The NCAA has found its men in Washington: Reps. Russell Fry ( R- S. C. ) and Barry Moore ( R- Ala. )
The two GOP-controlled Representatives introduced legislation on Thursday that would give the NCAA an utter liability shield for establishing and enforcing its rules. Additionally, colleges and conferences for university athletic competition would be covered by the constitutional safe harbor.
As worded, the bill would vaccinate the NCAA, leagues and part institutions from possible claims under “any laws or rules” so long as they’re in compliance with amateurism rules. The language of the bill is nearly identical to what Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas ) had suggested in a bill last August that also stated college athletes would be treated as non-employees and establishes a national NIL standard.
Fry, in a push release, said that given the “ever- changing, greatly litigated and largely illegal” nature of the NCAA’s present rules regarding performer name, image and likeness, his legislation is an “integral component of saving college sports as we know it”.
The new House bill, which is known as the Protect the Benefits for Athletics and Limit Liability ( Protect the BALL ) Act, received official endorsements from Clemson AD Graham Neff, Gamecocks athletic director Ray Tanner, and University of South Carolina president Michael Amiridis on Wednesday.
In a statement, Neff said,” We are extremely grateful to Congressman Fry and his willingness to introduce legislation that gives institutions the legal protections we need in the ever-changing name, image, and likeness landscape.”
Importantly, Neff’s college is now suing its club, the Atlantic Coast Conference, over the ACC’s$ 140 million exit payment and the context of its offer of freedom. But, that dispute was filed in South Carolina state court.
Assume some members of Congress to question the logic of exempting the NCAA from legal action when the relationship has been found to have regularly broken the law in relation to those rights.
The U. S. Supreme Court, national appeals courts and federal district courts have concluded as such in NCAA v. Alston, O’Bannon v. NCAA, Tennessee &, Virginia v. NCAA, Ohio v. NCAA and other situations. The NCAA agreeing to pay billions of dollars to settle might be seen as an implicit acknowledgement of dangerous do, even though a settlement in the House might no likely involve an admission of sin or wrong.
Any organization that has been subject to difficult questions about whether it deserves an exemption from the law if it has consistently demonstrated that it cannot follow the law when judges evaluate it, including those who range from conservative to progressive.
The compatibility of a federal law, which would enact laws that would affect states ‘ rights, is another likely source of concern for lawmakers. As Sportico has pointed out, protections under state labor and publicity laws could conflict with federal laws restricting the economic rights of college athletes. If college athletes are denied the rights their classmates do, the Equal Protection Clause could be raised by such a bill. Antitrust law may be challenged to the extent that a House settlement places limitations on athletes ‘ ability to maximize their earnings because they are not borne out through collective bargaining.
The House will have to pass the bill quickly because it was proposed in May of a presidential election year. By the end of the year, Cruz generously offered 50-50 chances for Congress to pass some kind of legislation that would grant the NCAA its long-awaited antitrust exemption.
In retaliation for the In Re College Athlete NIL litigation ( also known as House v. NCAA ), which is scheduled to go to trial early in the following year, the NCAA and conferences are in negotiations with the plaintiffs. The NCAA and conferences would still need congressional assistance if a settlement were reached, even one that might lead to the resolution of additional ongoing antitrust disputes. This would prevent them from facing fresh antitrust lawsuits.