A markup hearing will be held on Thursday to evaluate the NCAA’s existential wager: If the NCAA agrees college athletes should be paid to play, will Congress agree those athletes are n’t employees?
The committee will observe H. R. 8534, dubbed the” Protecting Student Athletes ‘ Economic Freedom Act”. College athletes may not be able to become designated as employees of their colleges, meeting, or NCAA under the proposed legislation. Since labour law requires that union members get people, H. R. 8534 may also reduce college players from unionizing.
The NCAA has recently fought with Congress to make college sports a part of the law that says they are not employees. It did so while the law was shifting in the opposite way. According to Employer local director Laura Sacks, the 15 men’s hockey players at Dartmouth College are university people, according to the National Labor Relations Act’s definition of “school employees.” The following day, those participants cast a ballot to form a coalition under Regional 560 of the Service Employees International Union. Bis now, Dartmouth has never struck a deal with these workers, and it hopes the board of directors may determine that the people are not employees.

However, a Los Angeles administrative law judge may determine that USC basketball and men’s and women’s basketball participants are people of their respective institutions, conferences, and the NCAA. In Johnson v. NCAA, the people assert that they are people within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law that mandates give for time and minimum wages for work-study individuals employed by schools.
The NCAA hopes to gain goodwill in Congress by reaching an agreement with players ‘ attorneys to resolve three antitrust disputes ( House v. NCAA, Carter v. NCAA, and Hubbard v. NCAA ). If approved, the$ 2.7 billion settlement will reimburse athletes for earnings they might have made for the commercialization of their names, likenesses, in-games, and broadcasts, if NCAA regulations forbidding such payments. Additionally, it may change the way colleges are able to give athletes to enjoy.
In a speech released to the media Wednesday, the Power Five events urge the commission to help H. R. 8534. ” Saving student- athletes ‘ standing as students, never employees, is important for preserving sport and academic opportunities”, the conferences insist. The categoryization of pupil athletes as workers of their institutions may damage the validity of some college sports programs, especially women’s and Olympic sports.
Thursday’s markup hearing, which can be watched online beginning at 10: 45 a. m. ET, will feature debate over nine bills, including” the Promoting Responsible Oversight to Eliminate Communist Teachings ( PROTECT) for Our Kids Act” and” the Combating the Lies of Authoritarians in School Systems ( CLASS) Act”. People will decide whether to suggest a bill for the House to vote on. Discussion of potential modifications and changes will be included in the conversation.

There are many reasons to believe H. R. 8534 faces longer chances. Federal regulations for college sports has generated strong headlines over the past ten years but failed to produce any results.
To that place, members of Congress from both parties have introduced charges that would control NIL and, in the context of college athletics, health care, profit sharing and work. While these bills have drawn the attention of journalists and, in some cases, procured interesting hearings, none has advanced out of committee.
H. R. 8534 also lacks bipartisan support, at least currently.
U. S. Rep. Bob Good, a Republican from Virginia and a former senior associate athletics director at Liberty University, is the sponsor, and 10 co- sponsors are Republicans, too. Given that both the House and Senate are so narrowly divided—the House has 218 Republicans and 213 Democrats while the Senate has 47 Democrats, four independents who caucus with the Democrats, and 49 Republicans—legislation that lacks support from both parties faces a daunting path.
If legislation like H. R. 8534 is presented at his desk, President Biden may also veto it. One of the most vocal advocates of college athletes as employees is Jennifer Abruzzo, Biden’s choice for NLRB general counsel. Given Biden’s widely discussed problems influencing young people’s votes, he might not want to support a bill that would stop 18 to 22-year-olds from starting jobs and organizing.
Election years are also known to stifle the legislative process. Members of their districts spend more time away from D.C. to raise money for other campaigns, hold fundraisers, and serve as substitutes for other candidates.
There is also the fact that despite the NCAA and power conferences reaching an agreement on a settlement term sheet with players ‘ attorneys, there is ( 1 ) no settlement yet as many important details are still pending, ( 2 ) U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken has not yet approved a settlement, and ( 3 ) there may be opt-outs, objectors, and impacted athletes and schools who can file a lawsuit against the settlement at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or in separate litigation.
Members might also point to the antitrust settlement as a reason to oppose H. R. 8534.
In a salary cap model that includes revenue sharing, the settlement calls for colleges to directly pay college athletes. In other words, this looks a lot like a pro league, with athletes paid to play.
This new world contradicts previous NCAA warnings that paying college athletes would turn amateurism into minor league sports. When the NCAA’s preferred course of action envisages college athletes who resemble professional athletes, members might wonder why they should strip college athletes of their employment opportunities.
The NCAA is also at risk from the bill’s legality.
NCAA regulations governing college athlete compensation would still be subject to potential antitrust lawsuits in a world where college athletes could n’t form unions. The non-statutory labor exemption would be the only way the NCAA could avoid antitrust litigation. The exemption is in line with U.S. Supreme Court decisions that state that terms that are exempt from antitrust scrutiny when management and labor negotiate rules governing wages, hours, and other employment terms. Although a settlement can resolve antitrust litigation, it ca n’t immunize the NCAA from antitrust lawsuits.
Additionally, H. R. 8534 would not, under its laws, prevent a state from recognizing college athletes as employees. The bill does not include a preemption provision, and it begins with “notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law” by stating that college athletes are not employees.
Colleges in that state would likely gain a recruiting advantage if college athletes were to be deemed employees in that state. That, in turn, could incentivize other states to make the same determination. When it became clear that California’s 2019 NIL law could help schools in that state attract top athletes, the same mindset led to a sudden flood of states overturning NCAA rules and approving NIL legislation.
Even if H. R. 8534 is passed by the House and Senate and is signed into law by Biden, it could face legal challenges.
Sportico has obtained a letter Paul McDonald, co- counsel for the plaintiffs in Johnson, sent this week to the chiefs of staff and legislative directors for the committee’s 44 members.
McDonald warns that since H. R. 8534 singles out college athletes” to be denied the same hourly employee status, rights and pay as fellow students in Work Study- style program”, he believes it violates Equal Protection guaranteed in the U. S. Constitution.
McDonald insists college athletes meet the FLSA’s requirements more than their classmates who work as they study in Johnson, which he examines in his current case, which is before the Third Circuit. When they collect game tickets and serve hot dogs and beverages to fans in stadiums, work study students, some of whom attend college on academic scholarships, are paid the minimum wage. While carrying out these non-academic tasks, they are under the care and control of the college. Work study students also fill out timesheets.
McDonald contends that college athletes share the same fundamental characteristics: they are supervised while engaging in non-academic duties for their school ( playing sports and the various responsibilities that come with ), and are required to fill out timesheets under NCAA regulations.
No law can negate one group of student protections provided the other when two groups of students are functionally identical, according to McDonald.
McDonald also urges committee members to consider a lingering query:” What is a financially sustainable way to fairly compensate all College Athletes in accordance with Title IX”?
He contends the answer is simple. ” Use NCAA- required timesheets”, he writes,” to fold College Athletes into existing Work Study- style programs and pay them comparable hourly wages”.