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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The same month,President Donald Trump issued an executive orderon college sports echoing many of the goals of the SCORE Act. "It's a mess what happened, what they're doing with college football," Trump said in July. "And 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's passing, and nobody knows what's happening." Both Democratic lawmakers and advocates for college athletes have been critical of the political developments. "It's a coordinated attack on athletes' rights in economic compensation and opportunities being coordinated through the schools, conferences, NCAA and some members of the federal government," said Ramogi Huma, the executive director of the National College Players Association. Huma, a former UCLA linebacker, has long been an advocate for college athletes, including having attempted tounionize the Northwestern University football teamin 2014. He added: "Currently, players have never had so many rights. But there are tremendous threats, and that's the House settlement and congressional action that's seeking to put the NCAA and the conferences above the law at the detriment of college athletes' rights." Huma's concerns are echoed by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who criticized the SCORE Act. "The SCORE Act would roll back court decisions that have resulted in college athletes' ability to earn compensation," Cantwell wrote in an open letter to university presidents and chancellors in late August. In addition, Cantwell's 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. "A lack of clear rules and the inability to enforce them have turned the NIL landscape into the Wild West," Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C., said in a statement in support of the SCORE Act in July. "This bill will finally bring order to the chaos — protecting universities and conferences from a flood of litigation, safeguarding Olympic and women's 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." 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's desk. In the wake of the SCORE Act, some Democratic lawmakers have entered the fray with their own legislation. 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. "Far 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," Lee told NBC News in a statement. "These 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't a have a real say in decisions that impact their health, safety, and livelihoods." Lee added: "Any 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." As for the NCAA, its president, Charlie Baker, has supported both the SCORE legislation and Trump's executive action. Baker supported the order ina statementandwrote an open letterin August urging families to support the SCORE Act. Meanwhile, the deal Wilken approved in June has created its own issues. The House v. NCAA settlement favored athletes in two ways — 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. 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 — 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.) The Power Four conferences formed a body independent of the NCAA — the College Sports Commission — 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. 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. 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 "fair-market value." (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.) Advocates for athletes already fear that system could restrict athletes' 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.) Amid the political fight, even some college coaches are ready to bring athletes to the table in the search for a solution — a major shift in the landscape over the last decade. "You've got to admit the players are employees," Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundysaid on the "Andy & Ari"podcast in July. "Then you can build collective bargaining. We've all talked about it. But you have to admit they're employees." Tennessee athletic director Danny Whitetold Yahoo Sportsthis year: "Collective bargaining and employment status shouldn't be seen as negative terms. I think there's a lot of people who think the same way I do. We can go through another three or five or 10 years of a difficult environment. Or we can accept the reality and fix it right now." While Huma tried to help lead a unionization effort a little over 10 years ago, he no longer sees collective bargaining as a "silver bullet," in part because there are no guarantees of an athlete-friendly collective bargaining agreement and the antitrust powers it would grant the NCAA. As far as a path forward, Huma believes lawmakers could play a role in protecting athletes as it relates not only to compensation but also to health care, working conditions and several other issues. "It's our hope that one day there'll be a deal in Congress that can really be a comprehensive solution and a balanced solution," Huma said. "What you're seeing in Congress right now is really one-sided. It's a gift to the industry, the NCAA and the conferences. "We're already kind of headed in a direction where college sports are identical to the pros, and we can see what the pros are doing in terms of revenue share and health and safety. Players should always have a voice going forward and every opportunity under the law that other Americans have, as well, to stand up for themselves."
