low bar.

Im not sure how you arrive at that analysis. The Connecticut bill essentially allows a free market of bidding of NIL deals between boosters of individual teams for the services of a player (as long as the deals are considered to be "market value"--whatever that means). That said, I would add that Blumenthal has made it clear that he wants much more than just an NIL law. He wants an over arching college sports reform that would address long term player heath and safety issues, he wants to grant the the players the right to organize and collectively bargain, and he wants a 50-50 split of all conference revenue (minus scholarship costs) for the players. In other words, he wants a straight up employee-employer pay-for-play relationship to replace the current amateur model. NIL would just be on top of this base pay and long term health insurance provided by the schools.

I was referring to allowing schools or the NCAA to determine "fair market value".

Those other issues aren't part of NIL legislation, and his positions on those issues are IMO far too radical to get serious consideration in either house of congress, and as such are little more than political grandstanding.

While I could see the possibility that Congress might override the IRS' policy that scholarship athletes are not deemed to be employees, I can't see them essentially making Congress a party to negotiations with those athletes by dictating issues that would normally be decided by a collective bargaining agreement (like a 50-50 revenue split).

lol...Thats why I was surprised at the "low bar" comment. Blumenthal is probably pushing harder than anyone other than maybe Booker in terms of what he wants athletes to receive. I agree---I think he wants to go way too far and likely wont get support for turning college football into NFL-Lite.

The Senate may hold hearings on NIL, but they cannot initiate legislation. Until the House of Representatives sends them a bill, they can't take action by themselves. Are there any bills in the congressional pipeline on NIL? If not, then the possibility of any legislative action before July 1st is virtually nil. In fact, even if there are any, the process simply can't move that fast.

So, we are left with the reality that there are already some states that have passed legislation of their own. Which states are those, and what provisions do they contain? How could those provisions be enforced nationally?

Congress being congress, debate regarding NIL is bound to spill over into the broader questions of compensation for athletes. Ultimately, the resolution of those questions is going to require addressing whether athletes whose scholarships require that they play a sport (that is, the scholarship would be revoked if they voluntarily stop participating) are either employees of the school, non-employee contractors of the school, or some other unique classification.

I don't believe Congress will set an upper limit to athlete pay. I do think they could require that if the NCAA or any conference wants to do so that it would have to be a product of a collective bargaining agreement.

Under current law, any payments made to athletes over and above tuition, books and fees related to coursework are considered taxable income, and unless I am mistaken they are classified as non-employee compensation (NEC) not subject to FICA, unemployment insurance, etc. These payments would include the value of room and board if provided on campus (dormitories, meal plans), cash payments for athletes living off campus, as well as stipends for full cost of attendance (FCOA).

If congress were to legislate that scholarship athletes are employees, rather than independent contractors, then it seems to me that existing minimum wage laws would come into play. That would require some determination of how many hours of work required of the athlete must the minimum wage calculation be applied to. A case could be made (and probably would be made by congress) that all hours spent in practice, games, and travel to and from away games should be included, and that hours spent on classwork required to maintain eligibility, both in the classroom and outside homework, reading and study (typically about two hours for every hour of class time) be included as well. The details for implementation of this would be left to the IRS as it is now.

A very sticky part of this would be determining the minimum wage required for a student-athlete receiving a partial scholarship. There is no reason to assume that these athletes are required to spend a different amount of time than those on full scholarship. If they are employees subject to minimum wage rules, they would have to be paid as much as the full scholarship athletes. So, for all sports for which scholarship limits allow for partial scholarships, the increased cost to the schools would be huge, and likely only affordable for a fraction of NCAA schools.

Isn’t it a tad bit ironic that the Senators from ESPN’s home state are the cheerleaders for this terrible legislation?

(06-13-2021 08:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  Congress being congress, debate regarding NIL is bound to spill over into the broader questions of compensation for athletes. Ultimately, the resolution of those questions is going to require addressing whether athletes whose scholarships require that they play a sport (that is, the scholarship would be revoked if they voluntarily stop participating) are either employees of the school, non-employee contractors of the school, or some other unique classification.

I don't believe Congress will set an upper limit to athlete pay. I do think they could require that if the NCAA or any conference wants to do so that it would have to be a product of a collective bargaining agreement.

Under current law, any payments made to athletes over and above tuition, books and fees related to coursework are considered taxable income, and unless I am mistaken they are classified as non-employee compensation (NEC) not subject to FICA, unemployment insurance, etc. These payments would include the value of room and board if provided on campus (dormitories, meal plans), cash payments for athletes living off campus, as well as stipends for full cost of attendance (FCOA).

If congress were to legislate that scholarship athletes are employees, rather than independent contractors, then it seems to me that existing minimum wage laws would come into play. That would require some determination of how many hours of work required of the athlete must the minimum wage calculation be applied to. A case could be made (and probably would be made by congress) that all hours spent in practice, games, and travel to and from away games should be included, and that hours spent on classwork required to maintain eligibility, both in the classroom and outside homework, reading and study (typically about two hours for every hour of class time) be included as well. The details for implementation of this would be left to the IRS as it is now.

A very sticky part of this would be determining the minimum wage required for a student-athlete receiving a partial scholarship. There is no reason to assume that these athletes are required to spend a different amount of time than those on full scholarship. If they are employees subject to minimum wage rules, they would have to be paid as much as the full scholarship athletes. So, for all sports for which scholarship limits allow for partial scholarships, the increased cost to the schools would be huge, and likely only affordable for a fraction of NCAA schools.

I wonder if athletes could be classified as salaried workers?

Fantastic that a hearing asking "should we let athletes make some money" doesn't involve a single current athlete. Useless.

(06-13-2021 08:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 08:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  Congress being congress, debate regarding NIL is bound to spill over into the broader questions of compensation for athletes. Ultimately, the resolution of those questions is going to require addressing whether athletes whose scholarships require that they play a sport (that is, the scholarship would be revoked if they voluntarily stop participating) are either employees of the school, non-employee contractors of the school, or some other unique classification.

I don't believe Congress will set an upper limit to athlete pay. I do think they could require that if the NCAA or any conference wants to do so that it would have to be a product of a collective bargaining agreement.

Under current law, any payments made to athletes over and above tuition, books and fees related to coursework are considered taxable income, and unless I am mistaken they are classified as non-employee compensation (NEC) not subject to FICA, unemployment insurance, etc. These payments would include the value of room and board if provided on campus (dormitories, meal plans), cash payments for athletes living off campus, as well as stipends for full cost of attendance (FCOA).

If congress were to legislate that scholarship athletes are employees, rather than independent contractors, then it seems to me that existing minimum wage laws would come into play. That would require some determination of how many hours of work required of the athlete must the minimum wage calculation be applied to. A case could be made (and probably would be made by congress) that all hours spent in practice, games, and travel to and from away games should be included, and that hours spent on classwork required to maintain eligibility, both in the classroom and outside homework, reading and study (typically about two hours for every hour of class time) be included as well. The details for implementation of this would be left to the IRS as it is now.

A very sticky part of this would be determining the minimum wage required for a student-athlete receiving a partial scholarship. There is no reason to assume that these athletes are required to spend a different amount of time than those on full scholarship. If they are employees subject to minimum wage rules, they would have to be paid as much as the full scholarship athletes. So, for all sports for which scholarship limits allow for partial scholarships, the increased cost to the schools would be huge, and likely only affordable for a fraction of NCAA schools.

I wonder if athletes could be classified as salaried workers?

I don't know if that would matter. I don't think you can designate someone as salaried in order to pay them less than what they would earn as an hourly employee at minimum wage. However, I do think you could do it for the purpose of standardizing or normalizing the number of hours an employee is deemed to have worked when the actual hours worked vary from week to week, in season or out, etc.

The IRS could establish "safe harbor" rules so athletes don't have to punch a time clock, while still being fully compensated for all the hours they are required to work. So, based on rules about how many hours a week an athlete is allowed and/or expected to practice (including things like film study and strength and conditioning), plus how many credit hours a year each must complete times three, how many weeks a year the athlete's season takes, including pre-season and post-season, how many out of town trips they typically must make, etc. how often the total of class time and practice time causes the athlete to work overtime (more than 40 hours in any given week), you could come up with a pretty good estimate of hours worked to be used as a basis for each sport to determine a salary that would comply with minimum wage requirements without a lot of record keeping.

I would use the higher of the federal minimum wage or $15 per hour as the basis for this minimum salary calculation. I chose $15 because that is the highest state minimum wage currently in effect, and you don't want one school to be able to offer a higher salary to potential recruits than any other state. That minimum salary could be adjusted each year as minimum wage rates change over time.

If a football player is presumed to "work" 2,000 hours a year based on the above, his minimum salary would be $30K per year, and he would be allowed to also receive tax free the waiver of his school's tuition, books and fees on top of that salary. He could choose to live on campus by paying the going rate for his dorm room and meal plan or he could choose to live off campus with or without roommates.

Then the only questions that remains are whether an individual school or conference could decide to pay more than the minimum wage and still compete in the NCAA, and could conferences establish their own salary caps.

(06-13-2021 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  The Senate may hold hearings on NIL, but they cannot initiate legislation. Until the House of Representatives sends them a bill, they can't take action by themselves. Are there any bills in the congressional pipeline on NIL? If not, then the possibility of any legislative action before July 1st is virtually nil. In fact, even if there are any, the process simply can't move that fast.

So, we are left with the reality that there are already some states that have passed legislation of their own. Which states are those, and what provisions do they contain? How could those provisions be enforced nationally?

Having a pretty good idea regarding the speed at which a non-emergency bill moves through Congress---it is EXTREMELY unlikely there will be a national NIL law passed by July.

(06-13-2021 08:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  Congress being congress, debate regarding NIL is bound to spill over into the broader questions of compensation for athletes. Ultimately, the resolution of those questions is going to require addressing whether athletes whose scholarships require that they play a sport (that is, the scholarship would be revoked if they voluntarily stop participating) are either employees of the school, non-employee contractors of the school, or some other unique classification.

I don't believe Congress will set an upper limit to athlete pay. I do think they could require that if the NCAA or any conference wants to do so that it would have to be a product of a collective bargaining agreement.

Under current law, any payments made to athletes over and above tuition, books and fees related to coursework are considered taxable income, and unless I am mistaken they are classified as non-employee compensation (NEC) not subject to FICA, unemployment insurance, etc. These payments would include the value of room and board if provided on campus (dormitories, meal plans), cash payments for athletes living off campus, as well as stipends for full cost of attendance (FCOA).

If congress were to legislate that scholarship athletes are employees, rather than independent contractors, then it seems to me that existing minimum wage laws would come into play. That would require some determination of how many hours of work required of the athlete must the minimum wage calculation be applied to. A case could be made (and probably would be made by congress) that all hours spent in practice, games, and travel to and from away games should be included, and that hours spent on classwork required to maintain eligibility, both in the classroom and outside homework, reading and study (typically about two hours for every hour of class time) be included as well. The details for implementation of this would be left to the IRS as it is now.

A very sticky part of this would be determining the minimum wage required for a student-athlete receiving a partial scholarship. There is no reason to assume that these athletes are required to spend a different amount of time than those on full scholarship. If they are employees subject to minimum wage rules, they would have to be paid as much as the full scholarship athletes. So, for all sports for which scholarship limits allow for partial scholarships, the increased cost to the schools would be huge, and likely only affordable for a fraction of NCAA schools.

To the latter discussion of walk-ons---the way you were able to claim players were employees (ie---their scholarships are revoked if they stop playing---thus amounting to pay for play) doesnt apply to walk-on's. As for total hours, I believe the NCAA caps athlete time spent on athletics at 20 hours a week. Interestingly, under those rules, a travel day counts as "time off". If your going over 20 hours, technically---you are in violation of NCAA rules.

(06-13-2021 01:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 08:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  Congress being congress, debate regarding NIL is bound to spill over into the broader questions of compensation for athletes. Ultimately, the resolution of those questions is going to require addressing whether athletes whose scholarships require that they play a sport (that is, the scholarship would be revoked if they voluntarily stop participating) are either employees of the school, non-employee contractors of the school, or some other unique classification.

I don't believe Congress will set an upper limit to athlete pay. I do think they could require that if the NCAA or any conference wants to do so that it would have to be a product of a collective bargaining agreement.

Under current law, any payments made to athletes over and above tuition, books and fees related to coursework are considered taxable income, and unless I am mistaken they are classified as non-employee compensation (NEC) not subject to FICA, unemployment insurance, etc. These payments would include the value of room and board if provided on campus (dormitories, meal plans), cash payments for athletes living off campus, as well as stipends for full cost of attendance (FCOA).

If congress were to legislate that scholarship athletes are employees, rather than independent contractors, then it seems to me that existing minimum wage laws would come into play. That would require some determination of how many hours of work required of the athlete must the minimum wage calculation be applied to. A case could be made (and probably would be made by congress) that all hours spent in practice, games, and travel to and from away games should be included, and that hours spent on classwork required to maintain eligibility, both in the classroom and outside homework, reading and study (typically about two hours for every hour of class time) be included as well. The details for implementation of this would be left to the IRS as it is now.

A very sticky part of this would be determining the minimum wage required for a student-athlete receiving a partial scholarship. There is no reason to assume that these athletes are required to spend a different amount of time than those on full scholarship. If they are employees subject to minimum wage rules, they would have to be paid as much as the full scholarship athletes. So, for all sports for which scholarship limits allow for partial scholarships, the increased cost to the schools would be huge, and likely only affordable for a fraction of NCAA schools.

To the latter discussion of walk-ons---the way you were able to claim players were employees (ie---their scholarships are revoked if they stop playing---thus amounting to pay for play) doesnt apply to walk-on's. As for total hours, I believe the NCAA caps athlete time spent on athletics at 20 hours a week. Interestingly, under those rules, a travel day counts as "time off". If your going over 20 hours, technically---you are in violation of NCAA rules.

Yes. I don't think walkons would be compensated under any legislation. I'm OK with that.

But the biggest difference if the scholarship athletes are compensated based on time spent "working" rather than their value to the team, then there would be no such thing as partial scholarships anymore. That doesn't affect "headcount" sports like football and basketball, and a few women's sports. But in sports where partials are allowed, that would drastically increase the scholarship budget. That could very well make some schools think long and hard about what division they want to play in, and might make the NCAA reconsider how divisions are defined.

(06-12-2021 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  FYI---Granted, I just did a quick reading of the Connecticut NIL law---but two things stand out to me. Their law DOES limit NIL compensation to fair "market value" to be determined by the school or NCAA. The Connecticut law DOES NOT bar schools or boosters from offering student athletes NIL deals as an inducement to attend a given school. Thats the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law. Contrast that with the Texas NIL law that restricts NIL to fair market value, bars offering NIL as an inducement to attend any given school, and bars anyone "affiliated" with a school (that would include boosters) from offering NIL deals to players. With regard to other states, I have to check, but I think the California law has no limits what so ever on NIL compensation. The Connecticut law would take affect in September.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/searchresults.asp...=%EF%80%82

I think what boosters can or can't do will be a, if not the, major sticking point for a federal NIL. Also other apparent conflicts with some NILs I got from the hearing are about athletes being able to accept deals from companies that already sponsor schools, making group deals, and things like autographs and sponsoring camps.

(06-12-2021 02:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 12:47 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Here were some of the things I got from this.

-There is a big push to have a federal law in place by July 1st. "Patchwork" has become the key phrase for what the states are doing.

-Health and safety (H&S) was heavily pushed for being included in the NIL law. Example used was 30 college football players died during workouts vs 1 in the NFL over a 20-year period.

-Having a type of revenue sharing model was mentioned by a senator to cover H&S for schools that can't afford it.

-Title IX was mentioned multiple times.

-Sen. Booker spoke before the witnesses. Mentioned how he has talked with people at Notre Dame about this issue.

-Coach Few would like to see other schools do things for players like they do at Gonzaga after their eligibility if over.

-Dr. Emmert wants to make sure athletes do not become employees. Others believe it's a separate issue from NIL.

-Mr. Gilmore thinks it should be up to schools and/or conferences to decide if they want to do revenue sharing (I’m assuming the context was pay-to-play instead of coverage for H&S).

-Gilmore seemed to be the biggest on player rights and wanting to see free market implemented. He talked about how there is already a gap between the top schools and the rest so that shouldn't be a concern.

-Sen. Blumenthal wants something no worse than Connecticut. I believe he also said that it can't be worse than any state, but someone else may have said that part.

-Sen. Cruz brings up Transgender athletes and asks Emmert about the NCAA’s policy with them. Felt weird since everyone else kept their questions and discussions focused around NIL and health and safety. Well someone brought up sexual assault, but it felt like it fit the discussion.

-Sen. Blackburn was the hardest on what the NCAA has done or lack thereof.

The link in the OP has added the witnesses written testimonies although they don't completely contain what they said during the hearing. Most of the stuff was said during the Q&A part and I only posted some of the key things I noticed while watching.

FYI---Granted, I just did a quick reading of the Connecticut NIL law---but two things stand out to me. Their law DOES limit NIL compensation to fair "market value" to be determined by the school or NCAA. The Connecticut law DOES NOT bar schools or boosters from offering student athletes NIL deals as an inducement to attend a given school. Thats the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law. Contrast that with the Texas NIL law that restricts NIL to fair market value, bars offering NIL as an inducement to attend any given school, and bars anyone "affiliated" with a school (that would include boosters) from offering NIL deals to players. With regard to other states, I have to check, but I think the California law has no limits what so ever on NIL compensation. The Connecticut law would take affect in September.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/searchresults.asp...=%EF%80%82

That's the bar that Blumenthal seems to be requiring as a minimum requirement for any national NIL law.

That's an awfully low bar.

Is it a low bar or a high bar? Conn's bill seems to have a lot of freedom that other NILs don't have. And wanting a federal NIL to have what they have at worst might be asking a lot.

(06-13-2021 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  The Senate may hold hearings on NIL, but they cannot initiate legislation. Until the House of Representatives sends them a bill, they can't take action by themselves. Are there any bills in the congressional pipeline on NIL? If not, then the possibility of any legislative action before July 1st is virtually nil. In fact, even if there are any, the process simply can't move that fast.

So, we are left with the reality that there are already some states that have passed legislation of their own. Which states are those, and what provisions do they contain? How could those provisions be enforced nationally?

Yeah a July 1st target leaves a very small window. Here is an article with a few different links about bills.

https://www.si.com/college/2021/02/04/nc...gress-bill

(06-12-2021 02:28 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Coach Few needs to stick to coaching. Many schools already do that.

Louisville, for instance, has been allowing former athletes to attend classes free of charge to finish degree work a couple of decades now. This works well for players that leave early for the NFL, NBA and MLB leagues.

Suggestions like Few’s are a smoke screen to keep from putting money in the pockets of players.

Don’t worry Coach Few, you’ll still make millions. The chicken fee schools will pay the help (those actually performing) won’t matter to programs like Gonzaga.

It makes me mad. A bunch of bureaucrats sitting around trying to figure out how not to give players their fair share.

Few was interesting in that he wants recruiting to be protected. He talked about how things are equal because Gonzaga can give the same scholarships as other schools.

(06-13-2021 08:18 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Isn’t it a tad bit ironic that the Senators from ESPN’s home state are the cheerleaders for this terrible legislation?

Are you referring to NIL overall or Conn's version? If you are talking about overall, all the senators Democrat and Republican were high supportive of getting NIL done.

(06-13-2021 08:29 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  Fantastic that a hearing asking "should we let athletes make some money" doesn't involve a single current athlete. Useless.

Yeah that seemed weird. Even though Booker and Gilmore were former college athletes, it would have been nice to have a couple female and couple male athletes there to provide testimonies as well.