Protection Racket: NCAA Edition

Amid the overall positive vibes of the World Cup, professional championships in hoops and hockey, the U.S. Open and the specter of a Major League Baseball lockout, you might have missed the latest machinations in the ongoing college athletics saga loosely titled, “Won’t Somebody Please Help Us.” 

Widespread disruption and athlete pay and movement have twisted college sports overseers into crullers who have spent the past several years lobbying for Federal government intervention to provide guidelines and limits. Last week, something called the Protect College Sports Act advanced out of a Senate committee and could end up on the Senate floor for a full vote. The bill would provide antitrust protections to the NCAA and major conferences and would help regulate college sports. 

Among its major provisions are limits on transfers and eligibility and a spending cap. It would give conferences the option to pool their television rights and would force schools to commit to preserve their women’s and Olympic sports programs. It would create national standards in areas such as Name, Image and Likeness payments that supersede state measures. 

The original bill was authored by Texas Republican Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington. It was amended over the past year and passed the Senate Commerce Committee 19-9 with bipartisan support (brief aside: Pity that bipartisan agreement doesn’t extend to presidential actions and behavior). After the vote, Cantwell blasted the Big Ten and Southeastern conferences, which both oppose the legislation, saying that they’re attempting to “intimidate” members and treating school presidents and athletic directors like puppets. “What we did today is say we’re not going to let the most powerful and richest conferences dictate to the rest of America what’s going to happen to 500,000 athletes,” Cantwell said in the hearing room last Thursday. “They need our help, they asked for it and today, we are giving it.” Cruz said after the committee vote: “I believe this bill is going to pass,” according to Yahoo Sports college football snoop Ross Dellenger. 

The Big Ten and SEC, the two wealthiest conferences by a wide margin thanks to TV contract and media rights money, oppose the legislation for several reasons. They are against the idea of potentially pooling FBS conference media rights and possibly limiting NIL payments to athletes by third parties; they’re also concerned that outside influences, namely mega-dollar private equity groups, could poach high-profile programs and create a super league. In short, the Big Ten and SEC prefer to conduct their own affairs. They aren’t keen on welcoming the ACC or Big 12 into any sort of collective bargaining of TV rights and are mistrustful of advocates who claim that pooling rights would somehow unlock even more money for the collective kitty. 

The two leagues released a joint statement that said Cantwell’s remarks do not “accurately reflect the process.” Meanwhile, Cantwell said that the two leagues’ concerns are “irrational.” The Protect College Sports Act is the second piece of legislation to work its way through Congress. Last year, the SCORE Act came through a House of Representatives committee, backed by the White House and many college sports leaders. It contained several similar provisions to the PCSA, including broader antitrust protection for the NCAA and language that prohibited athletes from being classified as employees. The bill never made it to the House floor for a vote. No Democrat supported it, plenty of Republicans were skeptical, and it was DOA in the Senate, where it needed 60 votes to pass in a chamber where the GOP holds a slim, three-seat advantage. 

But Cruz and Cantwell, among others, think this bill stands a decent chance at passage because of the committee’s bipartisan support and because Senate majority leader John Thune, who voted for the bill in committee, intends to bring it to the floor, Cruz said to Dellenger. Even if it passes the Senate, it would still need to pass the House – an iffy proposition – before it crosses the President’s desk. 

Congressional attention to college athletics, I suspect, is a case of low-hanging fruit that plays well to constituents. Congress has all but abandoned meaningful governance in many areas related to budgeting and oversight and citizens’ well-being. The President and his greasy minions treat the Constitution like a Denny’s menu and the rule of law as a suggestion list. The current majority party enables the Big Orange Guy because they’re terrified of him, while the opposition party has trouble articulating a compelling case for lunch. 

College sports, meanwhile, provides a connection for many regardless of political persuasion, fueled in part by a gauzy nostalgia for an era that was never as fair or innocent as they like to believe, along with the well-worn trope of concern for the welfare of the youngsters. All those inconvenient court rulings in recent years kneecapped the NCAA’s old model and paved the way for labor – uhhh, excuse me, student-athletes – to earn a cut of the billions that they generated and give them greater freedom of movement. Conference realignment mirrors corporate consolidation, and all the upheaval gives a lot of people the shakes. Hence, the NCAA and college leaders’ desire for stability and guidelines, and tough talk and grand gestures from legislators, who wouldn’t give the issues a second look if not for the vast sums of money involved. 

The coming weeks will be interesting, as the bill’s advocates try to whip up support, while the Big Ten and SEC and their allies will attempt to sow doubt in hopes of scuttling the legislation. It’s a peculiar dance, seeing as how representatives from bright red areas and states who often chafe at the idea of government intervention and regulation are being asked to sign on for national standards in this one particular area, while those from bluer locales might find themselves inclined to back away from collective control and to permit conferences and free markets to find their own levels, imperfect as that may be. Now, if we could just get Cruz and Cantwell to take an interest in the War Powers Act or the Emoluments Clause.