U.S. Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) are "introducing legislation that would dramatically alter the compensation and treatment of athletes in major-college sports programs," according to Steve Berkowitz of USA TODAY. The measure being introduced today "backs those changes with a variety of enforcement provisions that would be directed by a commission whose governing board would be appointed by the President and have subpoena power." The 61-page piece of legislation, named the "College Athletes Bill of Rights," would go "far beyond other recently introduced bills largely aimed at improving athletes' ability to make money from their names, images and likenesses." Booker and Blumenthal "want to see athletes annually receive money directly based on the revenue surpluses they help their teams generate." They also "want athletes to have long-term health care and a set of educational protections." Their bill "would mandate not only individual NIL rights, but also athletes' ability to market themselves as a group." That step, among other impacts, "would begin to create a mechanism for athletes to be legally depicted in once-popular video games that were discontinued amid NIL litigation against the NCAA." From an individual NIL standpoint, schools "would not be able to prevent athletes from having arrangements based on what they do outside of mandatory team activities" (USA TODAY, 12/17).
MOVING FORWARD: In Detroit, Dave Boucher reports two bills that "would allow college athletes in Michigan to earn money through endorsements, sponsorships and similar arrangements easily passed the Senate" yesterday. They now "head next to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for final approval." The bill "does not allow athletes to start entering into these contracts until 2023." Originally, sponsors of the legislation "wanted it to take effect this year." But the '23 date "puts Michigan on track with when college athletes can start earning money in California, the first state to enact such a measure." Other states have passed laws that "would allow athletes to start earning money sooner." Congressional lawmakers are "weighing measures that would have a similar impact on a national level." However, student athletes "would not be allowed to enter into a deal that could conflict with existing university contracts" (DETROIT FREE PRESS, 12/17).
A LOT ON THE LINE: USA TODAY's Dan Wolken writes the "argument about how college athletes should be compensated has basically been around as long as college sports themselves." But the tone of the next 100 years "could very well be shaped by what happens in 2021." Yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court to hear an antitrust case challenging the NCAA’s ability to limit compensation for college athletes, combined with the "ongoing Congressional push to pass a national law dealing with name, image and likeness rights positions the coming year as perhaps the most consequential in history for NCAA policy." With these "parallel issues being considered by two branches of the federal government, many of the prominent questions about the rights of college athletes and the NCAA's ability to make its own rules that have festered for the last several decades could be settled for the next several." Some administrators are "leery about what the name, image and likeness world is going to look like and genuinely fearful about what college sports will become if players get paid." Others "don't see things changing dramatically no matter what the courts or Congress say" (USA TODAY, 12/17).
