At the conclusion of a Parliamentary hearing on Thursday, a potential restrictions on school sports as people of their institutions, conferences, and the NCAA advanced in the parliamentary process.
The House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee held a markup hearing on numerous bills, including H. R. 8534, which was sponsored by 11 Republican members and named the” Protecting Student Athletes ‘ Economic Freedom Act.” The expenses contemplates a ban on reputation of college athletes ‘ employment, which would in turn prevent them from joining unions.
At the end of the reading, in a political voting, a majority of the GOP- led council voted to review the bill to the House with a positive suggestion.
Whether H. R. 8534, which will go to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson for more attention, actually becomes law is another account.

The bill’s main sponsor, Rep. Bob Good ( R- Va. ), framed H. R. 8534 as a response to President Biden’s National Labor Relations Board becoming an” action arm for big labor”. Great argued that the current Board is determined to increase opportunities for “union dues” and is not motivated by a desire to advance college sports ‘ interests but rather to increase union membership.
Great, a former college boxer and senior associate athletics chairman at Liberty University, claimed that Biden had favor having “one more union staff” over opportunities for thousands of college athletes whose careers Great professed would be terminated if they were hired.
Great suggested that college athletes may be relieved that they just “won fresh freedoms,” including the ability to move schools without imposed additional restrictions and name, image, and likeness.
Classifying those improvements as “new rights” is unclear. NIL removed NCAA prohibitions on athletes from utilizing a constitutional right they already have, which is the right to notoriety, and it only became effective after states passed NIL regulations. As to the NCAA raising move regulations, that simply surfaced after the NCAA lost in court on those very limits.
Good furthermore blasted “unelected” Board officials for reimagining work in America. His remark made a critical reference to Employer regional director Laura Sacks ‘ acknowledgment of Dartmouth College men’s baseball players as people under the National Labor Relations Act and their subsequent unionization. Great thinks that as new labour and administrative costs rise with performer employment, schools will be forced to reduce sports. He even warned against “massive responsibilities” for institutions.
Another Republican members shared views on H. R. 8534 in a similar manner.
Rep. Rick Allen ( R- Ga. ), a inc- partner, rebuked the NLRB for “attempting to increase its power” by expanding labor across the country. He claims that the Board” continued to overstep” its authority when formulating federal labor laws and that career recognition had “restrict student freedom” and “reduce sport opportunities.”

Allen predicted schools would cut sports, especially women’s sports, if athletes become employees. In that scenario, he did not address how Title IX would likely safeguard women’s sports.
Further, Allen posed a series of questions aimed at encouraging passage of H. R. 8534. ” Can a student athlete be fired”? ” Will]college athletes ] have to pay into insurance plans”? ” Will]college athletes ] be required to pay union dues”?
He added that college athletes from his state, Georgia, could not be compelled to pay union dues because it is a right to work state, which means that union membership is not required as a condition of employment.
Rep. Glenn “G T” Thompson ( R- Penn. ), meanwhile, argued that college “faculty, staff, administrators and student athletes themselves” oppose employment status since it could spark “drastic cuts” especially at smaller colleges. Likewise, co- sponsor U. S. Rep. Tim Walberg ( R- Mich. ) warned that employee recognition would lead to Olympic sports being cut, which would in turn damage the country’s” Olympic pipeline”. He added that H. R. 8534 is” common sense legislation that pushes back against the NLRB”.
Offering a very different take, Rep. Bobby Scott ( D- Va. ) spoke in firm opposition to H. R. 8534. He claimed that the bill’s language contains “technical” errors that would strip athletes of their rights rather than protect them.
Given that issues like NIL and workers ‘ compensation are relatively new in the context of college athletes and require some clarification, Scott claimed it is “premature to start legislating” employment. He claimed that the Republicans are” jumping the gun” on a subject that necessitates thorough analysis by legal experts regarding whether college athletes meet applicable employment requirements.
Scott also criticized the more romanticized portrayal of college sports that his Republican colleagues had promoted. He claimed that college athletes frequently talked about the pervasive, employment-like control of their lives, including the need for mandatory weigh-ins and de facto restrictions on major options due to obligations related to sports scheduling.
In a statement, Rep. Lori Trahan ( D- Mass. Former varsity athlete at Georgetown University and proponent of college athletes ‘ rights, Rep. Joey said,” Once again, Republicans in Congress have decided to push ahead with legislation to limit the rights of college athletes with little input from the athletes themselves.
She found it “disappointing” that her Republican colleagues would “advange a bill targeting a hypothetical issue over the very real challenges currently facing athletes, including Title IX loopholes that hurt women and international athletes not having NIL rights.”
As Sportico explained Wednesday, H. R. 8534 will face several layers of political and legal opposition. Biden, a strong supporter of union rights, would likely veto H. R. 8534 or any bill like it. Even if H. R. 8534 became law, it could be challenged in court on equal protection, states ‘ rights and other grounds.
To that point, Paul McDonald, co- counsel for the plaintiffs in Johnson v. NCAA, responded to the committee advancing H. R. 8534 by saying the bill “is unconstitutional”. According to McDonald, giving college athletes” the same employee status, rights, and hourly pay as their fellow students in Work Study-style programs violates Equal Protection.”
He asserts that the only thing the NCAA has accomplished in needlessly dragging out the recognition of college athletes as hourly employees like their fellow students is significantly higher the cost of resolution borne by its members and that if the bill is passed, it “would never survive judicial challenge.”