Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Power 5 Conferences Ask Congress for College Athlete Compensation Law

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Power 5 Conferences Ask Congress for College Athlete Compensation Law

    From ESPN:

    Power 5 Conferences Ask Congress for College Athlete Compensation Law
    Associated Press
    May 29, 2020

    The Power 5 conference commissioners are asking Congress to move forward with federal legislation regarding compensation for college athletes.

    The commissioners of the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern conferences sent a letter dated May 23 to congressional leaders, as first reported by Stadium. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter Friday.

    They encouraged federal lawmakers not to wait for the NCAA process to play out before passing a national law that would set parameters for college athletes to be compensated for use of their names, images and likenesses (NIL).

    "I don't think it's indicative of anything other than our belief that the five of us bring substantial equity to college athletics and that our brands are strong,'' Bowlsby said Friday during a conference call with reporters.

    The Power 5 commissioners said the letter was to ensure lawmakers "hear directly from us, as any NIL changes will have the greatest impact upon the [Autonomy 5] conferences and our member institutions."

    The letter emphasized guiding principles that echo what has come from the NCAA and other college sports leaders for months, including a ban on anything that resembles pay-for-play.

    "First, those who participate in collegiate athletics are students, not employees. A critical aspect of the college model has been and remains that student-athletes are not paid for playing sports," the commissioners wrote.
    Article Link with interview:


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2015


    This topic... I don’t know what all are purposing put it concerns me.

    For the average student to go to college and the costs... to have your education paid for is worth something. I have heard that a year at GU is around $70,000... times 4 is close to $300,000.

    The cost of a ticket to one of the P-5 sporting events can cost a chunk of change.

    The alumni associations have caused problems over the years and I have concerns... lots of money and power.

    Good topic for thoughts...

    Go Zags!!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010


    I share your concerns......but obviously we have absolutely no say in concern is the power teams are looking out for the power teams, nothing more.....they could care less if smaller universities don't have the boosters to lure kids to play at their school....what with covid, many colleges/universities are going to be hard pressed as it is....I see a future of some schools deciding on dropping certain sports.....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2014


    More info to consider.

    From ESPN:

    Coaches of non-revenue sports fret over athlete NIL compensation
    Associated Press
    9:32 AM PT

    College coaches in non-revenue sports are worried about the impact legislation allowing compensation for athletes could have on their programs.

    More than a dozen national associations in various sports -- hockey, soccer, tennis, golf, swimming and gymnastics, among them -- have signed a memo outlining "significant concerns" about effects of allowing athletes to profit for use of their names, images and likenesses (NIL).

    The concerns include reduced resources for lower-profile programs, the risk of "crowdfunded recruiting" for boosters to "buy talent" for a competitive advantage, increased influence by agents and whether schools can effectively monitor for compliance.

    The memo, prepared by North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham and associate athletics director Paul Pogge, was sent last week to a law committee examining whether to craft a standardized athlete-compensation law for states to adopt. The memo focuses on non-revenue sports, many of which are included in Olympic competition.

    "Legislation like this, if it goes wrong, could be incredibly catastrophic to Olympic sports," said Mike Moyer, executive director of the National Wrestling Coaches Association, which supports the memo. "Our position is: Let's pump the brakes and just be really, really careful what is agreed to and what's not agreed to."

    The committee, part of the Uniform Law Commission, holds a virtual meeting Tuesday. That comes after the NCAA moved ahead with a plan for athletes to profit through NIL deals with third parties, though regulations -- dubbed "guardrails" by the NCAA -- are being developed.

    "We're listening to everybody's views," said Dale G. Higer, an Idaho attorney and chairman of the study committee. "We'll make a decision. But my own view is it looks like the horse is out of the barn and you can't get it back in. A lot of people think the sky is falling, and in many ways it is, in terms of the way things used to be. But we're trying to come up with something that's addressing what is."
    Entire Article can be found here:


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2014


    From ESPNW:

    Most ADs polled think NCAA is incapable of policing athletes' endorsement deals
    Dan Murphy
    ESPN Staff Writer
    Jun 4, 2020

    The vast majority of college athletic directors who responded to a poll do not believe the NCAA is capable of policing a potential future market for college athletes making money from endorsement deals.

    There is a growing consensus among college sports stakeholders that an independent oversight board will need to be created to enforce new rules if the NCAA adopts a proposal to allow college athletes to make money from their names, images and likenesses. Those proposed rule changes, which were supported by the NCAA's board of governors in late April, would allow college athletes to make money while in school as long as the moneymaking ventures fit within a set of yet-to-be-determined "guardrails."

    The NCAA rule-makers have not yet figured out what those guardrails would be, or who would enforce that no athlete or school steps outside of them. NCAA leaders such as president Mark Emmert indicated earlier this year that initial plans were leaning toward using the organization's current enforcement staff and campus-level compliance officers to fill that role. Roughly 85% of respondents to a recent poll conducted by Lead1 -- a professional association of athletic directors -- said they are "not confident at all" in the NCAA's ability to enforce its proposed rules, according to Lead1 president Tom McMillen.

    Three-quarters of the respondents to the poll were in favor of creating a third-party board that would oversee the new marketplace for athletes. Members of the group who crafted the proposed rule changes are in the process of deciding the merits of a third-party oversight board, according to group co-chair Val Ackerman.

    Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, who is working on a federal bill to address the future of college athlete compensation rights, said he is favor of using a third party to oversee the process.
    "A lot of these unanswered questions could be answered by an independent oversight body that reports to Congress," Gonzalez said Thursday during a webinar organized by the Knight Commission, a group that works to reform college sports with education as its priority. Gonzalez, Ackerman and McMillen were among the guests for a panel discussion about the future of name, image and likeness rights in college sports.

    The NCAA announced its proposed rule changes in April along with a plea for Congressional help. More than two dozen states pressured the NCAA into action by introducing bills designed to help college athletes maintain their rights to profit from their name, image and likeness. California passed a law that will go into effect in 2023. Other states, including Florida, are marching toward the signing of laws that would go into effect as early as next summer. Emmert and other NCAA leaders have said that each state having its own law would lead to "chaos," and they have asked Congress to create a federal law that supersedes what is happening on a state level.

    Gonzalez, a former NFL and collegiate football player, said he plans to introduce a bill in the next month that will include guardrails similar to what the NCAA has proposed. Rep. Mark Walker of North Carolina proposed a bill last year that would create a marketplace for college athletes free of regulation. Gonzalez said Thursday he has spent several months building a bipartisan coalition to support this bill.

    Gonzalez said the biggest challenge is time. Congress would need to pass its bill before any state laws go into effect for it to have its intended unifying impact. That likely gives federal lawmakers only one year to act -- a task made more difficult by the global pandemic and an impending contentious election cycle. Gabe Feldman, a Tulane law professor who was a panelist on the webinar, suggested that Congress might be able to pass a temporary measure to delay the state laws while it works on the details of a permanent law.

    The NCAA plans to sketch out the details of its proposal by the end of October and vote on the new rule at its annual meeting in January. Ackerman said a federal law isn't absolutely necessary to get the proposal approved by the NCAA membership, but it would be a major help.

    The NCAA and conference commissioners have lobbied Congress to include exemptions from antitrust law as part of the new law. Gonzalez said Thursday that a blanket antitrust exemption is "legislatively impossible," but his bill will include provisions intended to protect the NCAA from legal challenges that threaten rules that prohibit schools from paying athletes directly.

    Ackerman suggested that federal support will be key to the possibility of creating more opportunities for college athletes in the future, including any potential return of an NCAA-based video game. The group licensing that would be needed to bring back the fan-favorite video games is not included in the current proposed rule changes. Ackerman said her group is open to ideas on how they could allow group licensing in the future, saying it might be part of "Phase 2" of the changing rules.

    Both Ackerman and Gonzalez acknowledged that the major change to NCAA policy will be bumpy. Ackerman said she is hoping for at least an "oiled machine" as opposed to the potential for a well-oiled one. Gonzalez said the odds of getting everything right on the first attempt are "basically zero." Both said that they hope the coming rules will provide enough flexibility to evolve and adjust. Gonzalez said having an independent body of experts who can spend the majority of their time thinking through these issues is an important first step in that process.
    Article Link:


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts