Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Lawmakers, coaches and player advocates clash over risks of classifying student-athletes as employees
Loading...
Summary
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.
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.
