On June 6, a long-awaited, landmark moment finally arrived for college athletes: For the first time in the history of the NCAA, schools were given the right to directly pay players.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result of a lawsuit filed against the NCAA in 2020, a settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken allowed schools to share revenue with their athletes, cutting players a piece of an ever-growing pie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While the settlement in the case of House v. NCAA was meant to bring some measure of order to the college athletic ecosystem, almost three months after the ruling, confusion still reigns over how (and how much) athletes will be paid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From bipartisan fights in Congress to competing interests among schools and debates over whether the athletes themselves deserve a seat at the table, the future of the NCAA model is far from settled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In July, House Republicans (along with two Democratic representatives) introduced the SCORE Act, which would codify into federal law that athletes are not employees and further regulate their name, image and likeness deals, as well as grant the NCAA an antitrust exemption to make unilateral decisions about issues such as eligibility and transfers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The same month, President Donald Trump issued an executive order<\/a> on college sports echoing many of the goals of the SCORE Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s a mess what happened, what they\u2019re doing with college football,\u201d Trump said in July. \u201cAnd the fans are upset about it. Players are being taken from team after team and being traded around like playing cards. A lot of money\u2019s passing, and nobody knows what\u2019s happening.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both Democratic lawmakers and advocates for college athletes have been critical of the political developments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s a coordinated attack on athletes\u2019 rights in economic compensation and opportunities being coordinated through the schools, conferences, NCAA and some members of the federal government,\u201d said Ramogi Huma, the executive director of the National College Players Association.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Huma, a former UCLA linebacker, has long been an advocate for college athletes, including having attempted to unionize the Northwestern University football team<\/a> in 2014.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He added: \u201cCurrently, players have never had so many rights. But there are tremendous threats, and that\u2019s the House settlement and congressional action that\u2019s seeking to put the NCAA and the conferences above the law at the detriment of college athletes\u2019 rights.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Huma\u2019s concerns are echoed by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who criticized the SCORE Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe SCORE Act would roll back court decisions that have resulted in college athletes\u2019 ability to earn compensation,\u201d Cantwell wrote in an open letter to university presidents and chancellors in late August.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition, Cantwell\u2019s concerns about the SCORE Act include how it would consolidate control among the Power Four schools and potentially create funding issues for non-revenue sports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA lack of clear rules and the inability to enforce them have turned the NIL landscape into the Wild West,\u201d Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C., said in a statement in support of the SCORE Act in July. <\/strong>\u201cThis bill will finally bring order to the chaos \u2014 protecting universities and conferences from a flood of litigation, safeguarding Olympic and women\u2019s sports teams, and creating a fair, national framework that allows student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness. It strikes the right balance between supporting student-athletes and preserving the integrity of college sports.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House is expected to vote on the SCORE Act in September, and while it is likely to have enough support to make it to the Senate, its current configuration almost certainly would not get the 60 votes necessary to make it to Trump\u2019s desk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the wake of the SCORE Act, some Democratic lawmakers have entered the fray with their own legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In July, Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., and Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., reintroduced the College Athletes Right to Organize Act, which would ensure college athletes had an opportunity to collectively bargain or unionize.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFar too many college athletes are treated like workers by their universities, and they deserve every single right that any other worker has, including the right to collectively bargain and form a union,\u201d Lee told NBC News in a statement. \u201cThese athletes put their bodies, time, and futures on the line to generate billions of dollars for universities, coaches, and corporations. And yet, they still don\u2019t a have a real say in decisions that impact their health, safety, and livelihoods.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lee added: \u201cAny legislation like the SCORE Act that strips away or undermines those rights is nothing more than an attack on the very people who keep collegiate sports alive.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n As for the NCAA, its president, Charlie Baker, has supported both the SCORE legislation and Trump\u2019s executive action. Baker supported the order in a statement<\/a> and wrote an open letter<\/a> in August urging families to support the SCORE Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, the deal Wilken approved in June has created its own issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House v. NCAA settlement favored athletes in two ways \u2014 schools are required to pay back damages of $2.8 billion over the next 10 years to athletes who competed in college from 2016 to the present day, and moving forward, schools can pay players directly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the amount schools can pay players is capped at $20.5 million for the upcoming athletic season, and that includes athletes across all varsity sports \u2014 not only football or basketball. (The $20.5 million number represents roughly 22% of average athletic department revenue across the four power conferences, and the figure is expected to rise annually over the next decade.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Power Four conferences formed a body independent of the NCAA \u2014 the College Sports Commission \u2014 to enforce compliance with the rules of the House settlement, almost immediately setting off a new battle as it relates to third-party payments athletes receive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before the House settlement, players were being paid for their NIL rights largely through third-party collectives, amalgamations of boosters and businesses with individual ties to schools that paid athletes millions. Those deals were effectively pay-for-play contracts for athletes who, in exchange, technically endorsed the entities that were paying them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the post-House world, NIL contracts that athletes sign with collectives are subject to an approval process run by the consulting company Deloitte, which partnered with the College Sports Commission to ensure such contracts are \u201cfair-market value.\u201d (Deloitte reportedly told athletic directors this year that nearly 70% of previously agreed-upon contracts between athletes and booster collectives would not have been approved under the new system.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Advocates for athletes already fear that system could restrict athletes\u2019 earning potential, even before any federal laws related to NIL are accounted for. (Several state laws, on the other hand, are seen as favorable to athletes. That is one of the reasons many believe the NCAA is pushing for federal intervention.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Amid the political fight, even some college coaches are ready to bring athletes to the table in the search for a solution \u2014 a major shift in the landscape over the last decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou\u2019ve got to admit the players are employees,\u201d Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy said on the \u201cAndy & Ari\u201d<\/a> podcast in July. \u201cThen you can build collective bargaining. We\u2019ve all talked about it. But you have to admit they\u2019re employees.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n