[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6283633,"mediaKeyId","2586475-6b56eca00676641dfc53c4257f32fd54","parentId",2586475,"title","Lawmakers, coaches and player advocates clash over risks of classifying student-athletes as employees","audioSeconds",3635,"startMs",4314000,"endMs",7949000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2586475-6b56eca00676641dfc53c4257f32fd54&start=4314&end=7949","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2586475-6b56eca00676641dfc53c4257f32fd54/thumbnail_4314000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6283633/Lawmakers-coaches-and-player-advocates-clash-over-risks-of-classifying-student-athletes-as-employees","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283633-7e833809b78a0b0c739223e12b6a5f89/orig.mp4?Expires=1775374004&Signature=n7D8jJHfu87SNDMuLmVz7urUfQiz~kmTcddoZYLgTol5NKdpSkGsDvlYcY2vbqDL-j5-iEaofbQOVS-d0h2NeP8db2QFrmIwKWTYIUeFEGpVRVbBMKyquhn9kZ~6W0Ui3HLZAF4Z0Jzupxe~NKEpA1RjqODdOf-P~giCtIPr~3TgMYo5wf~t4VDslSH3fnX2zuRdVDwmhEw8Bea59bxItcp6PGV1UMohU426RklmbfYhZHnmx4m5Kfg~laX1mnrpl1vr119vM61cBuL39~oLlKsVoUQSex~hVKSDbTKJZze0QC0rgY~hNkJMbBimmIPGMF3Jk5dtyGBu4BPJpOuUUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary","date","2025-03-11T16:02:25Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust hearing featured extended questioning about whether student-athletes should be classified as employees — and what that shift would mean for scholarships, taxes, workers’ compensation and program viability.

Coaches and athletic administrators warned the committee that employee classification could reduce guaranteed scholarships, trigger state workers’ compensation obligations, create taxable benefits for athletes and force many schools to cut nonrevenue sports to meet payroll and benefit obligations. Chris McIntosh, athletic director at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the employee model “is a model that, I've not had a student athlete ask to be deemed an employee” and warned it would put “tremendous pressure on our budget.” Multiple coaches testified that nonrevenue Olympic sports depend on the financial engine of football and men’s basketball, and that payroll and benefit mandates would disproportionately harm smaller programs.

Player advocates and some members disagreed. Andrew Cooper, executive director of the United College Athletes Association, said athletes lack practical alternatives to collective bargaining or legal action if Congress bars employment recognition: “None. They would have to go through Congress or file lawsuits, both of which are incredibly difficult processes and they wouldn't have any way to hold the NCAA accountable in the same way they have now.” Cooper also invoked the Supreme Court’s Alston decision and described the NCAA as a monopoly.

Committee members probed practical implications. Witnesses and members discussed: whether scholarships and institutional benefits would become taxable income; whether employees’ status would trigger state workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance claims; and whether universities would need to post and process hundreds of employment positions for full rosters. Several witnesses urged caution, saying existing guarantees (for example, multi-year scholarships and medical care tied to athletic injury) could be disrupted under a pure employment model.

Members did not vote on any statutory change. The hearing record will be available to inform future hearings and potential legislation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Antitrust Law and the NCAA: Examining the Current Climate","oneSentenceSummary","Witnesses disagreed about proposals and consequences for treating college athletes as employees: coaches warned of taxes, workers’ compensation and program cuts that would harm nonrevenue sports; advocates said employee status or collective bargaining is a pathway to rights and accountability.","taxTitle","Judiciary: House Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation, Legislative, Federal","taxId",1830,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6283638,"Witnesses describe House v. NCAA settlement as pathway to limited revenue sharing",3522,1476000,4998000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2586475-6b56eca00676641dfc53c4257f32fd54&start=1476&end=4998","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2586475-6b56eca00676641dfc53c4257f32fd54/thumbnail_1476000.jpg","/articles/6283638/Witnesses-describe-House-v-NCAA-settlement-as-pathway-to-limited-revenue-sharing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283638-71cf342c3357e75a7d38ab86bfc621be/orig.mp4?Expires=1775374004&Signature=IBdbP6gkfsT7czC6N13km08imyh~7HsU6XWyeOwuXdLcl5a0~OBZW5H2V3v9JP12SG0c-lrJ09HGg6wJIHae4L1DvNuS3WGccZ1-sU6B~3Id4sTsezVjf6PGMcIN7Lj53H1zh8UCDHYVAf00rIrEkvFsblh2jMgJUJopWqMri4fokFkSe1B7InTIpfkNyKznMYsJuQ6vQnZVlvuyKhCdaoVT9ceAikvJBEnkcLzCTo3w2YoZvrdOc6jzPixEPdFkrFTI5iQf7ZViWd0YyYiCUBNS5Lgoi0NyK0OrwNPFPFdjgwW3y-I-ebSNJY7WgfKTonxzaoz2EC43p~ZIkHuqjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Witnesses at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing discussed the practical effects of the pending House v. NCAA settlement and what it would mean for athlete compensation and athletic department budgets.

Multiple witnesses described the settlement as creating the framework for limited revenue sharing and for regulating NIL payments from so-called boosters or collectives. One witness said the settlement would “pave the way for the first revenue sharing model in college athletics” and that it would replace scholarship caps with roster caps; the hearing record also notes that the settlement does not resolve other pending antitrust litigation and would not immunize the NCAA from subsequent challenges.

Why it matters: several athletic directors and coaches told the committee the settlement could provide predictable revenue streams that help sustain nonrevenue sports by permitting targeted distributions to athletes, while advocates and some members warned that the settlement’s terms and the voluntary nature of school participation leave many questions unanswered.

Key points from testimony and questioning:
- A witness from the University of Wisconsin–Madison said revenue from football funds many nonrevenue sports and that stability from a revenue-sharing framework could help maintain those programs.
- Advocates for athletes noted that, as drafted or described in testimony, schools would not be required to share settlement funds; one witness said approval could allow schools to share \"up to $20,000,000 a year\" with athletes but noted institutions would not be mandated to do so.
- Committee members pressed witnesses on whether the settlement’s roster caps, salary caps and regulatory framework would be subject to antitrust scrutiny and on how the settlement’s rules would interact with state-level NIL laws.

No final policy or vote occurred at the hearing; members requested additional documents to the record and signaled follow-up oversight could continue as litigation and settlement approval proceed.","Witnesses told a House Judiciary subpanel that a pending settlement in House v. NCAA could permit limited direct revenue sharing with student-athletes and set rules for NIL collectives, but it would not end all litigation or shield the NCAA from future antitrust challenges.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6283643,"House committee hearing divides over NCAA request for antitrust protections",6745,1389000,8134000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2586475-6b56eca00676641dfc53c4257f32fd54&start=1389&end=8134","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2586475-6b56eca00676641dfc53c4257f32fd54/thumbnail_1389000.jpg","/articles/6283643/House-committee-hearing-divides-over-NCAA-request-for-antitrust-protections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283643-7935807aae5e192ab5cfc263d4ade43f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775374004&Signature=RurvXu7GP9V-N80boLnFWUj5LIu4coMUkMHRvFt740qbeytgtCDdozjpbN9qUgwuSSNCaf1IMV1M55~mvMC1Vw57NXwL1-Vr5olqUH5542Su36IpStZh8dT~U3sch8jr8wOxKktHJZpzZ7txXTepz-H8JDIwCjpMBVOfbWoGyyOPdBEFAvia5oqowMVY5x6huqLJpHXT1okhUs~7ibiqamMIRYN6kDf6btdRqgjBWoj7d89qC-hZuikFafjK07hdgIsHHADN5jIdE2aCVoVs4fQCnQd6V6ZoW764jJ2oA~esjefTjOpePnHbxJtcQ21uOP4ihKhI6N7TFlRc3y5pnw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subpanel heard over three hours of testimony and questioning about whether Congress should grant the National Collegiate Athletic Association an effective antitrust safe harbor and related policy changes affecting name, image and likeness (NIL) payments and transfers.

The hearing focused on competing views of how to preserve college athletics while protecting student-athletes’ rights. Supporters of limited legal relief for the NCAA — including athletic directors and coaches — argued Congress should act to create stability for nonrevenue and Olympic sports and to enable agreed-upon rules around revenue sharing and transfers. Opponents — including player advocates and some Democratic members — warned that any exemption would cement an anticompetitive monopoly and strip athletes of labor and antitrust protections.

Why it matters: lawmakers framed the dispute as a choice between preserving broad-based college athletic opportunities and enforcing antitrust and labor protections for student-athletes. Several speakers said unresolved litigation and a patchwork of state laws are already destabilizing rosters, scholarships and long-term planning for smaller sports.

Most witnesses described the current landscape as legally unstable. Chris McIntosh, athletic director at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told the committee that “college athletes are eventually deemed to be employees” under some proposals and said he has not had athletes ask to be treated as employees. Andrew Cooper, executive director of the United College Athletes Association, cited the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Alston v. NCAA and told members: “The NCAA is a monopoly.” Cooper urged Congress to reject an exemption and said players should have independent bargaining power instead of blanket legislative protection for the NCAA.

Several members pressed witnesses on tradeoffs. Representative Jerrold Nadler and others raised concerns that exempting the NCAA could remove meaningful legal recourse for athletes and civil-rights enforcement. Republican members including Chairman Jim Jordan and other supporters asked whether limited federal action could preserve Olympic and nonrevenue sports by stabilizing funding and roster rules.

The committee also heard frequent references to the so-called House settlement (a pending settlement in House v. NCAA), which some witnesses said could enable limited direct revenue sharing with players but would not itself resolve other antitrust litigation.

No formal vote or legislative text was considered at the hearing. Members said the record will remain open for additional documents and follow-up questions.

The hearing concluded after rounds of questioning about taxes, workers’ compensation, roster stability and whether designating athletes as employees would trigger broader labor and fiscal consequences for universities and state budgets.","Witnesses and members of the House Judiciary subcommittee debated whether Congress should give the NCAA legal protections from antitrust liability, with witnesses and lawmakers sharply split over whether exemptions would preserve nonrevenue sports or further entrench a monopoly that harms athletes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers, coaches and player advocates clash over risks of classifying student-athletes as employees

Witnesses describe House v. NCAA settlement as pathway to limited revenue sharing

House committee hearing divides over NCAA request for antitrust protections