This week, a bipartisan Senate bill aimed at reforming college sports passed with a strong majority. However, it seems unlikely to reach the president’s desk anytime soon. It’s unfortunate because there’s a rare consensus among college administrators, lawmakers, and the president about the need to address the financial issues harming college sports, particularly those outside of football and basketball.
The legislation, known as the Protect College Sports Act, is co-sponsored by Republican Ted Cruz from Texas and Democrat Maria Cantwell from Washington. It aims to cap the hefty paychecks given to a select few college athletes, which comes at the cost of others. President Trump supports this bill, and typically, his backing would provoke a backlash from Democrats, but in this case, the need for reform is too obvious to ignore. The Senate approved the bill with a 77 to 22 vote on Monday night.
Nevertheless, supporters of the bill are concerned that the real challenge lies ahead in the House of Representatives. Some insiders doubt whether Speaker Mike Johnson, who leads the Republican majority, can push this through solely along party lines.
Political dynamics can be quite local. For instance, some Republican politicians in Florida represent schools like the University of Miami and Florida State University, which thrive under the current system. These schools attract significant donations to recruit top players, potentially without impacting other programs.
Rumors suggest that both universities are contemplating leaving the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) for better leagues like the Big Ten or Southeastern Conference. However, this seems impractical since those conferences may not be interested, and Florida State lacks the necessary research budget for such a move. Overall, it could lead to turmoil for the ACC, something the legislation seeks to prevent in its aim to stabilize college sports.
Representatives for Florida State and Miami declined to comment.
According to one insider in sports business who backs the bill: “We’ll see how it unfolds, but the usual obstacles are already surfacing. The behavior of Miami and Florida State is nonsensical. They risk undermining this legislation without gaining anything substantial. It’s absurd.”
Another factor is the discontent among sports agents, whose earnings would be affected by capping athlete payouts since their fees are based on those amounts. They’ve been known to blur the lines between amateur and professional sports due to the lucrative nature of their business. It’s worth noting that under the new rules, students will be limited in how often they can transfer schools through the transfer portal, which could further impact agents’ fees.
Opponents of the bill, including groups such as the NAACP and lawmakers like New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, argue against it in terms of equity, suggesting that student-athletes should have the ability to collectively bargain as if they were school employees. Many find this perspective misguided, though, as it raises issues like the taxability of scholarship money. Additionally, public universities are exempt from the National Labor Relations Act, which means students are unable to collectively bargain at the federal level.
There seems to be a belief that limiting payouts will somehow push these millionaire athletes into a subordinate position, which quite frankly seems a stretch. It’s hard to understand how capping payouts would protect other college sports from the scramble for top talent.
This bill proposes a revenue-sharing agreement between students and their schools, setting a “soft cap” on college endorsements at $47.5 million annually. This includes restrictions on the “Name, Image, and Likeness” system that currently benefits a select few student-athletes, particularly in football and basketball, typically at the expense of other sports.
In the coming days and weeks, opponents of this legislation will surely voice their opinions. Trump is eager to have this on his desk before the midterms, as he had initiated this effort earlier in the year with a committee whose findings catalyzed the Cruz-Cantwell proposal.
Yet, Speaker Johnson is already signaling reluctance to put this to a vote before November, hinting at the contentious nature of the issue. This scenario might explain the growing disillusionment among voters regarding government; even when there’s agreement on a topic, it can still be an uphill battle to make any progress.
