logo
A ‘clever' way for universities to pay college athletes for playing sports?

A ‘clever' way for universities to pay college athletes for playing sports?

Yahoo03-03-2025

As a bill works its way through the Utah Legislature to allow universities to compensate college athletes for the use of their name, image and likeness, one state senator wondered if it's just a 'clever' way to pay them for playing sports.
Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, R-South Jordan, also questioned why those payments wouldn't be publicly available under the state Government Records Access and Management Act, or GRAMA.
Lawmakers also expressed frustration about putting sports ahead of academics during a Senate Education Committee meeting last week, with some saying what was once amateur athletics is turning into 'semi-pro' sports.
Their comments came during a hearing on HB449, which would allow schools to directly pay athletes for the use of their NIL.
'Does that mean the university cannot compensate them for actually playing football?' Fillmore asked.
Sen. Ann Millner, R-Ogden, the Senate sponsor of the legislation, replied, 'If they're playing football and they're a star player, the name, image and likeness is going to be part of what we use. So what you're really doing is compensating them because of the name, image and likeness that they have based on being football players.'
'That seems awfully clever to me,' Fillmore said. 'Why not just pay them for playing football?'
Last year, a judge preliminarily approved a settlement in the House v. NCCA antitrust case that would create a revenue sharing model in college sports. If the agreement goes through in April, universities could earmark as much as $20.5 million to directly pay athletes starting in July. Most Power Four schools are expected to spend $15 to $17 million on their football rosters.
Millner told the committee the court case is driving the legislation and the proposed law is necessary for the 'large' schools in the state to compete with universities across the country, noting other states are passing similar legislation.
Fillmore also raised questions about transparency in the use of public money.
Last year, lawmakers passed a law making NIL contracts with third parties, such as businesses, private records under GRAMA. He said that made sense because public funds weren't involved.
'But this is public money. I understand it's not legislatively appropriated money but regardless of that, when it goes to a university, it becomes public money,' Fillmore said.
'Is this information going to be publicly available subject to GRAMA because now it's public money?'
The original version of the bill stated that direct payments to athletes would be public records subject to GRAMA. But the House sponsor of the bill, Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, stripped that from a revised version, saying the universities believe the payments would be private under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA.
In 2023, Utah universities argued that NIL contracts are 'education records' under FERPA in a case involving the Deseret News' attempt to obtain athletes' NIL agreements submitted to their schools. FERPA broadly defines education records as 'records directly related to a student' and 'maintained by an education agency.'
The State Records Committee, which lawmakers are poised to abolish this year, rejected that argument and ordered the universities to release the contracts. The schools appealed the ruling in state court where a judge ultimately decided NIL contracts are private records after the Legislature changed the law to shield them from public view last year.
HB449 is now silent on whether direct athlete payments are public records but does not preclude anyone from requesting them under GRAMA. Millner said they could be subject to the public records law.
Fillmore said it made sense that contracts between college athletes and outside organizations were private.
'But now that it's public universities paying athletes, I'm not sure that it remains a private matter anymore and that's something we ought to consider as we move forward,' he said.
The bill prohibits schools from using state funds for NIL payments. Millner said the money would come from TV and media contracts as well as gifts and donations to the universities. The legislation requires an audit of NIL spending every five years starting in 2028.
While Education Committee members said they understand the need for the bill, they were frustrated about having to consider it at all.
'It's unfortunate that our highest paid employees in most states are coaches. And it's unfortunate that we now have the tail wagging the dog when it comes to education,' said Sen. Kathleen Reibe, D-Cottonwood Heights.
'I understand this bill is somewhat necessary if we want to be competing in the academic sports arena but it's really unfortunate that we put so much time and energy into these sports and we're cutting school budgets but we're increasing our access to better athletes.'
University of Utah football coach Kyle Whittingham is the highest paid state employee, making $5.7 million in 2025, according to the state website TransparentUtah.
Reibe voted for the bill but said 'at some point we all have to recognize that our education institutions are education institutions and not sporting arenas. This really frustrates me.'
Senate Education Committee Chair John Johnson, R-North Ogden, echoed Reibe's comments.
'Utah needs a law regarding direct athlete payments but lawmakers need to ask themselves, 'Are we funding universities as academic institutions or are we creating media … entertainment, I guess, for the general public?''
'At some point we really need to ask ourselves how far are we going to go with this,' he said. 'Because now it really is becoming a semi-pro team and … we have to ask ourselves if we're in that business."
The committee unanimously approved HB449. It's now awaiting a vote in the Senate.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What to know about the monumental $2.8 billion settlement that will change college sports forever
What to know about the monumental $2.8 billion settlement that will change college sports forever

Chicago Tribune

time40 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

What to know about the monumental $2.8 billion settlement that will change college sports forever

A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics. A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 athletes and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things such as media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' always have been part of the deal for many Division I athletes, and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes earn their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. How college sports are preparing for 'seismic change,' including revenue sharing and new roster limitsBut athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools fight to land top talent and then keep them on campus. In a big-money era, University of Illinois shrugs off rules on athletes' NIL dealsTop quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things such as March Madness). A: Because football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players — not just a portion — eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits, but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill.

Ted Cruz Urges Trump and Musk to 'Kiss and Make Up'
Ted Cruz Urges Trump and Musk to 'Kiss and Make Up'

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

Ted Cruz Urges Trump and Musk to 'Kiss and Make Up'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, is calling for President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to "kiss and make up" as their public feud over Trump's signature legislation continues to escalate. Newsweek has reached out to the White House and Musk via email on Saturday for comment. Why It Matters Musk and Trump initiated a war of words this week after the tech mogul started attacking the House-approved spending bill, which the president has nicknamed the "One Big Beautiful Bill," that will help him launch a wider effort to implement some of his broader economic and social reforms. Musk, who spent four months rooting around the federal government with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut "waste, fraud, and abuse," criticized the bill as a "disgusting abomination" and that it was full of "pork," a reference to abundant discretionary spending in a bill, known as "pork barrel spending." Trump hit back on his own social media platform Truth Social by saying he had asked Musk to leave government because he was "wearing thin." Meanwhile, Musk gave over $200 million to Trump's 2024 presidential campaign and called himself his "first buddy." The breakdown between Trump and Musk threatens the unity of the Republican coalition, with Cruz warning that "every enemy of America, every Marxist, every person who hates our country" is cheering for the divide to be permanent. What To Know The Texas lawmaker made the comments on his podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz, revealing that he was inside the Oval Office when Musk began posting his criticism on X, formerly Twitter, and "the relationship between the billionaire CEO and Trump imploded." The feud centers on Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill Act," which would extend his 2017 tax cuts and boost spending on military and border security while making cuts to Medicaid and other assistance programs. Musk has called the legislation "a disgusting abomination," expressing concerns about its estimated $3.8 trillion addition to the federal debt over the next decade. On his podcast, Cruz described witnessing the breakdown firsthand: "These are two alpha males who are pissed off and, unfortunately, they're unloading on each other. And I wish that were not the case, because I think the country does better when these two amazing heroes are working side-by-side for the country." He warned that "every enemy of America, every Marxist, every person who hates our country, every person who hates freedom, is cheering for this divide to be real, to be deep, to be lasting, to be permanent." The senator added: "Everyone who loves our country is cheering for Elon and President Trump to kiss and make up." The lawmaker expressed hope the relationship could be repaired quickly, saying: "I hope it goes back to zero just as quickly" and comparing the situation to "the kids of a bitter divorce where you're just saying, 'I really wish mommy and daddy would stop screaming.'" Amid their fiery dispute on Thursday, Trump warned that the "easiest way" to save billions in the budget was to "terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts." Musk responded by saying SpaceX, which he is the CEO of, will "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," although he has since walked that threat back. Cooler heads prevailed Friday, with Musk and Trump refraining from slinging direct insults at each other. However, when asked by a reporter on Air Force One if he planned to follow through on his threat to cut Musk's government subsidies, Trump did not rule it out. "We'll take a look at everything," he said. "It's a lot of money. It's a lot of subsidy. So, we'll take a look at that, only if it's fair for him and for the it has to be fair." Elon Musk speaks with then-President-elect Donald Trump and guests including Donald Trump Jr., Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, at a viewing of the launch of the sixth... Elon Musk speaks with then-President-elect Donald Trump and guests including Donald Trump Jr., Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, at a viewing of the launch of the sixth test flight of the SpaceX Starship rocket on November 19, 2024, in Brownsville, Texas. MoreWhat People Are Saying Elon Musk wrote on X on Thursday: "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate." President Donald Trump on Thursday: "Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore. I was surprised. You were here. Everybody in this room practically was here as we had a wonderful send-off. He said wonderful things about me. You couldn't have nicer-said the best things. He's worn the hat. Trump was right about everything, and I am right about the 'Great Big Beautiful Bill.'" Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, wrote earlier this month on X: "I do support President Trump, and I support most of the bill. I'm his biggest defender on foreign policy. But at the same time, I want conservative government, so I have to fight for what I believe in." Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, to Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday: "I think it's incredibly unfortunate. You and I are both good friends with President Trump and we're both good friends with Elon Musk. They're both extraordinary men, and they've both done extraordinary things for our country." He added: "Elon is an incredible inventor and business leader. His buying Twitter was massively important, his leadership of DOGE for President Trump was massively important. President Trump is doing phenomenal work every single day. His victory pulled this country back from the abyss. I'll tell you Sean, I was in the Oval Office with the president when this back-and-forth began, and it's really unfortunate. They are both, I think, American heroes. They are both incredibly strong leaders. And listen, it's obvious they are both pissed off right now." House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, on Friday: "Do not doubt and do not second-guess and don't ever challenge the president of the United States, Donald Trump. He is the leader of the party." What Happens Next It was not clear whether Trump and Musk would meet or call to discuss the fallout over the bill, which Trump has suggested the Senate should pass by July 4.

Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned
Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned

USA Today

time2 hours ago

  • USA Today

Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned

Disputes inside the GOP about parts of Trump's major tax bill threaten approval in the Senate and past compromises reached by the Republican-led House. Show Caption Republicans begin debate in the narrowly divided Senate with factions seeking to increase spending cuts or curbing tax breaks, which threaten the compromise needed for approval back in the House. Trump's billionaire adviser Elon Musk complicated the debate by urging lawmakers to kill the bill. Congressional leaders insist approval is still possible despite the fissures in the narrow Republican majorities in each chamber and the unified opposition of Democrats. WASHINGTON – Will President Donald Trump 's 'big beautiful bill' go bust? The second-term president's highest-priority legislation is under attack from some Senate Republicans – and from his former billionaire adviser Elon Musk – for costing too much. Complaints are also mounting from Republicans who are opposed to cutting Medicaid health insurance and other popular programs used by many Americans, especially as a way to help pay for tax breaks that would benefit some of the country's highest-income earners. With Republicans holding the slimmest of majorities in both chambers of Congress and with Democrats showing no sign of wanting to help Trump notch a major win to begin his new administration, lawmakers from Trump's own party are sounding apprehensive about threading the needle before their self-imposed July 4 deadline to get something to the president's desk for signature into law. 'We're anxious to get to work on it," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters earlier in the week as Republicans and Musk started publicly airing their complaints about the effort. Adding to the challenge: Some of the very House GOP members who last month voted in favor of their 1,100-page version of Trump's tax and policy plan started finding faults of their own that they say meant they'd probably have been a 'no' if they had the chance to do it again. Presidents often aim high to start terms Presidents often try in their first year to build on the momentum of their elections to get major legislation approved. For Joe Biden, it was an infrastructure bill. For Barack Obama, it was overhauling healthcare insurance. For George W. Bush, it was overhauling public education. Trump leapt into action in 2025 with an unprecedented pace of executive orders: 157 through May 23. When he turned to legislation, he persuaded Republican congressional leaders to package all his priorities into one bill, rather than splitting taxes and border security into two different bills, to complete the debate in one fell swoop. Lawmakers often shy away from piling too much into one bill because each contentious provision spurs its own opposition. But faced with the prospect of unanimous Democratic opposition, Trump opted for a strategy that focuses on GOP priorities such as tax relief and border security while personally lobbying reluctant Republicans to stay in line. 'Americans have given us a mandate for bold and profound change,' Trump told Congress in a speech March 4. 'I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY,' he added in a social media post about three months later, on June 2. Musk opposition makes waves Trump's efforts worked in the Republican-led House, which after several days of negotiations and an all-night floor debate voted 215-214 in favor of a plan that had the full backing of the White House. Getting the measure through the Senate - even with the GOP in charge needing just a simple majority of 51 votes - is proving to be its own elusive challenge. Musk, the former head of Trump's bureaucracy-slashing Department of Government Efficiency, spent this past week unloading on the House-passed bill for spending too much money. He called the legislation "pork-filled" and a "disgusting abomination," and urged lawmakers to "KILL the BILL." While Musk's barrage ignited a war with Trump and left many Republicans cringing, deficit hawks in the GOP said they appreciated the world's richest man also pushing for deeper spending cuts from the U.S. government. "I welcome people like Elon Musk that try to hold our feet to the fire," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Missouri. "We often disappoint our voters when we don't do the cuts that we campaign on, when we're not fiscally responsible." But Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, who served in the Air Force for 30 years, said the division between Trump and Musk wasn't a good look for his party, especially when it's trying to advance the primary piece of legislation on the president's agenda. "It's just not helpful," Bacon said. "When you have division, divided teams don't perform as well." 'The opposite of conservative': Sen. Paul on bill Several pockets of Republican senators have voiced concerns about the House-passed legislation. Each group has their issue that they want addressed, and each one presents a hurdle for Trump and GOP leaders like Thune as they try to cobble together a winning 51-vote coalition that can also make it back through the House for another final vote. The Senate factions include one group seeking to cut more spending because the Congressional Budget Office said the House-passed plan would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Others are worried about cutting Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income families. And another handful of senators say they are worried about the House-passed bill rolling back renewable energy tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy. "There are many of us who recognize that what came out of the House was pretty aggressive in how it seeks to wind down or phase out many of the energy tax credit provisions," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "I happen to think that we've got tax policies that are working to help advance our energy initiatives around the country, as diverse and as varied as they are. Wouldn't we want to continue those investments? 'This bill is the opposite of conservative, and we should not pass it,' added Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in a June 4 social media post that raised concerns about the nation's debt limit. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is one of the outspoken Republicans taking issue with the House-passed bill's provisions that would cut nearly $800 billion during the next decade from Medicaid and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost 7.8 million people their health insurance. "I don't want to see rural hospitals close and I don't want to see any benefits cut in my state," Hawley said. Trump and his allies contend spending cuts of $1.6 trillion are the most ever approved in a House bill and that the tax cuts will spur economic growth to offset the costs. Trump got personal this week in calling Paul's ideas 'crazy' in a social media post and said the people of Kentucky 'can't stand him.' House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, told reporters June 4 that few people are going to like everything in an 1,100-page bill. But the Louisiana Republican said the measure he helped craft in the House was carefully calibrated to gain wide support. "I hope everybody will evaluate that – in both parties, and everybody – and recognize, 'Wow, the benefits of this far outweigh anything that I don't like out it,'" Johnson said. Senate dropping local tax deductions would be 'radioactive': Rep. Lalota Any changes made by the Senate will force another vote in the House before the bill can become law - and that's where the math can get tricky. Republican senators are talking about tinkering with a key compromise that Trump and Johnson signed off on in the House that raised the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 for people earning less than $500,000 per year. That provision is important to GOP lawmakers from high-tax states such as California, New York and New Jersey who supported the House bill that passed through the 435-seat chamber by only a one-vote margin. The Senate aims to cut back that provision. But Rep. Nick Lalota, R-New York, told reporters on June 4 that revisiting the tax issue "would be like digging up safely-buried radioactive waste." House members scouring through the bill they voted on weeks ago are also finding unfamiliar provisions in the version that they say they would have opposed. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said in a social media post June 3 that the Senate needs to strip out language she hadn't noticed earlier that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, said he opposed a section that aims to hinder federal judges from enforcing their court orders. Trump sought the provision to prevent judges from blocking policies largely spelled out via his executive orders. Senate could drop contentious provisions House members risked supporting Even though Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the Senate could drop or fail to approve contentious parts that GOP House colleagues in competitive districts already went out on a limb to support. It's happened many times before - with sizable political consequences. The concept even has a name: Getting BTU'd. That refers to a 1993 House vote on a controversial energy tax during the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency based on British thermal units. House Democrats lost 54 seats in the 1994 election – and control of the chamber for the first time in 40 years – in part because of supporting the BTU tax that the Senate never debated. John Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, has said a book about such votes could be called 'Profiles in Futility.' Another example was the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill which Obama supported as president that aimed to limit the emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, vehicles and other industrial sources. The Democrat-controlled House narrowly approved the measure 219-212 but the Senate never took it up. Critics said it would raise the cost of energy. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-profit libertarian think tank that opposed the measure, counted 28 House Democrats from coal states who lost their seats in the 2010 mid-term election after voting for the bill. Fast forward to 2025 and Republicans are the ones facing a similar dynamic. Musk, who contributed about $290 million of his personal fortune to help Republicans including Trump win last November, slammed House lawmakers who voted for the president's legislative package.'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong,' Musk wrote June 3 on social media. But House Republicans who voted for the legislation, including some who also demanded deeper spending cuts when it was in their hands, said they're not worried about the package falling apart and coming back to haunt them. They say that's because they did fight for more budget cuts. "This wasn't a hard vote. It was hard going through the process to get more, and you can always do better," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-South Carolina. "But look at what Donald Trump 's done, the great things that are contributing to cutting the deficit." Rep. David Schweikert, R-Arizona, who represents a competitive toss-up district, noted that he's introduced multiple bills to trim federal spending. "If Mr. Musk wants to be helpful, what he should do is start to understand that those of us in a 50-50 district who have shown up with actual policy solutions that offset every penny of this bill," he said. Leaving Washington for the weekend, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force Once on June 6 that he wasn't worried about Musk and that he remained confident he'd get "tremendous support" in the Senate to pass the bill. 'I don't know of anybody who's going to vote against it," the president said, before adding: "Maybe Rand Paul." For his part, Johnson told reporters June 4 that he wasn't concerned about House Republicans losing seats in 2026. Predicting that the Senate would find the necessary votes on the president's tax bill, the speaker said he expects Americans will see the benefits of Trump's efforts before the next election. 'Am I concerned about the effect of this on the midterms? I'm not," Johnson said. "I have no concern whatsoever. I am absolutely convinced that we are going to win the midterms and grow the House majority because we are delivering for the American majority and fulfilling our campaign promises."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store