House committee hearing divides over NCAA request for antitrust protections

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.