A final NCAA vote on any new name, image and likeness rules will probably not happen until next yearGETTY IMAGES
NCAA leaders took part in a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing yesterday to discuss name, image and likeness rights, and for all of the projected "frustration," Congress "did not seem poised to act immediately in a debate that is central to the economy of college sports," according to Alan Blinder of the N.Y. TIMES. That reality, the "result of a Washington rooted in lobbying, election-year politics and with a history of inertia when it comes to college sports, could have repercussions nationwide as states grapple with challenging the NCAA on their own." Congress' "wait-and-see strategy" could "embolden some in the statehouses as they weigh proposals, including some on the table that could take effect this year, if passed." But even with "federal intervention hardly imminent and the NCAA signaling no significant changes before next year, it was perhaps never clearer" that new national rules for college sports are "far closer than they have ever been." The most "meaningful hints of what could come are likely to be seen in April," when the NCAA is expected to present new recommendations and ideas for handling NIL rights to Congress. However, a "final vote on any new rules would probably not happen until next year" (N.Y. TIMES, 2/12).
DO IT THEIR WAY: U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) said that he was "not inclined to act" on the NIL issue until "after the NCAA reveals its new rules." Moran: "I wish Congress was in a position to be able to provide the NCAA and the athletes the opportunity to find a solution. ... The next step is to see what the NCAA is capable of presenting to us in April" (AP, 2/12). In L.A., J. Brady McCollough notes NCAA President Mark Emmert yesterday laid out a "vague groundwork for what the NCAA would want a federal solution to look like." Emmert said that student-athletes "should receive more benefits for the use of their NIL." However, he added that"'guardrails' would need to be in place to ensure that the recruiting environment for prep prospects is not unduly influenced by inflated booster payments disguised as third-party endorsement deals, and athletes should not be legally considered employees of the schools." Emmert also "expressed a fear that any changes to the NIL benefits allowed would result in the NCAA landing back in federal court facing fresh antitrust litigation" (L.A. TIMES, 2/12). THE ATHLETIC's Eamonn Brennan noted Emmert appealed to the congressional subcommittee to "allow the NCAA enough time to 'thread the needle' of athlete compensation" in a way that both "allows for the changes demanded by law and preserves the NCAA's own idea of what college sports should look like"(THEATHLETIC.com, 2/11).
UNFAIR ADVANTAGE: In Dallas, Paul Cobler notes Emmert and Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby were "in agreement for much of the hearing, arguing that schools in states allowing endorsement deals for student-athletes would be able to use money to entice players to sign with them over schools in states without such laws." However, the senators in attendance "seemed mostly unimpressed with the NCAA's argument" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 2/12). Bowlsby argued that student-athletes profiting off of their NIL rights "could improperly influence the recruitment process and harm the college athletics system." Bowlsby: "I fear that if we adopt a process that permits per se 'play for pay' or any proxy for 'pay for play' we will find ourselves changing the team chemistry that has made college athletics so special" (K.C. STAR, 2/12).
