For decades, we’ve watched coaches sign multi-million dollar contracts while universities reap billions from TV deals. Now, athletes at universities are finally securing some financial rewards. Take Texas quarterback Arch Manning, for instance—he’s inked a deal worth around $6.5 million. And then there’s Duke basketball player Connor Flagg and LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne, both also boasting deals exceeding $4 million.
Even less prominent players are seeing averages of about $40,000 a year. It’s not life-changing wealth, but certainly a step up from the past. However, as these young athletes begin to relish newfound financial freedom, Congress seems poised to take it away.
Recently, a bill known as Score Method has emerged, aiming to grant the NCAA nearly unprecedented immunity from labor and antitrust laws. It’s advanced through Congress rapidly.
The NCAA’s lobbying efforts have cost over $15 million and seem to aim at overturning a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that essentially stated the NCAA and its member schools had operated illegal pay cartels, challenging the very notion of amateurism.
As Judge Brett Kavanaugh pointed out, it’s hard to fathom how companies can agree to underpay workers based on an outdated concept of what defines a product.
Yet, if supporters of the NCAA have their way, they could avoid legal accountability, essentially permitting the further exploitation of athletes.
This bill operates subtly, allowing the NCAA to say it can’t restrict individual athletes’ ability to profit from their name, image, or likeness—which is the key to their potential income. However, it would impose restrictions that undermine fair compensation standards.
I mean, comparing a star college quarterback to an average student? That seems… illogical. People care about top-tier athletes like Manning or Flagg, not just any random college student. Such a framework could potentially limit compensation for a vast number of university athletes.
The legislation also imposes monitoring measures that would restrict how schools can handle earnings data for athletes. One troubling stipulation is that schools wouldn’t be able to collect or publish certain anonymized financial information. This creates an environment ripe for algorithms designed to dampen athlete earnings.
The newly established College Sports Commission is responsible for overseeing these name, image, and likeness transactions. They’ve even turned to an accounting firm to help create algorithms for valuation, potentially compromising around 70% of current athlete contracts.
This law could wipe out many recent victories for collegiate athletes. It contradicts a federal court ruling that prevents schools from treating athletes like employees, further reflecting the Supreme Court’s lack of regard for amateurism. Last year, a federal court even likened the treatment of college athletes to that of prisoners in its opinion, which could now be undone by this new legislation.
Many aspects of this Score Method were crafted without genuine input from the athletes directly affected. It superficially acknowledges the need for improvements in healthcare and education support, yet fails to address many other longstanding issues athletes have flagged for years—like unsafe practice conditions and grueling travel requirements imposed by financial-driven college sports.
In professional sports, athletes can negotiate wages, safety, and other vital conditions. They have extensive collective bargaining agreements. Conversely, under the proposed Score Method, over half a million collegiate athletes would be governed by regulations barely three pages long, crafted by institutions that have historically leveraged them.
The NCAA and its advocates label college sports as a “Wild West,” insisting that government regulation will bring stability and transparency. Yet, they seem to be using strategies that ultimately hurt athletes while enriching coaches like Nick Saban.
The chaos often cited? It’s largely a product of the NCAA’s own making, as they deny athletes the right to collective negotiations and continue to prohibit those in less popular sports, like tennis, from earning tournament prize money.
It’s crucial that Congress and the President resist granting the NCAA immunity from antitrust laws. Instead, they should recognize university athletes as valuable contributors and work toward a system aimed at putting an end to their exploitation.
