Assurances from schools that they will fund their increasingly threatened Olympic programs, which are by far the largest source of talent for Team USA, might be a bargaining tool for college sports executives requesting antitrust and other protections from Congress.
“College sports experts and policy shapers have approached lawmakers, primarily Democrats, who will need to provide votes to help any legislation pass the Senate, to explore options in exchange for support of a bill that some Democrats oppose,” four people familiar with the discussions told The Associated Press.
Supporting collegiate Olympic sports programs is one of the most obvious trade-offs for a concept that has bipartisan support.
Around three-quarters of the U.S. Olympians at a normal Summer Games come from those programs, but some are in a precarious position following the $2.8 billion House settlement that allows schools to start paying their athletes directly as early as next week. Football and basketball, the moneymakers in this new era of athlete name, image, and likeness royalties, will receive the majority of that funding.
Due to the ongoing and unpredictable nature of the discussions, the individuals who spoke to AP did so under the condition of anonymity. It is well known, however, that the NCAA and its largest leagues do not consider the House settlement to be the solution to all of their issues.
In the halls of Congress
The NCAA is advocating for legislation that would replace state statutes that establish distinct guidelines for NIL, guarantee players do not receive work status, and offer only rudimentary antitrust protection. The few cases contesting the NCAA’s long-standing regulation that athletes have five years to finish their four seasons of eligibility are a major problem.
According to NCAA President Charlie Baker, “I understand why limited liability is a big ask.” However, the implications of playing this out for the next generation of youth are significant when it comes to limited culpability concerning fundamental regulations.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who has been heavily involved in creating college sports policy, told AP that athletes demand independent oversight of college sports and serious reform, indicating the challenges the NCAA may face in passing legislation.
Instead of just giving the NCAA a blank check to restore the status quo, Blumenthal stated that congressional legislation must establish robust and enforceable protections for their economic rights, health, safety, and transparency in order to protect non-revenue-generating sports.
Although sponsoring Olympic teams is prohibited by law in the United States, government support for universities and their athletic departments is not. In order to help the colleges defray the costs, one proposal would be to put in the bill pledges of specific funding levels for collegiate Olympic sports programs, some of which might be obtained through federal grants.
When asked about the proposal, Baker responded that it would depend on what they had in mind. We would be amenable to discussing that as those sports are significant.
The problem is complex, and there will be strain on financing sources: Each D-I school is permitted to distribute up to $20.5 million in revenue to its players in the upcoming year alone, with additional funds allocated to further scholarships—for example, Michigan’s $6.2 million. The money must come from somewhere because all of those numbers are rising in relation to the settlement.
Olympic sports in peril
As schools get ready for the new budgetary realities, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee reported in late May that over 40 Olympic sports programs had been eliminated in Division I since the start of 2024 (although 18 programs had also been created).
The Utah beach volleyball team and the Virginia men’s and women’s diving programs were the only three programs from Power Four conferences that were co-defendants in the House case. However, with roster limitations and limitless scholarships in place, innumerable other teams have been rearranging their lineups, which is putting pressure on them to make difficult choices.
USOPC leaders are hopeful that schools that produce the most talent—for example, Stanford athletes’ 39 medals from the previous year’s Paris Games, which would have ranked the school 11th overall on the medal table—will continue to have strong Olympic sports programs and that Congress will support them.
Since members of Congress have expressed a genuine care for Olympic and Paralympic sport, we have no reason to doubt that there is genuine alignment across all parties. Sarah Hirshland, CEO of USOPC, stated.
Even if the House is evenly divided, a completely partisan bill may pass, but it would require at least seven Democratic votes in the Senate to end a filibuster before it could become law.
Together with Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., Blumenthal and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., drafted a bill in 2023 that would have offered some antitrust protection in return for several assurances, such as the creation of a health and safety trust fund for athletes who suffer from chronic injuries sustained in collegiate athletics.
One of the fundamental assurances established by the NCAA last year is that colleges must pay for medical care for injuries sustained by athletes for a minimum of two years following their departure.
When Baker spoke with senators, one of the messages he received was, “Clean up your own house first, then come talk to us.” Therefore, we took some actions that were consistent with some of the earlier laws.
The key question is whether those actions, along with any protections for Olympic sports, would be sufficient to get past Democrats’ resistance to limiting or taking away college athletes’ legal rights.
