Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports.
On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement.
The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee.
The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association.
The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, Congress.gov - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute.
The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law.
In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions.
According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'.
The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements
The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law.
These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Trump signs measure blocking California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump signed a resolution on Thursday that blocks California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The state quickly announced it was challenging the move in court, with California's attorney general holding a news conference to discuss the lawsuit before Trump's signing ceremony ended at the White House. The resolution was approved by Congress last month and aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. Trump also signed measures to overturn state policies curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. Trump called California's regulations 'crazy' at a White House ceremony where he signed the resolutions. 'It's been a disaster for this country,' he said. It comes as the Republican president is mired in a clash with California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, over Trump's move to deploy troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests. It's the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and heavily Democratic California over issues including tariffs, the rights of LGBTQ+ youth and funding for electric vehicle chargers. The state is already involved in more than two-dozen lawsuits challenging Trump administration actions, and the state's Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the latest one at a news conference in California. Ten other states, all with Democratic attorneys general, joined the lawsuit filed Thursday. 'The federal government's actions are not only unlawful; they're irrational and wildly partisan,' Bonta said. 'They come at the direct expense of the health and the well-being of our people.' The three resolutions Trump signed will block California's rule phasing out gas-powered cars and end the sale of new ones by 2035. They will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. In his remarks at the White House, Trump expressed doubts about the performance and reliability of electric vehicles, though he had some notably positive comments about the company owned by Elon Musk, despite their fractured relationship. 'I like Tesla,' Trump said. In remarks that often meandered away from the subject at hand, Trump used the East Room ceremony to also muse on windmills, which he claimed 'are killing our country,' the prospect of getting electrocuted by an electric-powered boat if it sank and whether he'd risk a shark attack by jumping as the boat went down. 'I'll take electrocution every single day," the president said. When it comes to cars, Trump said he likes combustion engines but for those that prefer otherwise, 'If you want to buy electric, you can buy electric.' 'What this does is it gives us freedom,' said Bill Kent, the owner of Kent Kwik convenience stores. Kent, speaking at the White House, said that the California rules would have forced him to install 'infrastructure that frankly, is extremely expensive and doesn't give you any return.' The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major car makers, applauded Trump's action. 'Everyone agreed these EV sales mandates were never achievable and wildly unrealistic,' John Bozzella, the group's president and CEO, said in a statement. Newsom, who is considered a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, and California officials contend that what the federal government is doing is illegal and said the state plans to sue. Newsom said Trump's action was a continuation of his 'all-out assault' on California. 'And this time he's destroying our clean air and America's global competitiveness in the process,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.' The signings come as Trump has pledged to revive American auto manufacturing and boost oil and gas drilling. The move follows other steps the Trump administration has taken to roll back rules that aim to protect air and water and reduce emissions that cause climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Dan Becker with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the signing of the resolutions was 'Trump's latest betrayal of democracy.' 'Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward Big Oil and Big Auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets,' Becker said in a statement. California, which has some of the nation's worst air pollution, has been able to seek waivers for decades from the EPA, allowing it to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its standards, but Democratic President Joe Biden reinstated it in 2022. Trump has not yet sought to revoke it again. Republicans have long criticized those waivers and earlier this year opted to use the Congressional Review Act, a law aimed at improving congressional oversight of actions by federal agencies, to try to block the rules. That's despite a finding from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, that California's standards cannot legally be blocked using the Congressional Review Act. The Senate parliamentarian agreed with that finding. California, which makes up roughly 11% of the U.S. car market, has significant power to sway trends in the auto industry. About a dozen states signed on to adopt California's rule phasing out the sale of new gas-powered cars.
an hour ago
Louisiana is the latest Republican-led state expanding its role in immigration enforcement
BATON ROUGE, La. -- As protests erupt across the country over aggressive immigration enforcement tactics, Louisiana lawmakers approved a package of legislation this week that'll aid the ongoing federal crackdown on deportation. Amid growing national tensions, Louisiana is the latest red state that expanded its immigration enforcement role — crafting a legislative promise to cooperate with federal agencies. Law enforcement agents and public officials could face jail time if they purposefully obstruct, delay or ignore federal immigration enforcement efforts, under one Louisiana bill. Another measure requires state agencies — including the departments of Health, Education, Corrections, Children & Family Services, and Motor Vehicles — to verify, track and report anyone illegally in the U.S. who is receiving state services. The bills head to Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, a tough-on-crime conservative and staunch ally of President Donald Trump, who is likely to sign them into law. Following Trump's pledge to remove millions of people who are in the country illegally, immigration raids have ramped up from coast to coast. Federal agencies have sought to enlist state and local help, alerting federal authorities of immigrants wanted for deportation and holding them until federal agents take custody. Louisiana's GOP-dominated Legislature passed a bill to ensure just that. The measure expands the crime of malfeasance in office, which is punishable with up to 10 years in jail. Essentially, it would make it a crime for a public official or employee to refuse to comply with requests from agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It also prohibits public officials, including police and judges, from knowingly releasing a person who 'illegally entered or unlawfully remained' in the U.S. from their custody without providing advance notice to ICE. 'This is one of those bills that says it's against the law not to enforce the law," said Republican state Sen. Jay Morris. Additionally, the bill expands the crime of obstruction of justice to include any act 'intended to hinder, delay, prevent, or otherwise interfere with or thwart federal immigration enforcement efforts,' including civil immigration proceedings. Tia Fields, an advocate for the Louisiana Organization for Refugees and Immigrants, said she fears the measures will have a 'chilling effect" and could potentially criminalize 'ordinary acts of assistance or advice' by advocates, religious leaders, attorneys or organizations. Louisiana, which does not share a border with a foreign country, is one of several states attempting to penalize local officials who don't cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Most recently, under a new law in Tennessee, local officials who vote to adopt sanctuary policies could face up to six years in prison. Other states allow residents or the local attorney general to sue officials and state governments if they limit or refuse to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts. But threats of repercussions have gone beyond the creation of legislation. Most recently, as the National Guard was deployed to protests in Los Angeles, Tom Homan, the Trump administration's ' border czar," hinted that elected officials could face arrest if they interfere with agents on the ground. Amid growing tensions over immigration enforcement, Louisiana has made national headlines for its role. Nearly 7,000 people are being held in the state's nine immigration detention centers. Among them is Mahmoud Khalil, a student and legal U.S. resident whom the Trump administration jailed over his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University. With a spotlight on Louisiana, bills and policies targeting migrants suspected of entering the country illegally were pushed to the forefront by Landry and legislators. Ranging from banning sanctuary city policies to sending Louisiana National Guard members to the U.S.-Mexico border. One measure, passed this week, codifies an executive order of Landry. It requires state agencies to verify the citizenship of people attempting to receive or use state services and benefits. The agencies would collect and track such data, submitting an annual report to the governor, attorney general and Legislature, in addition to posting it publicly online. Any agency that does not comply risks having its funding withheld. Republican state Sen. Blake Miguez, who authored the legislation, said it was crafted so officials and residents know how much money and what 'services or benefits have been afforded' to immigrants who are in the country illegally. But another bill goes a step further — requiring state agencies to refer the applicant's information, 'including unsatisfactory immigration status,' to ICE. State Sen. Royce Duplessis, a Democrat who opposed the bill, asked Miguez if the measure could result in families being separated. Miguez said that while that's "a bit of a stretch,' ultimately it is up to federal authorities and what they do with the information.
an hour ago
Democrats criticize latest effort by Congress to regulate college sports as setback for athletes
WASHINGTON -- The latest effort by Congress to regulate college sports generated predictable partisan outrage on Thursday, with Democrats saying Republican-led draft legislation would claw back freedoms won by athletes through years of litigation against the NCAA. Three House committees are considering legislation that would create a national standard for name, image and likeness payments to athletes and protect the NCAA against future lawsuits. Last week, a federal judge approved a $2.8 billion settlement that will lead to schools paying athletes directly, and NCAA President Charlie Baker said now that his organization is implementing those major changes, Congress needs to step in and stabilize college sports. Baker said he supports the draft legislation that was the subject of Thursday's hearing by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, but there was little indication that any bill advanced by the House would generate enough Democratic support to surpass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. 'I'm deeply disappointed for the second year in a row, Republicans on this committee are advancing a partisan college sports bill that protects the power brokers of college athletics at the expense of the athletes themselves,' said Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass. Trahan noted that if the NCAA or conferences establish unfair rules, athletes can challenge them in court, with the settlement of the House v. NCAA antitrust case the latest example of athletes winning rights that they had been denied historically. 'This bill rewrites that process to guarantee the people in power always win, and the athletes who fuel this multibillion-dollar industry always lose,' said Trahan, who played volleyball at Georgetown. The NCAA argues that it needs a limited antitrust exemption in order to set its own rules and preserve a college sports system that provides billions of dollars in scholarships and helps train future U.S. Olympians. Several athletes are suing the NCAA over its rule that athletes are only eligible to play four seasons in a five-year period, and on Tuesday, a group of female athletes filed an appeal of the House settlement, saying it discriminated against women in violation of federal law. On the Senate side, a bipartisan group including Republican Ted Cruz of Texas has been negotiating a college sports reform bill for months, but those talks are moving more slowly than Cruz had hoped at the beginning of this Congress. The draft bill in the House would create a national standard for NIL, overriding the state laws that critics say have led to a chaotic recruiting environment. That, too, was criticized by Democrats and by their key witness at the hearing, Ramogi Huma, executive director of the National College Players Association. Huma argued that the NCAA wants to get rid of booster-funded NIL collectives that another witness, Southeastern Conference associate commissioner William King, characterized as 'fake NIL' or 'pay for play.' Instead, Huma said the collectives are examples of the free market at work, noting that before players won NIL rights through a court case, boosters could only donate to athletic departments. Tom McMillen, a former Democratic congressman who played in the NBA after an All-America basketball career at Maryland, took a dim view of the bill's prospects. 'I think they're trying to come up with something and pull in some Democrats. I just don't know if that's going to succeed or not,' said McMillen, who for several years led an association of Division I athletic directors. 'There's a real philosophical divide, so that's the hard part. It's hard to bridge. And there's a zillion other issues.' The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., said the draft legislation already had some bipartisan support and he was open to changes that would get more Democrats on board. 'I will consider some of the suggestions, the legitimate suggestions that were made,' Bilirakis said, 'and I will be happy to talk to lawmakers that truly want to get a big bill across the finish line.'
