Bill allowing Texas colleges to pay their athletes nears approval in the Legislature
The Senate unanimously passed a bill on Tuesday that would allow colleges to enter directly into what are called 'name, image and likeness' agreements with athletes. Currently, only outside entities, like national advertisers or athletic boosters, can do so.
'The Senate saved college sports in Texas,' Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said, jokingly afterward.
The Senate was supposed to consider House Bill 126 on Sunday, but delayed after senators complained they hadn't been fully briefed on the issue. Some then hopped on a call with college coaches across the state, who emphasized they needed the legislation to disperse millions of dollars as part of a court settlement that is expected to be finalized in the fall and to be able to effectively recruit top talent.
'Had they only informed everyone in the Senate a few weeks ago what was happening, we would have passed it the first time,' Patrick said, 'but everyone's kind of learned their lesson. It's good to talk to senators when you want their vote … here's to winning in Texas.'
Sen. Brandon Creighton, a Conroe Republican sponsoring the legislation in the upper chamber, agreed on Tuesday to limit the deal making to athletes 17 or older after hearing concerns from his Democrat colleagues that younger athletes might be taken advantage of. The student athletes would not receive payments from the university until after they are enrolled and participating in their sports program.
'I hope this amendment addresses some of the primary concerns that we talked about two nights ago and ensures that the guardrails are there for a level playing field for our young athletes,' Creighton said.
Creighton, who authored Texas' existing NIL law, said student athletes would still be prohibited from entering into agreements with sexually-oriented business or alcohol or tobacco companies. They'd also still be required to take a financial literacy course.
The proposal comes after several high profile lawsuits against the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or the NCAA, challenging its restrictions on compensation.
Last year, the NCAA agreed to settle one of these cases by paying back $2.8 billion to athletes who had participated in Division I sports since 2016.
A judge is expected to approve the settlement in October and the NCAA is supposed to change its rules soon, which is why the Texas Tech University and Texas A&M University systems have publicly pushed state lawmakers to act. They say without this bill, Texas talent will go to other states.
The NCAA is expected to cap the total amount all universities can pay their athletes annually at $20.5 millon. Creighton said during a Senate education committee earlier this month that smaller universities can make strategic investments below the cap to recruit for their sports programs. He said he hoped a federal law on this issue would pass otherwise courts could require schools to pay even more or treat their athletes as employees.
Democrat Sens. Royce West of Houston and José Menéndez of San Antonio focused more on the students' wellbeing than the schools'.
West asked if universities were notifying those who played for them in recent years that they could receive a portion of that billion dollar settlement. The Texas A&M University System said it was.
Menéndez pointed out that universities in Division I sports generate billions of dollars in revenue a year while less than 2% of student athletes go pro.
'Why should these athletes not be able to share some of the gain or the resources that their families could desperately need?' he said.
The law could take effect on Sept. 1 if the House concurs with the Senate's amendment and if the governor does not veto it. There's no indication he will.
The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.
Disclosure: Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University and Texas A&M University System have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
42 minutes ago
Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools
A federal judge on Wednesday declined a request to block an Alabama law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools and the teaching of what Republican lawmakers dubbed 'divisive concepts' related to race and gender. U.S. District Judge David Proctor wrote that University of Alabama students and professors who filed a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional did not meet the legal burden required for a preliminary injunction, which he called 'an extraordinary and drastic remedy.' The civil lawsuit challenging the statute will go forward, but the law will remain in place while it does. The Alabama measure, which took effect Oct. 1, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses. The Alabama law prohibits public schools from funding or sponsoring any DEI program. It also prohibits schools from requiring students to assent to eight 'divisive concepts' including that fault, blame or bias should be assigned to a race or sex or that any person should acknowledge a sense of guilt, complicity or a need to apologize because of their race, sex or national origin. Six professors and students at the University of Alabama filed a lawsuit arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on what educators teach. The lawsuit also said the law unconstitutionally targets Black students because it limits programs that benefit them. Professors said they had altered what they taught in their classes in the wake of the law and the university's guidance about it. A professor said he reduced coverage of the Black Power movement, the Black Lives Matter movement and the white nationalist movement in the wake of the law. Another said five students had made complaints suggesting that the interdisciplinary honors program she administered had potential conflicts with the new legislation. The university also shuttered designated spaces for the Black Student Union and a resource center for LGBTQ+ students in the wake of the law. Proctor wrote that a professor's academic freedom does not override a university's decisions about the content of classroom instruction. 'Importantly, SB 129 does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus or, for that matter, even from the classroom," Proctor wrote. 'To the contrary, it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' He added that the law appears to give notice about what is a violation. For example, he said a professor could not 'indoctrinate' students to believe that racial health disparities were the fault of one race of people but could still discuss the role of racism in health disparities. 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' Proctor wrote. Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan First Amendment group, criticized the decision as dangerous and at odds with decades of Supreme Court precedent on academic freedom. 'Academic freedom protects the search for knowledge and truth from political pressure. That's the whole point," Creeley wrote in a statement. 'Faculty are hired to share and hone their expertise in a given field of study, not to read from a government script.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday could be a decisive moment for both the war in Ukraine and the U.S. leader's anomalous relationship with his Russian counterpart. Trump has long boasted that he's gotten along well with Putin and spoken admiringly of him, even praising him as 'pretty smart' for invading Ukraine. But in recent months, he's expressed frustrations with Putin and threatened more sanctions on his country. At the same time, Trump has offered conflicting messages about his expectations for the summit. He has called it 'really a feel-out meeting' to gauge Putin's openness to a ceasefire but also warned of 'very severe consequences' if Putin doesn't agree to end the war. For Putin, Friday's meeting is a chance to repair his relationship with Trump and unlace the West's isolation of his country following its invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. He's been open about his desire to rebuild U.S.-Russia relations now that Trump is back in the White House. The White House has dismissed any suggestion that Trump's agreeing to sit down with Putin is a win for the Russian leader. But critics have suggested that the meeting gives Putin an opportunity to get in Trump's ear to the detriment of Ukraine, whose leader was excluded from the summit. 'I think this is a colossal mistake. You don't need to invite Putin onto U.S. soil to hear what we already know he wants," said Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a longtime Russia hawk and close ally of Trump's, expressed optimism for the summit. 'I have every confidence in the world that the President is going to go to meet Putin from a position of strength, that he's going to look out for Europe and Ukrainian needs to end this war honorably,' Graham wrote on social media. A look back at the ups and downs of Trump and Putin's relationship: Russia questions during the 2016 campaign Months before he was first elected president, Trump cast doubt on findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian government hackers had stolen emails from Democrats, including his opponent Hillary Clinton, and released them in an effort to hurt her campaign and boost Trump's. In one 2016 appearance, he shockingly called on Russian hackers to find emails that Clinton had reportedly deleted. 'Russia, if you're listening,' Trump said, 'I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.' Questions about his connections to Russia dogged much of his first term, touching off investigations by the Justice Department and Congress and leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, who secured multiple convictions against Trump aides and allies but did not establish proof of a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. These days, Trump describes the Russia investigation as an affinity he and Putin shared. 'Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,' Trump said earlier this year. 'He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, ever hear of that deal?' Putin in 2019 mocked the investigation and its ultimate findings, saying, "A mountain gave birth to a mouse.' 'He just said it's not Russia' Trump met with Putin six times during his first term, including a 2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump stunned the world by appearing to side with an American adversary on the question of whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. 'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be." Facing intense blowback, Trump tried to walk back the comment a full 24 hours later. But he raised doubt on that reversal by saying other countries could have also interfered. Putin referred to Helsinki summit as 'the beginning of the path' back from Western efforts to isolate Russia. He also made clear that he had wanted Trump to win in 2016. 'Yes, I wanted him to win because he spoke of normalization of Russian-U.S. ties,' Putin said. 'Isn't it natural to feel sympathy to a person who wanted to develop relations with our country?" Trump calls Putin 'pretty smart' after invasion of Ukraine The two leaders kept up their friendly relationship after Trump left the White House under protest in 2021. After Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump described the Russian leader in positive terms. 'I mean, he's taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I'd say that's pretty smart,' Trump said at his Mar-a-Lago resort. In a radio interview that week, he suggested that Putin was going into Ukraine to 'be a peacekeeper.' Trump repeatedly said the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in the White House — a claim Putin endorsed while lending his support to Trump's false claims of election fraud. 'I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided,' he said. Trump also repeatedly boasted that he could have the fighting 'settled' within 24 hours. Through much of his campaign, Trump criticized U.S. support for Ukraine and derided Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a 'salesman' for persuading Washington to provide weapons and funding to his country. Revisiting the relationship Once he became president, Trump stopped claiming he'd solve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. In March, he said he was "being a little bit sarcastic' when he said that. Since the early days of Trump's second term, Putin has pushed for a summit while trying to pivot from the Ukrainian conflict by emphasizing the prospect of launching joint U.S.-Russian economic projects, among other issues. 'We'd better meet and have a calm conversation on all issues of interest to both the United States and Russia based on today's realities,' Putin said in January. In February, things looked favorable for Putin when Trump had a blowup with Zelenskyy at the White House, berating him as 'disrespectful." In late March, Trump still spoke of trusting Putin when it came to hopes for a ceasefire, saying, 'I don't think he's going to go back on his word." But a month later, as Russian strikes escalated, Trump posted a public and personal plea on his social media account: 'Vladimir, STOP!' He began voicing more frustration with the Russian leader, saying he was 'Just tapping me along.' In May, he wrote on social media that Putin 'has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Earlier this month, Trump ordered the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. Trump's vocal protests about Putin have tempered somewhat since he announced their meeting, but so have his predictions for what he might accomplish. Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump described their upcoming summit not as the occasion in which he'd finally get the conflict 'settled' but instead as 'really a feel-out meeting, a little bit.' 'I think it'll be good,' Trump said. 'But it might be bad.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Beto O'Rourke slams Trump admin, compares 2025 America to 1933 Germany
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke remarked how he 'can only imagine the history books' that will be written about the people of 2025, and likened it to 1933 Germany on Wednesday. The Democrat appeared with Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., on the governor's podcast 'This is Gavin Newsom,' where he commented on Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton investigating his Powered by People PAC for allegedly violating the law by assisting Texas state Democrats' travel out of the state to avoid a quorum during a redistricting standoff. Advertisement O'Rourke lauded the efforts of the Texas Democrats, calling them some of the 'very last lines of defense' of democracy. By contrast, he predicted Republicans, and by extension, the Trump administration, would be remembered similarly to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany. 'I can only imagine the history books written 100 years from now looking at the people of 2025,' O'Rourke said. 'It's the way, you know, you and I when we were in school, we're looking at the people in Germany in 1933. That guy's named chancellor in January of that year. In 53 days, he has destroyed German democracy.' Democrat Beto O'Rourke speaks alongside elected officials gathered for a rally ahead of a public hearing on the proposed congressional redistricting on Saturday, July 26, 2025 in Houston. Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Advertisement He continued, 'The parliament or the congress, their legislature, passed these enabling laws just like the Republicans are doing in Congress today that said anything you want, you go out and do it. And he goes from being this buffoonish, clownish thug who can barely hold power to the undisputed master and dictator of the German people. And I know this s— doesn't repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes.' O'Rourke has frequently compared President Donald Trump and his administration to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. In 2019, O'Rourke attacked Trump's family separation policy at the border and accused him of calling all immigrants an 'infestation.' 'Now, I might expect someone to describe another human being as an infestation in the Third Reich. I would not expect it in the United States of America,' O'Rourke said. O'Rourke made his comments on California Governor Gavin Newsom's 'This is Gavin Newsom' podcast. Youtube/This is Gavin Newsom Advertisement He defended his comments days later saying, 'Calling human beings an infestation is something that we might've expected to hear in Nazi Germany… Describing immigrants — who have a track record of committing violent crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans — as rapists and criminals. Seeking to ban all Muslims — all people of one religion — what other country on the face of the planet does that kind of thing?' In 2021, O'Rourke also warned the US could become Nazi Germany within 10 years despite Trump losing the 2020 election. Fox News Digital broke the news earlier that day that Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has called for the Justice Department to also investigate O'Rourke's PAC for potentially violating the law by raising funds for Texas Democrats fleeing the state.
