House Education and Labor hearing probes whether college athletes should be classified as employees

WASHINGTON — Members of the House Education and Labor Subcommittee and four witnesses on Oct. 12 examined whether college athletes should be legally classified as employees, a change that witnesses and members said could reshape scholarships, safety protections and the financial model for nonrevenue sports.

Lawyer Daniel L. Nash, a shareholder at Littler, told the panel he does not support reclassifying student athletes as employees and urged Congress to make clear "that students who participate in intercollegiate sports are not employees of their colleges and university." He said that under current labor law revenue alone is not the test for employee status and that treating students like professional athletes would not fit the established legal standards.

The hearing drew sharply different perspectives. Ramogi Hooma, executive director of the National College Players Association (NCPA), described college sports as "an $18,000,000,000 a year industry" and argued athletes need access to legal remedies that could include collective bargaining. Hooma said unions could produce enforceable protections for medical care, safety and contract terms rather than relying on voluntary or unenforced promises by institutions.

Former Oklahoma State softball player Morgan Winn urged caution about converting athletes to employees, saying "shifting student athletes into an employment model would erode the very essence of what makes college athletics so transformative." Winn and Jackie McWilliams Parker, commissioner of the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association (CIAA), warned lawmakers that smaller institutions and many Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) could face cuts to Olympic and women's sports if employment costs rise.

Why it matters: Committee members and witnesses agreed the issue affects hundreds of thousands of students, the financial viability of smaller programs and long-standing questions about athlete safety, health care and scholarship protection. Members referenced data about revenue concentrated in a small number of programs and concerns that formal employee status could change how scholarships are taxed or administered.

Key details and testimony

- Legal framework: Witnesses repeatedly referenced the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act when discussing the legal tests for employee status. Nash said courts and agencies determine employment based on established common-law tests rather than how much revenue a program generates.

- Safety and enforceability: NCPA's Hooma urged congressional action on safety standards, citing deaths and preventable injuries in college workouts and saying existing NCAA rules lack enforceability. He told the panel that collective bargaining could create "ironclad agreements" on medical coverage and return-to-play protocols.

- Financial scale and distribution: Panelists cited large figures without committee action: the NCAA's revenue in 2024 was referenced at about $1.4 billion; witnesses described the broader college sports economy as larger (Hooma described it as about $18 billion). Members noted Power 5 conference income and March Madness payouts as concentrated sources of revenue that often do not flow to less‑visible sports.

- Student experience and academics: Several witnesses and members emphasized that most college athletes do not turn professional. The committee repeatedly referenced the statistic that "fewer than 2 percent" of NCAA athletes become professional players and raised concerns about time demands that can impede academics.

- HBCUs and small programs: CIAA Commissioner Jackie McWilliams Parker said transitioning athletes to an employment model "would exacerbate the strain and deficit on our already strapped athletic department budgets," and could force cuts to nonrevenue and Olympic sports at smaller schools.

Committee procedure and next steps

Committee leadership left the hearing record open for additional written statements: members were told they may submit statements electronically within 14 days. Several members said they expect further study and possible legislative proposals, including Representative Lisa McClain's Protecting Student Athletes' Economic Freedom Act, which was discussed during the hearing as a bill that would clarify student athletes are not federal employees (details and status were described as not specified during the hearing).

Ending note

Members of both parties told witnesses they want to protect student athletes' health and educational opportunities but disagreed on whether employee status or other federal interventions are the right tools. The hearing concluded with committee members saying further work is needed to balance athlete protections, academic priorities and the financial realities facing a wide array of institutions and sports.