According to the prevailing wisdom, college athletes ‘ chances of earning an employee recognition are in jeopardized if Donald Trump is elected president and Republicans win control of the U.S. Senate and ( presumably ) the U.S. House of Representatives.
That’s a natural take, but scarcely a certain bet. Some curls, including dispute, could sideline any legislative and administrative interests backed by the NCAA.
For those who want college athletes to work for themselves and become employees, the election results are really a loss. In Congress, those advocates have often been Democrats, such as Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn. ) and Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass ), while bills that attempt to limit those rights have typically been introduced by Republican lawmakers, such as Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex. ) and outgoing Rep. Bob Good (R-Va. ). Legislation that favors college athletes may experience more difficult circumstances as Democrats lose control of the government.

However, Trump will affect the National Labor Relations Agency in ways that may hinder work reputation. Trump’s pull for NLRB common counsel in his first management, Peter Robb, rescinded a document authored by his father, Richard Griffin, that argued college players are people. President Joe Biden’s pull for NLRB public lawyers, Jennifer Abruzzo, resumed Griffin’s place by advocating that college players are people. Trump will probably change Abruzzo, and the appointee’s sights could coincide with those of Robb.
Additionally, it’s likely that Trump’s NLRB will overturn the Trump years ‘ pertinent legal views. That is true of mutual work, which refers to an employer who entrusts work to another person or organizations. In the framework of school sports, athletes may include three companies: their school, their event and the NCAA. The sportsmen could work for and become unionized through their other two companies, the event and the NCAA, even if a state law forbids the recognition of public college sportsmen from becoming employees and/or unionizing.
Trump’s NLRB restricted the combined job description that had been put in place under President Barack Obama’s NLRB during his first expression. Obama ruled that true control was less important as long as the employer may manage hiring, wages, supervision, and other crucial terms of employment as per Trump’s mandate. Next time, Biden’s NLRB moved to essentially restore Obama’s concept. Trump might re-enforce the narrower definition that his first term had, which may make it harder for school athletes to say combined work.
Baker, a well-known Democratic governor in Massachusetts and a well-known experience for some D.C. politicians, will enjoy the new Congress and White House. In lobbying Congress, Baker may point out that the preliminarily-approved colony to handle the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust circumstances would account players for lost opportunities to earn payment via NIL, video games and broadcasts. In a salary-cap model, the settlement also recommends that colleges be able to immediately give athletes for media rights, sales of tickets, sponsorships, and NIL. Baker would contend that allowing job would be a bridge too far and that the NCAA has now changed amateurism to make it fairer for sportsmen.

Given that school leaders are concerned about the looming enrollment cliff, lobbying efforts to stop college athletes from receiving employment recognition may even gain momentum. Because of lower birth rates in the late 2000s and 2020s, the college-age people in the U. S. did fall over the next decade. Especially for tuition-dependent, private schools, the admission mountain could cause extreme financial hardship. Colleges will offer more help and other financial incentives that will lower their revenue and raise costs in response to the cliff, which may mean fewer applicants may be hired and fewer will be hired.
This perspective might help Congress and Trump pass a law preventing college players from working as people.
But fact is a lot more difficult. A federal restrictions on work for college athletes is unlikely for at least ten reasons.
First of all, it may be too late for the school athlete to find employment. According to Employer local director Laura Sacks, Dartmouth College men’s hockey players are people under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act. Shortly after, those athletes unionized. The board of directors of the organization is still waiting to hear from Dartmouth College. In the end, the NLRB may have jurisdiction over the matter. Also, in California, Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws may consider the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 and the NCAA are shared employers of Trojans football and men’s and women’s hockey players. Whichever method she chooses, a federal court will almost certainly review her side. Bottom line: The employment of college athletes is already being litigated and will be resolved in court, or perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court.
Second, the NLRB is a self-contained organization with board members who might favor hiring college athletes. They also have set term limits. Three ( David Prouty, Gwynne Wilcox and chair Lauren McFerran ) are Democrats. The trio voted in favor of Dartmouth College’s request to keep a union vote in March. Prouty, who is former MLBPA general counsel, has a term that wo n’t expire until August 2026, and Wilcox’s term wo n’t end until August 2028. McFerran’s term, however, will end next month. Marvin Kaplan, who Trump appointed in his first term, will continue until August 2025. Trump will likely seek to fill one vacancy. Trump intends to make sweeping personnel changes in Washington, but the NLRB is to some degree insulated.
Third, while employing college athletes may seem exotic and disengage from the more than a century of tradition in college sports, it may also be seen as a straightforward way to apply labor and employment laws to student workers. Some colleges already have students who work in athletics ( like student managers ), and others who have a union ( like cafeteria workers ). Their labor is separate from their coursework.
Employment recognition of college students is not that complicated, either. It depends on the school’s ability to control the work that is done in exchange for compensation. According to Paul McDonald, who represents the plaintiff athletes in Johnson v. NCAA, “employee status merely means that athletes have the same status as students who sell popcorn at NCAA games, wash dishes in dining halls, or check IDs in libraries, for example.” He continued,” The NCAA and colleges are aware that student employment has been a staple on campuses for more than 50 years in Work Study-style programs.”
Trump, who owned the New Jersey Generals in the USFL, might be inclined to view college sports —especially big-time college sports —as akin to pro sports. Even the president-elect’s most vehement critics would agree that he fully appreciates the value of brands and marketing, both of which college athletes use to promote the product of their respective sports. Some members of Congress hold that viewpoint, too.
Fourth, Trump has no reason to make it a priority to a law or a policy to forbid college athletes from working. He has n’t offered a concrete viewpoint on the topic. While his campaign promoted issues like reducing inflation and promoting border security, college athletes were noticeably absent from the workforce. And it’s not as though Trump completely avoided discussing college sports and athletes; for instance, he has repeatedly stated that he intends to outlaw transgender athletes from women’s sports.
Fifth, Trump aggressively courted organized labor—a group that traditionally supports the Democrats —and made significant inroads Republicans will want to maintain. The Teamsters, whose president, Sean O’Brien, spoke at the Republican convention, declined to endorse a candidate. Trump received support from Democrats who believe their leaders have lost touch with regular Americans and are too closely tied to elites, according to initial exit poll results. Trump agreeing to ban college athletes as employees could imperil his relations with organized labor, whose membership, and accompanying union dues, might grow considerably if college employee-athletes unionized.
Sixth, Congress has displayed almost no ability in recent years to advance college sports legislation. Practically speaking, a congressional hearing on NIL or a related subject is scripted. By sponsoring or introducing a college sports bill, a congressman or senator receives media coverage across the country. Then, ESPN and other major news outlets closely follow a highly publicized congressional hearing. Then nothing happens. The lone exception was when Good’s bill, H. R. 8534 (” Protecting Student Athletes ‘ Economic Freedom Act” ) was reported out of committee to the House in June. However, the bill then failed, and Good’s Republican primary resulted in his resignation.
Seventh, it’s not clear that enough Republicans and Democrats oppose collegiate employee-athletes to advance legislation. Many Republicans support market-based economies, but they might find it problematic that Congress would veer off from the fundamental principles of capitalism and the free market. Any bill preventing employment might receive a chilly reception if Republican lawmakers agree with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker on college sports. Additionally, organized labor will lobby against any legislation and have a significant impact on Democratic members.
Eighth, while the Republicans will control the Senate, the GOP’s majority currently projects as 53 seats and will fall short of 60, the number necessary to stop a filibuster. A narrow Republican majority would still rule the House, which has hampered the GOP’s ability to pass legislation during the 118th Congress. Additionally, Trump’s election as president and his political leadership have n’t guaranteed legislative success. Remember that Trump enjoyed majority control of Congress when he assumed office in 2017 despite the blockade of many bills. A flimsy majority in the House could prevent bills from being introduced, despite the fact that Republicans in Congress are more in line with Trump’s agenda this time.
Ninth, it would seem counterintuitive for a Republican-led Congress to pass legislation to prevent higher education costs for “elites” who run universities. Due to colleges ‘ free speech policies during the Middle East conflict, higher education and the so-called” Ivory Tower” faculty have long been Republican political targets. Additionally, liberal professors are more tolerant of Democrats than Republicans.
A brand-new federal law that forbids college athletes from working as employees would soon face legal challenges, according to tenth. The Supreme Court, in which case McDonald is currently pursuing a successful case against the NCAA, vehemently warns that any legislation that specifically bans athletes from being denied this same status as student employees is against the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Such a ban might also conflict with existing federal regulations, such as the NLRA and Fair Labor Standards Act, and could also stifle state law claims, especially if the federal ban attempts to override state authority.
In a phone interview with Sportico, Jake Krupski, a labor attorney who represents Dartmouth College basketball players and SEIU Local 560, might have said it best. The election outcome, he said, “is not irrelevant” in the fight for college athlete employment recognition” but it’s not controlling, either”.