to begin my testimony uh by by making one of his famous quotes that is still relevant today. The tail is about to wag the dog. When coach Robertson spoke these words
before Congress on July 31st, 1984, he was issuing a warning grounded in foresight and experience. In the wake of the NCAA versus Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, which stripped the NCAA of control over television rates, Coach Robinson
recognized that this era was emerging, one where exposure, revenue, and influence would no longer be evenly distributed, rather concentrated among institutions with the most resources and visibility. He understood that television was not
just a platform, but a power structure that would reshape recruiting, funding, and competitive balance, leaving underresourced programs at a systemic disadvantage. At Grahamlin, we don't speak about college athletics in theory. We speak from lived experience, much due to coach
Robinson and what he was able to contribute. For more than a century, we stood we've stood as a place uh where opportunity was created in the absence of resources, where excellence was built through discipline, and where young men and women, many from underrepresented and
underresourced communities, found a pathway to education, leadership, and economic mobility through sport. Our program where history and purpose are inseparable. Coach Robinson did not simply build a winning program. He built a model of access and transformation
that changed lives, families, and communities through through generations. Coach Robinson's warning was not about resisting change, but about preserving the purpose of college athletics. He feared that his external financial interests gained influence, the
educational mission and developmental focus of the system would be overshadowed. Speaking on behalf of institutions with equal act without equal access to these growing revenue streams, he called for intentionality for safeguards that would ensure equity
and for yes opportunity to remain central to the model. His words were a challenge to decision makers to consider not just what college athletics could become, but what it should remain. That warning has come to pass in today's
collegiate athletics landscape. What was once a caution has now become our reality. From the perspective of a division one athletics director at a low resource NCAA institution, that forecast has materialized into a series of pressing
structural realities that must be addressed with both clarity and urgency. As vice president of intercolgiate athletics, I carry the responsibility of leading a program rooted in tradition, opportunity,
and transformation. My perspective shaped not only by my professional experience in collegiate athletics, but also by my time as a former division one student athlete at a low resource institution. Today, I have the privilege of serving student athletes, ensuring they are supported academically, competitively,
and personally in an increasingly complex environment. We are operating in a system where competitive balance is no longer a shared expectation, but an increasingly distant idea. Institutions with substantial financial backing exist in a different reality than those
without. The gap is visible in recruiting, in retention, in facilities, in staffing, and ultimately in outcomes. Without a unified national framework, disparities have widened to the point where equity is no longer the goal.
Survival is competit competitive balance has shifted into something far more complex than wins and losses. Programs with access to significant financial resources are functioning in a different ecosystem altogether. They are able to invest heavily in
athlete compensation opportunities in ways that others simply cannot replicate. For institutions without those resources, the challenge is not just competing on the field. It's competing for relevance, visibility, and for the ability to retain talent that
has already been developed internally. The gap continues to widen and without structural intervention, it becomes increasingly difficult to close. opportunity, which has long been the heartbeat of collegiate athletics, is also being
constrained. Extended eligibility and shifting policies have slowed roster turnover, which directly impacts the number of available scholarships. At underfunded institutions, where each scholarship represents a critical investment, that
creates a bottleneck. Talented high school student athletes are finding fewer entry points and programs are forced to make a difficult decision on how to allocate already difficult resources
already limited difficult resources. Recruiting becomes less about potential and more about immediate need. As administrators, we are forced into difficult decisions that ripple into high school relationships, recruiting pipelines, and the long-term
sustainability of our programs. The consequence is not abstract. It's fewer scholarships, fewer roster spots, fewer chances for the next generation of student athletes waiting for an opportunity.
>> Sure. I'll close here. The SCORE act establishes a national framework for name image and likeness activity as institutions will be required to carefully evaluate how resources, support services, and institutional involvement are distributed. Although
NIL compensation is largely driven by market demand and individual visibility, universities cannot ignore their responsibility to maintain gender equity and the support structure surrounded those opportunities. This creates a nuance challenge as institutions must
navigate a space where free market dynamics intersect with federal compliance obligations. Collegiate Athletics, and I will close, is a uniquely American institution full of opportunity, and it must be
allowed to continue as such. I would not be sitting here in this room today, a kid from North Baton Rouge, Louisiana, without collegiate sports opening a door for me. I want that door to remain open for young men and women to follow. The
warning from Coach Robinson was never about control. It was about consequence and now the responsibility to respond belongs to us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Dr. Scott. Uh, next we'll be uh hear from Abby Lynch, a 2025 graduate
from the University of Illinois where she ran track, played soccer, and earned an undergraduate degree in finance at the G's School of Business. She earned academic Big 10 honors twice and is completing her two-year term representing the Big 10 Conference on
the National Collegiate Athletic Association Association's Division One Student Athlete Advisory Committee. She now works as an analyst at a healthcare management consulting firm in Chicago and brings a unique perspective having played multiple sports and represented fellow student athletes. Thank you, Miss
Lynch. >> Thank you so much, Senator Cassidy. I am so grateful for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Abigail Lynch and I'm a former dual sports student athlete at the University of Illinois. I had the privilege of competing in the Big 10 Conference alongside some of the
country's best athletes while also earning a world-class education. I'm here representing the voices of hundreds of thousands of student athletes across the Big 10 and NCAA. College athletics is not broken. Every day, student athletes train rigorously
and compete at the highest level while also dedicating time to their studies and preparing for life after sport. This uniquely American system continues to produce some of the world's most talented athletes and leaders while expanding access to higher education for individuals who may not have otherwise
had the opportunity. My own experience reflects that. At Illinois, I competed in women's soccer and track for four years, balancing two teams, travel, and a full academic course load. sometimes felt impossible, especially when dealing with injuries. In those moments, the support system
around me made all the difference. I had access to athletic trainers, team doctors, and comprehensive healthcare that allowed me to recover and continue competing at a high level. At the same time, my coaches and academic adviserss reinforced that I was a student first, holding me accountable in the classroom,
supporting my academic goals, and celebrating those achievements just as much as my athletic performance. I may not have been the most talented athlete, but college athletics gave me something arguably more important than accolades, discipline, leadership, and lifelong relationships. This experience worked
because it was grounded in education, development, and support, not solely athletic performance. And that's why I'm here today, to protect and advocate for the system that has provided a life-changing experience for me and so many others. Because while college athletics is not broken, it's becoming
increasingly unstable. We are seeing constant change across name I mentioned likeness, transfer activity, eligibility, and more. All often without consistent national standards. Teams experience significant roster, roster turnover year after year, and too many
student athletes transfer multiple times without making meaningful academic progress. This instability is unsustainable and not in the best interest of student athletes. We need a path forward that provides stability while continuing to expand opportunities.
First, as you consider the future of college athletics, I encourage caution in broadly classifying student athletes as employees. Student athletes should absolutely have opportunities to benefit from their name, image, and likeness and the value they create for their institutions and the league itself, the
NCAA. However, a sweeping employment model could have unintended consequences. It risks shifting the focus away from education and development and could impact essential resources such as healthcare, academic services, and student athlete development. Such a model also raises
significant concerns for Olympic and non-revenue sports, and there are really important considerations around Title 9 and equitable opportunities. The potential cost and consequences of such a sh such a shift are too high. Second, there is a clear need for a consistent
NIL national framework. Right now, college athletics operates under a patchwork of state laws, institutional policies, and legal challenges. This creates an inequities AC between institutions institutions and conferences and makes it difficult to establish fair and consistent rules for
all student athletes. A federal NIL framework paired with clear standards for eligibility, recruiting, and transfer activity would help restore competitive equity and provide much needed clarity to all. Third, we need a structure that allow these rules to be
enforced. Without a structure that has certain legal protections, efforts to create consistent rules will continue to face challenges. Rules without teeth are just words on paper. To truly protect all student athletes and ensure fairness, we need a system and governing
body capable of enforcing standards and maintaining stability. Finally, any solution must keep all student athletes at the center. This means protecting access to health care, education, scholarships, and resources like financial literacy and career
preparation. At its core, this issue is not political. It's about sports which are meant to bring us all together. College athletics doesn't need to be torn down and rebuilt. It needs to be stabilized and modernized in a thoughtful way. We have an opportunity
to get this right with a path that balances opportunity and stability. And I'm hopeful we can find it together. Thank you so much for your dedication to to public service and the commitment to betterment for college sports. I appreciate your time today. >> Thank you, Miss Lynch. Uh Senator
Murphy. >> Uh thank you. Uh, first I'd like to introduce to the committee Michaela Pivik. She's co-founder and organizing director of the United College Athletes Association, a players association built to ensure that college athletes are
protected, are educated, but also fairly compensated. Miss Pivik is a professional basketball player and a former Oregon State women's basketball captain. She was drafted 25th overall in the 2020 WNBA draft. Miss Pivik, thank
you for your work and for being here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of this committee. My name is Michaela Pivik. I'm a professional basketball player, former all-American at Oregon State University, where I was captain and led our team to one elite 8 and two sweet 16s before
being drafted to the WNBA. I'm now co-founder and organizing director of the United College Athletes Association, UCAA, which is a players association that gives athletes gives college athletes a real voice to secure a system that is safe, fair, and sustainable for
generations. I grew up in Lynwood, Washington, and fell in love with basketball in third grade after my dad took me to a Seattle Storm game. Players like Sue Bird, Lauren Jackson, and Candace Parker inspired me to chase my dreams. So every
night I made my dad rebound for me for hours. And by the time it got dark, he'd want to go to sleep and I'd always say, "Just one more, Dad. Just one more." And we countd down like I was hitting a buzzer beater in March Madness. My work ethic took me to the next level. I led
my team to the Elite 8, busted some brackets in the process in front of millions on ESPN. I even competed against Sue Bird and Team USA. I was no longer on the playground with orange slices for mom and participation trophies for everyone. I sacrificed everything to compete at this level
because of how much I love our game. But that's not why I'm here today. I'm here today because the NCA has failed and continues to fail to protect and respect college athletes. When I was in college, I was working over 50 hours a week on my sport while
earning less than $8 an hour from a $1,600 monthly stipend. I door dashed and collected cans to pay bills. Basketball was more than my full-time job, and the university had complete control of my schedule. NAL has helped some players, but most
still earn less than $10 an hour and struggle to pay for basic necessities, and the lack of protections goes way beyond money. My senior year, I had a foot injury that needed surgery. Every step felt like I was stepping on a nail. And I kept
requesting an MRI, but I was denied every single time. I kept playing because I love the game, but in retrospect, I was denied the information I needed to make a decision about my own health. And right after graduating, I also needed a knee surgery and had to pay for it out of pocket. I had a
professional injury, but I received amateur medical care from the NCAA. And my story is not unique. I've had conversations with thousands of athletes across the country and constantly hear the same stories of players pushed to play through serious injuries, broken
bones, and even concussions. That's just business as usual for the NCAA. And this hearing is titled, "Don't fumble their futures." But the truth is, the NCA has fumbled athletes futures for generations. My grandmother was forced to play half court basketball because institutions like the NCA believed women
were too weak for full court. When Title N was passed, the NCA sued to block it. It hasn't even been four years since the NCA finally allowed women's basketball to use the term March Madness, only after being publicly shamed by the weight room scandal. Now, only 7% of
colleges are in compliance with Title 9. And the NCA is spending millions to lobby for the SCORE Act, which would strip athletes of their labor rights, silence their voices, and give the NCA a bailout. The NCA has repeatedly fumbled our futures. So, why would Congress even
remotely consider entrusting the NCA with that bailout? The NCA has professionalized every part of our game except the rights and protections of the athletes who are at the center of its growth. The NCA's business is professional, but its
structure is amateur, which is why it needs to follow the lead of every professional sports league by negotiating a collective bar agreement, a CBA, with a players association. A CBA is the best way to make college sports safe, fair, and sustainable for
both athletes and the universities because they can negotiate a solution that is good for both sides. Athletes get enforceable protections like safety mandates, academic freedoms, and fair pay while universities get enforceable rules like salary caps, transfer limits,
and tampering restrictions. That's why athletic directors at Tennessee, Ohio State, TCU, San Diego State, and Boise State support a CBA. Finally, Congress should not support the SCORE Act or pass the Score Act or any legislation
that limits athletes labor rights. Instead, I support the College Athlete Right to Organize Act introduced by Senator Sanders, Senator Murphy, and Senator Warren. I also commend the bipartisan leadership of Senator Canwell and Senator Schmidt through their
College Sports Competitiveness Act, which protects women's and Olympic sports. I want every little girl in the stands watching college athletes to know that when it's her turn, she'll step into a system that protects her as a person, educates her as a student, and
empowers her as a professional. That's what current and future generations deserve. anything less would let them down and empower the NCA to keep fumbling their futures. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Uh lastly, we have Liam Anderson. He's a member of the National College Players Association's Players Council, a nonprofit advocacy organization focused on protecting past, current, and future college athletes in all sports. Mr. Anderson is an alumnest of Stanford
University's track and field and cross country teams where he served as co-president of the university's student athlete advisory committee and he represented all of Pack 12 athletes at the 2024 NCAA convention. Mr. Anderson, thank you
for your work and for being here today. >> Thank you, Senator Murphy. And good morning, Chairman Cassidy and members of the Senate Help Committee. Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's hearing. I am grateful for this opportunity to provide my perspective on
the issues facing the great and uniquely American Institution of College Athletics. My name is Liam Anderson and I'm testifying today as a member of the National College Players Association's Players Council, which advocates to protect college athletes. As Senator Murphy said, I'm also here as a former
Stanford track and crossc country runner and as a former academic who authored my honors and master's thesis on many of the same challenges in college in college athletics that are at issue today. These challenges can be distilled into two questions. First, how do we
protect the economic and legal rights of the small subset of college athletes who generate tremendous revenues while also preserving this invaluable formative experience for those playing Olympic or non-revenue sports like I did? And second, in answering that question,
should the federal government regulate college athletics any differently than it regulates every other industry in this country? With some very limited caveats, I believe the answer to the latter is a resounding no. The issues that have brought us here today are readily solved by accepting the obvious
eventuality that certain college athletes are employees. Federal labor law provides a triedand-rue framework to resolve these issues through collective bargaining. And there can be little question that athletes in the heavily professionalized upper echelon of the NCAA meet the
relevant criteria for employee status, namely FBS football players and division 1 men's and women's basketball players such as those playing in March Madness today. Congress need not reinvent the wheel by conjuring up a unique submp employee classification as some have
contemplated. Nor should it altogether bar college athletes from obtaining employee status as the score act proposes. Doing so would deprive college athletes of the equal protections enjoyed by any other American. The NCAA has numerous complaints about
the regulatory schema that exists in the post house settlement world, including that the transfer portal has destroyed roster stability, that collectives are circumventing the revenue sharing cap, that the courts have enjoined eligibility rules, and that disperate
state laws make NIL unfair. Many of these complaints are wellounded, but the NCAA's solution, begging Congress to exempt it from federal labor and antitrust law, must be a non-starter, if for no other reason than the issue of equal protection.
The NCAA's real solution lies in the non-stutory labor exemption. Once division one basketball and FBS football players are recognized as employees and subsequently choose to form unions, the NCAA and its members can negotiate collective bargaining agreements with
those unions on the mandatory subjects of bargaining, including compensation, workplace policies, and safety practices. It is its inability to enforce consistent rules on these subjects that precludes the NCAA from governing effectively. And with a collective
bargaining agreement, the NCAA and its members can secure what they need most, including mutually agreeable and enforcable transfer limitations, salary or revenue share caps, eligibility standards, and NIL rules, all exempt from antitrust scrutiny.
Industry leaders could decide tomorrow to recognize a subset of college athletes as employees. There is no statutory obstacle to their doing so. But we need support from Congress to affirmatively identify that some athletes are employees throughout the
country. This is a real concern that Congress should help address. But many of the other purported reasons not to pursue collective bargaining as a solution are baseless. Consider the NCAA's tired argument that employment status is incompatible with the academic mission of college
athletics. This is an obvious farce. Countless college students are employed by their schools, some by their athletic departments, and indeed many of these student workers are unionized. The NCAA also claims that athletes are sufficiently represented by its division
one student athlete advisory committee. This too is a facade. I have been in those rooms and can tell you they are as wholly and effectual as any company. These arguments in the NCAA's myriad other objections to collective bargaining are merely pretextual.
I'll finish with this. Every college athlete deserves a pathway to join an independent advocacy organization such as the NCPA and is worthy of having health and safety protections enshrined into law. I will never forget sitting in on meetings with Senate staff and
listening to the parents of Calvin Dicki Jr. tell the story of their son who died after collapsing during his first day of college football at Bucknell. That is the gravity of what is at stake here. Any legislation Congress passes must include sufficient health and
safety protections and it must ensure college athletes receive the equal rights afforded to Americans in every other industry in this country, including the protections guaranteed by federal labor and antirust law. The NCPA looks forward to continuing to work with
the committee to address these critical issues and I look forward to taking your questions. >> Thank you all. I will start uh I'll start with you Miss Lynch. Miss Lynch, obviously one thing that is um issue here both in Senator Murphy's
and and and Democratic employment status. You and your comment say that a sweeping employment model could have unintended consequences. shifting focus away from education and development. Senator Murphy also suggested that the
negative impact potential upon Olympic sports and non-revenue sports is a red herring. Now um your thoughts uh do you think it's a red herring or do you think it's real? >> Thank you so much for your question. I
really appreciate this. a sweeping employment model and considering all student athletes employees is not a red herring that it would be a threat to Olympic sports and women's sports because it would be more expensive than you are expecting. It
right now even when we have the 20.5 million cap that some schools are trying to pay out and reach, it's still getting very expensive for schools. and this is only paying this amount of budget. Obviously, you can still negotiate caps
under an employment model, but having to pay every student athlete gets really dicey under an employment model. Also, we introduce Title 7. This is where things get a little bit complex. If we are
under Title 7, Title N is still on the floor and it doesn't completely go away. But the way that we balance women's sports and protecting women's sports is not exactly like clear in an employment model. And
so just going forward, women's sports and Olympic sports are a threat under an employment are at a threat under an employment model just because we're not sure how high the costs could be. >> Sounds great. Dr. Scott, you actually
got to balance budgets, brother. And so tell me uh and you mentioned about underresourced institutions, you speak eloquently. Uh what would turning gramling student athletes into employees, how would that impact the
opportunities the school provides such as the scholarships, etc.? >> Well, uh thank you for the question, um Senator Cassidy. I think uh it it would it would affect us in several several areas. uh as employee scholarships I believe and other friends benefits would
then become taxable. Uh could you imagine a a student athlete in a non-revenue sport, bowling, tennis, uh models of equivalency, meaning you can get zero or 1% all the way up to a full scholarship.
So imagine a student athlete receiving 25% of a scholarship. All right? and then having to use other means, student loans, PEL grants to subsidize the remaining 75%. But yet that 25% is taxable, right?
That's just on the student side. Um, now when you start to to amass a lot of the financial strain, uh, in terms of the the the things that come with employees and employee relations, fringe benefits and the like, then you start to look at, uh, the strain individually and
collectively that athletics departments, particularly those um, you know, underresourced, low resource institutions will begin to face, right? And so when you look at that, my belief is that roster spots would start to be reduced. All right? uh specifically to
uh those nonrevenue sports specifically on the men's side. Uh for an institution at Garland State University where uh we have 15 division one sports that means baseball is probably going to go first. All right. Football is going to reduce roster. >> Thank you Dr. Scott. I I've got only a minute left. I want to get I want to get
>> Thank you for that. >> Mr. Temple, um you speak eloquently about how to protect the student athlete from being exploited by those who don't have their best interest. Um Mr. Temple. How would you suggest we do that? Because I think that could unify both
sides. >> Well, I think that um one key component is to put in place and activate a system that's gives a level playing field and a level playing field. So when you when you're speaking about
the power conferences and athletes who participate in the power conferences, um when you have a guy who is who is moving from one school to another every year
and he gets to a place where he has not attained any kind of academic performance standards because he's not required to go to class. He's not required to participate in the academic component of where he is after four
years he's just in a space that's nonproductive. And so these guard rails that I speak about are things such as making sure that a person is only allowed to jump or
move one time in a four or five year scholarship period or acade athletic uh period. uh because you can't create any consistency if you're moving from one space to another and you certainly aren't able to
perform academic standards uh if you're moving every year. I mean nothing from nothing leaves nothing. So uh those are the kind of things that I that I think are critically important in designing a system that's gives a level playing field.
>> Thank you sir. Senator Murphy. >> Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Listen, part of the reason why I think this should be up to a negotiation between students and universities is because I just don't want us in the business of micromanaging college athletics and how compensation
works. That just doesn't feel like our role. Um, Miss Pivik, you described, you know, how much work you put in to becoming a high level athlete. How does it make you feel that your industry is coming here and asking to suppress your
wages? The music industry isn't coming here and asking for legislation to suppress the wages of 20-year-old pop stars. The tech industry isn't coming here and asking for legislation to limit how much money a 22-year-old engineer or
coder can make. But the NCAA is coming here to ask us to limit the amount of money that you can make and specifically talk about what this means for women athletes because whether we like it or not, women athletes don't have as
lucrative opportunities after college. For many of you, your primary opportunity to be able to make some money off your sport is in college. So, what does it feel like to you to be being held to a different standard than
other young high-performing workers? And what does it mean for women to have wages suppressed by legislation? >> Yeah, thank you for bringing up um just the work that it takes to be a college athlete like all all of us here. It's not just the hours um that we put in
during the school year, but it's also the 10 years before that that we sacrifice to just have a chance to compete. Um, but it frustrates me that so many athletes before me and and continue to not be able to get their true value and how everyone else it's a job for everyone else. It's a these are
workers and that's the reality of it and we deserve our fair market value just like the coaches just like the conference commissioners. >> You um participated in a quote nonrevenuegenerating sport. Um, how do you respond to these
concerns that just giving the ability to have a conversation between athletes and the universities or conferences as to how to work this out um will have an impact on women's sports or on Olympic sports?
>> Thank you for the question, Senator Murphy. You know, I don't think that Olympic sports such as mine or non-revenue sports are going anywhere. Uh there are plenty of schools that um don't sponsor football or basketball and don't make money off of college sports
and yet they still sponsor plenty of Olympic and non-revenue sports and that's because they see value in them for many of the reasons we've discussed because these are are leadership building experiences. These are formative experiences for young men and women and there is value to that and
schools will continue to sponsor them and we'll will continue to put work into them. >> Yeah. Um, Mr. Temple, uh, really appreciate your contributions. Enjoyed spending time with you at our working group. Um, you know, Joe Missoula is a great coach for my favorite NBA team,
the Celtics. But people don't come there to watch him. They come there to watch Jason Tatum and Jaylen Brown. >> That's right. >> Um, and and that's why in the pros, the players are paid a lot more than the coaches are. But in college sports, um, you know, on average, these coaches are
making 10 times the amount of the NIL deals for the athletes. Um, I hear your concerns and the guard rails that you want, but does it feel fundamentally fair today that this is a multi-billion
dollar industry and most of it is still all going to the coaches, to the sports industry CEOs, to the million-doll salary athletic directors, and with the exception of a few high high performing athletes at the power conference
schools, still very little of it is going to the kids. I know you want to put guard rails and you want to make sure this is done responsibly, but does this feel fair to you that the coaches and the the coaches and the adults are being are raking in so such a big share of the money?
>> Let's let's be realistic. All right. um I guess about in the 24 25 March Madness. Now we're all involved in March Madness and the reality of March Madness is if you do an analysis financial analysis
of what's taking place in the March Madness activity particularly on the men's side but also on the women's side. Now, I would venture to say that uh it's about a net $1.5 billion
industry. A net 1.5 over about a five to seven week period of time. There's a net financial effect of $1.5 billion dollar.
Now, it's absolutely unfair to have these athletes, 64 teams that in basketball now. I think it may be 68 because you have a playin system. So you got 68 teams
and that system is netting someone the NCAA the average the average division one highlevel men's basketball
coach earns probably $3 million a year and then when he gets all his perks in place it may be four million or five million. Uh it's absolutely unfair what's going on and that's why in the previous
discussion I you know I said that I had a high degree of respect for what your comments were when you said these super athletes are not benefiting hardly at all and they're just now in the last couple of years have been put in a
position of being able to re retain some of this money shortlived money because uh majority of those guys probably won't play in the NBA. That's another really really narrow window to be able to get
into that NBA model and and have a sustained earning capacity for four, five, eight, 10 years now. So, I'm not my from my perspective, we absolutely have to design some system. And the
system hadn't been designed properly by the NCAA. So, we have to figure out another way >> to set up these guard rails and put a system that's going to be effective to share, do profit sharing, and what have you. >> I'm I'm way over my time, so got it.
>> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. taking over the gavl for the chairman Cassidy temporarily. So I'll recognize myself for a couple uh questions. I I always think about when I'm look this complicated issue and I always think about what what's the goal the goal of originally establishing
school-based athletics were to teach character and physical fitness to the student athletes. That was how it started. And it's only and it's only been um in uh recent times with the
coming of TV contracts that it actually uh became uh a big revenue sport uh big big revenue source for schools. There's 360 division one schools I believe and only about 20 to 40 of them either make
or don't lose money. Uh, and really this is the the big part of this is the power four schools in football. 68 of them. They're 19% of all the division one athletes, not to mention division two, division three.
And they um they are the source of of most of that revenue. Um, and and so there's a lot of money involved, but there only a few schools that are actually making it. And as this committee does have jurisdiction
over over education, uh the big thing that colleges are struggling with today, frankly, is the fact that students can't afford to go there. The average student struggles to pay their tuition
with demographic changes and changes in the economy. Um, many colleges are, unless they're publicly subsidized, are struggling to to actually even stay in business at all. And I don't know if everyone knows this, but most schools
athletics programs are subsidized by fees that are paid for by the other students at the school. Uh, this can be on average between $500 and $2,000 per student.
uh one division, one school gets 70% of its athletic budget revenue by charging fees to the other students that are already struggling to go there. So the idea that college athletics is full of a bunch of money
that is not true except for a handful of schools and and they are as you said Mr. Scott, the tail that's wagging the dog right now in this conversation. And so I think we we can can narrow the
question um of how we're going to deal with just that group of people because I do um Miss M. Lynch agree that they're in your sort of view of athletics because I'm
very concerned. And I have I have a daughter who's a division one athlete and I see that in Title N being undermined by the fact we have so many student athletes coming from other countries that are taking scholarships away from American students, student
athletes at American colleges and universities. That's fine. People may think that's that's fine. It's great. It adds to competition. But we're we're we're we're actually taking away in many cases opportunities from American students to to receive a scholarship.
And and so uh Dr. Scott, I you're from I just interested in I want you to elaborate on behalf of all the schools that are not these revenue makers. H how do we design a system that
protects the virtues that we love about sports but but don't let the tail wag the dog because we have hundred,000 other college athletes who go to schools that aren't making money off this. Thank you, uh, Senator Houston for that point.
And and as I kind of scribble my notes, I think that's a perfect question. And I'm I'm listening to the the power for, the Tennessee, the Ohio State, the TCU, the Boise State. Uh, but but what about the Grelins, the Howards, the Southerns, the FAMS, the Morgan States? Right. Um,
I'm I'm I'm I'm listening to um Mr. >> Well, I can ask a question. What if we're going to do collective bargaining, why don't we collect all the money those big schools are giving him and give them to the other schools? >> That's where I'm going. Right. If if we've got 333 division one institutions,
only 68 make March Madness, right? When you win per round, your unit is about $335,000 a unit, >> right? So, in the Southwestern Athletics Conference, in a Mid Eastern Athletics Conference, for example, they're one bid leagues.
more often than not, they're involved in these playin scenarios, which provides great financial benefit to these institutions uh for a period of up to six years, but they've got to make it because they've got one bid. Um, as I sit here, I believe the NCA, the the the
SEC may have gotten nine or 10 bids, the Big 10 may have gotten eight or nine bids. Um, you know, and so there there are opportunities uh to your point to have the tail that wags the dog. Uh my second point is is this. When we start
talking about um you know things that are short-lived, which is you know the dollars that we're paying to these student athletes, what's going to happen when that student athlete who's making two, three, four, $500,000, seven, eight, $900,000,
right? Doesn't take care of their academic responsibilities, right? doesn't graduate or does graduate now they're making 50 60 $80,000, right? Who's educating our student athletes on soft skills, on money management, on taxation, on time management? There's a
an entirely different responsibility here uh that I feel needs to be brought to the forefront to correct and adjust this system that needs to be corrected. Okay. Well, I've used up my time and the chairman's back and so I'll send send
this back to him and uh thank you. >> All right. Well, >> I think that would be Senator. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Miss Pivik, in your testimony, you highlight uh the low percentage of universities currently
full in full compliance with Title N. Title N has been a critical tool in ensuring that all students are protected from sex-based discrimination. However, President Trump and uh Education Secretary McMahon have
continually undermined uh Title 9 enforcement. They've spoken about their desire to dismantle the entire Department of Education. And it isn't just talk. At the start of this administration, over half of the staff
at the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights received termination notices. Um, the very office is that very office is charged with enforcing Title 9. And it took 10 months for the administration to reverse course and
resend those termination notices. And it's been reported that it's already cost over $40 million in taxpayer funds to have these attorneys at the Civil Rights Division not investigate cases. As of last month, the Trump
administration has resolved zero cases of sexual harassment or assault. So from your perspective, do you feel that dismantling uh the office charged with enforcing Title 9 uh protections helps advance
women's sports? Thank you for that question and absolutely not. Um, Department of Education has never pulled federal funding to enact that enforcement mechanism of title nine. And I argue that we need additional Title 9
strengthening through tightening up loopholes that currently exist. And if we really want to protect women's sports, it's not through the score act, but it's through addressing those loopholes that currently exist to address the 7% compliance rate, the $1.1 billion in shortfall of scholarships and
current opportunities that exist between men and women. Um, and so I think we need to do a lot better job in those categories. >> Thank you. Um, Miss Pivik and Miss Lynch, you both shared uh in your uh written and testimony your personal
experience with sustaining a sports injury while in school, though you have had very different experiences um uh with regard to those sports injuries. Being a member of a labor union can give players the ability to negotiate for
better health care, support staff and facilities, as we just saw with the new agreement between the WNBA and its players association. Um, Miss Pivik, how would collective bargaining impact the assurance that all
athletes receive the medical care they need? I think with NIL and Revshare, a lot of people want to focus on the money, but the medical negligence and accountability that comes with collective bargaining and an outside entity that's independent and fully
owned by the players is necessary um to protect the players first. So, I I fully believe in a union and a players association that does enforce those um accountability mechanisms. >> And um congratulations on the new
agreement with the WNBA. Do you want to tell us anything more about that? >> I'm just a fan for it and go women pay those girls. So super excited for them to that they come to the agreement and that we have a season. Great. Um and then Mr. Anderson in your testimony you
note that any legislation must include sufficient health and safety protections for students. Can you give examples of the type of health and safety protections that should be included in any legislative uh uh efforts that we're
uh looking at? >> Absolutely. And I'll keep it short. I think really simply the NCPA wants to see third party enforcement similar to what we just talked about mandated reporting whistleblower protections. That simple. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am now privileged to call for the very first time on Senator Armstrong to ask questions in a committee. Senator Armstrong. >> Great. Thank you. And um first of all, I want to say thank you. I've been in your seats a lot more times than I've been in this seat. So, I really appreciate y'all
taking the time to be here and share your thoughts. This is a very complex issue as I think we're all aware. And and I think the goal here is to try to get to uh something that makes sense for everybody and not just has been pointed out just not superstars that we all hear
about but really for everybody. Um in Oklahoma um we have uh softball and wrestling are very big sports in Oklahoma. So, our our softball team at University of Oklahoma has had eight national championships,
four consecutive 34 national titles at Oklahoma State University for wrestling. So, I'm very familiar with this situation where people are really working their tails off um putting themselves up a lot exposure to a lot of injuries. My
daughter played soccer at University of Tulsa, which is a school that, you know, doesn't can't afford to operate in an environment uh where they're forced to pay uh payments. One of the ways that they've been able to be successful in
that is through offering scholarships to a great school and that allows them to attract great people. So I'm curious and this comes to you uh Miss Lynch what your perspective is on those student and if you've heard anything from them about
concerns about taxation on the benefits that they get uh that student athletes that's the re you know there's my my daughter played with a lot of fantastic young ladies that would not have been at that school if they didn't have a scholarship and so I wonder about how
taxation and is that a concern turn on from the athletes. >> Yes, Senator Armstrong, thank you so much for this question. I actually was an accounting major, so the taxation question is great. I'm an aspiring CPA and a lot of student athletes are not actually familiar with the fact that if
we became employees, your academic tutor that you have to go to once a month, that's taxed. You have to report that. There's so many academic support sur athlete development, healthcare, all of the inind benefits that you receive as
being a student athlete. Those could be taxed in a way any wage that you receive. We they are doing a good job at least with informing student athletes that anything above $600 in NIL and revenue sharing is taxable. But a lot of people are learning that. A lot of
student athletes are and it is a concern when I tell student athletes that is an impact from an employment model. That is a concern for them because that's not something that they're familiar with. I get to talk to student athletes at the Big 10, the NCAA. I serve on many
engagement groups and I sit on several committees that I'm talking to student athletes weekly daily and that's certainly a concern. Um, so I appreciate this perspective and I also want to shout out your Oklahoma women's gymnastics team, too, because they're also really good.
>> Thank you. >> Uh, I I'll turn the floor back to you, chairman. >> Yeah. Um, then next, um, thank you. Um, oh, I'm sorry. Is it Hickinlooper also Brooks? >> I think Hick and Looper just like nailed
it. Um, just like just like a 10 from an LSU gymnastics. Uh, >> okay. Then I yield this. Senator Hickin Looper yields to Senator Alser Brooks. >> All right. Thank you so much. Uh, good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair, for hosting today's hearing. Thank you as
well to our witnesses for uh for being here today. I'm lucky I represent some really great schools and some terrific student athletes in my state, which is the state of Maryland. Everything from the University of Maryland Terrapens. We have also our Naval Academy midshipman
uh as well as the UNMBC Retrievers. And so, uh I'm really I'm really fortunate to represent them. A less popular fact about me, however, is that I am a graduate of Duke University. So, let's go Blue Devils. Uh and I was there during the height of the basketball glory days when Christian Lightner was
there with that amazing shot. We were uh there during the back-toback championships and um back then you could get a ticket to the final four for 20 to $40. College basketball and college athletics have changed significantly. Uh since
those days nosebleleed seats, I'm told this weekend, uh the Duke St. John's Sweet 16 game in DC this Friday is starting at $55 for the nosebleleed seats. And so sports betting has exploded um since my time in college.
Americans legally wagering $3.3 billion dollar on March Madness. Broadcast rights surpassing 1.4 billion with another 1.2 billion spent just on advertising. So in the last 5 years alone um college athletics have been revolutionized and this question is
first for Miss Pivik have been revolutionized by the interim name, image and likeness rule which was prompted not by benevolence as we've heard today but by the NCAA losing litigation in the Supreme Court. So, Miss Pivik, your college career, I know
ended right before the NCAA instituted its uh name image and likeness policy, but how has the nature of the game shifted rapidly uh for student athletes who are navigating their college careers since your time on the court? And I also wonder, how has the rapid infusion of
money in college sports in this new era heightened uh the need for student athlete protections? Thank you for that question, for recognizing the the scale of this business. Um, it's crazy. Six years ago, like back in my day, pre-NIL, um,
pre-transfer portal, a lot of things have changed, but we've been able to talk with hundreds of women's basketball players and thousands of athletes across the country. Um, and a lot of the same things of there's been so much progress through NIL in terms of opportunity that's been allowed, but we still have
so much more to go. A lot of the stars of today are able to um maximize their market value through the transfer portal, but a lot of the players at the bottom are still earning close to zero dollars in just their stipen, nothing above that. Um and so I really believe
that athletes need to collectively bargain in order to maximize their value for everyone. >> All right. And now while the um NIL policy made progress, we know the student athletes, as you've mentioned, are still not on equal footing. Has the NIL era exacerbated in your opinion some
of the existing power dynamics between student athletes and colleges and how would additional statutory guard rails help to protect athletes from this dynamic? >> Yeah, I think it's highlighted in equity. Um the scale of the business has shown how much money is involved and now
the athletes are just getting a little bit of this billion dollar business. It's it's made it a a controversial topic amongst dinner tables and and everyone across the country. Um but athletes need a voice at the table. Um and in any decision that's made, they
need a true voice. Um and need to be represented in not just a performative voice, but a real voice. >> All right. Um Mr. Anderson, when you when you see the numbers flowing into March Madness alone, including ticket prices going for hundreds, if not
thousands of dollars, it begs the question, who's actually benefiting uh from this new dynamic? And so, are students across the spectrum of college athletics benefiting equally from the new big business of college sports? And I'm talking about women's sports in particular and lower revenue sports like
swimming and track. Are these programs being invested in at the same rate as marquee sports like football and basketball? >> I think the answer is certainly no. They're not being invest invested in equally. Um the question of whether they
should be is a different question. Um I think when you have tremendous money flowing towards men's and women's basketball, they're generating that revenue. Um, but the revenue that today, the revenue that comes from March Madness, that funds the vast majority of
the NCAA's own budget, not the schools themselves, but the NCAA's budget. Uh, and so that money does flow out to sports like mine, and it has for a very long time. Um, but it doesn't flow certainly not to to the athletes in those sports to the degree that it does to to the athletes in basketball and
football. >> Right. Now, so is there a risk without guard rails um that schools will be emboldened to pick winners and losers when it comes um to investment in athletic programs? And would you say how does that threaten to roll back the
progress for student athletes that have been made in in recent years? >> I think the the biggest threat is the loss of opportunity. Uh the NCPA's position is is that we need guard rails to protect all sports and to ensure that
opportunity for folks like myself, for folks like Abby uh continue to to exist. Um but also that that folks like Michaela see what's what's due to them. >> Thank you. Oh, you let let's go Blue Devils.
uh the highly anticipated questioning of coach to who's got more experience with this than any of us. >> Yeah, Houston, we have a problem and it's getting worse every day. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for what you do. We got huge problems in a lot of
areas. This year we will have 10,000 football players at all levels sign up for the transfer portal. 10,000 5,000 men and women basketball players were signed up for the transfer portal. Uh, I just want to go through this. I've got a
bill I put up. Probably won't get enough uh support to pass, but we have to start somewhere. We're all talking about NCAA, which has been a disaster, by the way, after 35 years of dealing with them. They're big big part of the problem, but it seems like we can't solve that
problem. So, at the end of the day, the issue to me is pretty simple. Okay. The question is whether we still believe student athletes are supposed to be students. The end of the day. I'm all for athletes being paid every dime that they can get. Please go out
there and raise your money and take every dime people want to pay you. I'm all for that. I've always said that. As you said, uh uh I forget who said it, but it is a full-time job. My god, sports is full-time. Meetings,
weightlifting, study halls, you name it. I did it 35 years, and I couldn't believe that we weren't paying student athletes. But that's that's behind us. Young man and women has worked hard and has earned that opportunity, they ought to be able to benefit from
this opportunity. We don't even talk about scholarships anymore. My god, that's what we used to talk about. Now we talk about money. Uh the system is so far away from educated, it's embarrassing. college athletes starting to look more like a pathway less like a pathway to to agree and more
like a revolving door as I said of all this transfer athletes are bouncing from school to school chasing the next deal we all know that they're not paying taxes on that next deal either by the way and that's next thing that's coming uh they ought
to be concern it ought to concern everybody everybody because for overwhelming majority of these young men and women sports will not last forever if we don't if we continue down this path. 98% of the young men and women who go to
college do not play pro sports. We need to get away from that. The future is going to depend on the education, the education part of going to school. If you want to play NFL or or or pros, go go get it done. But if you want
to learn something in which 95 98% of the thousands of kids I coached that got a degree thank me all the time. Thank you for making me go to class. This week I'm introducing the student athlete act. I mean we all got problem collective bar. We we we don't get
enough healthcare and all the Hey, we're going to have those problems. This bill that I'm putting out is a basic idea. if you call if it's going to cause cause problems with somebody. But at the end of the day, we got to start somewhere, folks. Or we're going to lose
it. We're going to lose Olympic sports. We're going to lose women's sports because there's not going to be any money. It's going to be club sports. I got news for y'all. It's coming. The money is not going to be there. You can forget about Title Nine. There you can have all the lawsuits you
want. If the money's not there, it's not there. money is going to go to athletes that get on television. So, student athletes to me should have a five-year window. You start, you got five years. I'm sick of these 28, 29
year olds playing in a young person's sport and taking your money. I'm sick of that. Five years to play. No waiverss, no excuses. Once you start, you go five years. At the end of that five years, you go and do whatever you need to do the rest of your life. It's pretty simple. I mean, you can get
a degree in those five years. If you transfer one time, the likelihood of you getting a degree is almost zero. Think about that. Unless you want to go to school seven, eight years and pay for a lot of that yourself. So, I'm for a
one-year transfer. One time you get it freebie. If your coach leaves, you somebody happens in your family, you transfer. After that, you pay the penalty of what we used to do. You transfer, you set a year, but you got a one-year transfer. One year,
folks. We can't do this transfer portal. If we do it, we're going to, as I said, we're going to lose men's sports, women's sports, and we're going to have just a couple out there that's going to be on television and that is it. And there's not going to be any scholarships. So, I don't have a lot of
Can I ask a couple questions while I'm at it, Miss Lynch? Uh, my bill would solve the issue pretty quick in in terms of transferring, but is it realistic for somebody to transfer and get a degree?
>> Thank you so much for your question, Senator Tubberville. Also, War Eagle, I would say that the realistic capability of a student to transfer and still get a degree, it depends where they transfer. Obviously, we deal with quarter schools and semester schools in the Big 10, and
that is a really complex thing in terms of transferring credits, academic progress, progress towards degree. Also, the timing of transfer portals isn't always the most um helpful. Like the football transfer portal is now January 2nd to January 16th, and that sits right
in the middle of when quarter schools start their new um semester. And that's really problematic for getting student athletes, particular football student athletes enrolled in their next institution, which really puts them back academically. So transferring does inhibit academic
progress, especially when you're transferring multiple multiple times. So I appreciate your question. Thank you, >> Mr. Temple. How do we keep integrity in this nonsense? Well, before I address the integrity question, I just want to make some highlighted
comments. Uh, as most of us know, uh, South Carolina is a special, super special women's basketball venue. They
average 18,000 folk a game in their stadium. There's another super basketball venue for women. It's called LSU,
Kim Moy. We average about 14 13,000 persons a game. Here's the reality of what's going to happen. in the world of athletics as it relates
to title nine and women's sports. The year Kim Moy won the national championship with uh what was the young lady's name? >> Angel Reese. >> Yeah, with Angel Reese.
LSU lost $6 million in the basketball arena for women. This past year at the University of South Carolina,
women's basketball lost $8 million. It's unsustainable. It's It's unsustainable. Now, the answer is, okay, what do you do with Title N
and women's sports? I I submit to you there's not a total of 8 to10 million that's been generated and earned to sustain women's sports. So as you move forward to work on this very
complex circumstance, you got to take it all into full consideration. You got to take it all. It's is mostly about the money. Because of it being mostly about the
money, it is vitally important that we figure out a way to make sure that these student athletes participate in the college experience, which is the academic piece first. Now,
you say that we probably need to give them five years. I understand. Five years is a red shirt year plus four to play. Senator Tubville, I would ask you to consider
a six-year deal. A six-year deal will in would involve a gray shirt, which is something that you're familiar with, and then a red shirt, which is something you're also familiar with, and then give them four years to play. So when you're
talking about 18y old freshman, 19 year old sophomore, 20 year old junior, 21 year old senior, and you give them a couple of extra years to get it together, I think it'll work a lot better than just five years. Uh, now
what the hell was your question? >> Integrity. >> Integrity. >> Can we keep the integrity? It it it will absolutely inke keep the integrity. We we need to move forward on your concept
because as you indicated, we have to start somewhere. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have to start somewhere. And I think your concepts and your perspective uh about how this thing has to work is
is healthy and must be done. The NCAA is not going to fix it. They're not going to fix it. We have to move forward with you senators. >> Thank you.
>> Uh to my Democratic colleagues, I really wanted to hear coach's perspective. I gave him extra time. If one of you wishes to take extra time, please take it. But but coach has obviously the greatest insight. So I don't want to play favoritism here. Senator Hickin Looper.
>> Coach has special standing. I recognize that. Um thank each of you for being here. This is something on the one side that's the financial remuneration and the questions about what that does to sports. Um I thought Senator Houston because I was watching uh when he talked
about the development of character and what that does uh to students at that age uh it's very powerful and I you know I was uh in the restaurant business for 15 years we had a big restaurant had 100 employees we had then ended up with
about nine or 10 other restaurants over the course of that 15 years I probably hired 300 people directly myself 250 uh then I was a mayor and you have 60 people you hire and their staffs, you know, governors, even more people. I
mean, I've gotten probably up to six or 700 people I've hired in those years. And I have always looked for student athletes, the the the kids because those that that character building includes how do you work with others? How do you
create a team effort where you realize that what happens to you is less valuable than what happens to the group. Uh, and I also look at kids that play in rock and roll bands or in theater. Um, uh, kids that have worked as camp
counselors or or a W local YMCA, but those places where you are part of a of a of a framework. And I I remember back when I was a kid, you know, it was all about the team and it was all about being willing to lose gracefully,
recognizing that winning wasn't everything. You know, I I still think that uh I think most people on this board would disagree with me that when Vince Lombardi came out and said that, you know, when winning wasn't everything or it was the
only thing, right? I think that's when this country started getting divided in a funny way that that uh that that supremacy of winning uh detracts a little bit from what we've seen. Um, I look at at at this in a in a very real
way of, you know, how do we deal with both of these aspects at the same time. Um, and I think Dr. Scott, I'll start with you. Um, you know, the needs of these small but mighty schools, if we can phrase it that way. I went to little school in Connecticut. I played uh as a
freshman. I got moved up to the varsity soccer team. I loved it. I mean to my you know some of the happiest days of my life were high school and and and college sports. Um but I think this debate about NIL and college ath athletics uh in so many ways the
athletic opportunities at smaller schools outside the the power for conferences uh open more doors for more students to enter athletic competition by an order of magnitude. Um, and since the House settlement with the NCAA,
uh, we're we're thankful that no division one school in Colorado has cut a single sport from its athletic department, but we've got to think out outside the box to make this maintain this nationwide. So, Dr. Scott, what's your reaction to Senate proposals that
allow, you know, smaller universities to pull their TV broadcast rights in order to increase revenue opportunities, but again, keep expanding sporting opportunities on campus. Uh, I think it's a great idea. Thank you for your question, uh, Senator Hickin Looper. I think it's a great idea, uh,
primarily because it increases, uh, and enhances the opportunities. Um, I think when whenever um, you're in a unique space at an institution, uh, with the lore um, that Grahamlin offers, you you you have the ability to effectively
market and brand. Um, obviously, we we are the direct benefactors of this great institution. on Thanksgiving weekend that everyone knows of course as the Bayou Classic and so by right uh we have a unique opportunity to continue to drive the brand imagery uh that is
Garland State University but every institution doesn't have that >> right >> right uh most of our institutions are carrying uh for example a 90 to a 98 99% uh pale grant rate for the students that we serve right and so uh being able to
afford ourselves with the opportunity to drive revenues through television um is certainly a benefit and allows us to sustain the opportunities that we provide uh for our student athletes across the board. >> Great. I appreciate that. Um uh Miss
Pivik, uh thank you. Thank you all for joining us. Um, uh, Colorado, you probably are aware, um, is home to the US Olympic and Parolympic, uh, committee and to many of the national governing,
uh, we could say governing bodies that help support Team USA. And as we just saw in Milan and Cortina, uh, the success of Team USA brings national pride. I think it brings real value to the country and at many levels, but just
on an international level, real value. billions of dollars of value. Team USA relies on so many NCAA uh college athletes in a variety of sports. I'm I'm glad that the chair is going to give me an extra minute because I've taken so long answering asking my questions. Um,
Miss Pivik, can you describe for us the the the harmful impact uh that when schools cut athletic programming uh on college athletes opportunities and especially uh and including the opportunity to to compete and represent Team USA, what does that do to that
pipeline? Yeah, I think the idea of cutting athletics, any sort of sports team, is devastating to those athletes that that train and into the future of our country. I think we all care about protecting opportunity. And I think we can do that through collective
bargaining. And and a lot of people here have talked about sustainability and needing to start somewhere. And I really think it starts with the College Sports Competitives Act where to address that sustainability component. Let's maximize it's a business. let's maximize it and create as much value as we can to then
be able to protect as much opportunity as possible while still recognizing the labor um that's involved. >> Great. Thank you very much. And I assume someone asked me coming uh yesterday knew I was going to come into this today and that's the organizing the collective bargaining would only be with those
sports that generate revenue right in other words there's compensation involved. We want to provide um a place where all athletes are protected. And so athletes, we strongly believe that athletes should be the ones draw drawing the line on where whether they want to union or not.
It shouldn't be Congress drawing that line for them. So if all athletes want a union, then they should have the right to do that. >> Great. Thank you very much. Thanks each yield back. >> Senator Banks. >> Thank you. Um >> I you was just going to say Dr.
>> Picture of the collective. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to say Dr. Scott, I'm I'm a alum of the proud national champions Indiana Hooers Indiana University and I really don't want to mess this up um because I think the Hooers are going to come back and do it all over again
next year and uh the Purdue Boiler Makers have a great shot at winning the national championship uh in in March Madness. Um they play tonight, so I'm happy for them, too. Um, and I I I I um I really want to dig into this
subject because we we're all wrestling with it. Um, so so many questions from big schools, small school small colleges in my state and trying to wrap our heads around it. And I think I think the political dynamic is that Republicans and Democrats aren't that far off from
what we agree on. It's just this one um small small issue that gets in the way from us passing something related to unionization and how we treat student athletes as whether we treat them as employees or not. And I know you've I know you've all been been talking about that extensively already, but can you
talk uh doctor a little bit about about team dynamics and culture and how that would change if student athletes were treated as as employees? Thank you, uh, Senator Banks, and congratulations, uh, on your national championship. Uh, I played basketball in
college, and we're talking about IU, and we're generally associated with >> we're football school now >> with Coach Knight and and and Calbert Cheney and and those guys and and now we're talking about Indiana as a football power. What a difference. And congratulations. Um, you know what
>> it seems by I mean, it seems admittedly very relevant to the subject that we're talking about. Yeah, I believe it is. Um I I think the question surrounding culture um related to sport and and anything related uh to unionizing the sport kind of depends on who's at the
table. um you know if we're just having a discussion from the lens of a power four uh then many of the group of five institutions uh the lower level FBS institutions the FCS institutions uh and certainly the low resource institutions
um which I represent won't have a say at the table and and just for clarity uh the the low resource institutions on the bottom end are basically the lowest 15 percentile in revenue generation in college athletics right so you know with with those student athletes that we
represent, I feel like there needs to be some semblance again of opportunity to be at the table uh to be able to have these discussions. I feel like if uh we're just having power for conversations, then you drill down a little deeper, then you're going to only really have substantive discussions with
football and men's basketball, right? And so then there lies a missed opportunity for the rest of the sports. Where Gremlin, we have 15. I think at Ohio State there may be 36, right? So there's a an entirely different demographic of student athlete who don't
have their voices heard and missed. I'm going to say it again, an opportunity um to to to have to have a seat at the table. That's one point. Um I I think that it undermines the essence of what education is for. Um I I heard coach
Tubbville kind of allude to it earlier. Um I I I hoped he would drill down a little deeper on the academic missions of these institutions. Look, we're all in favor uh of of of NIL. Um I'm certainly in favor of of sharing revenue or direct compensation as many of my
colleagues elude. Uh but I do agree that the system needs to be refined um in a way that provides opportunities for all involved in division one. Um and then understanding the trickle down effect, right? So what happens in division one
uh power four affects the the the the lower level FBS. Then that trickles down to FCS and then it trickles down to the lower level of of FCS and then it continues to trickle to division two to division three and then eventually to NIA, right? Where opportunities are
being missed uh by our high school students, right? And so if you're a high school athlete, you're either elite or you're going somewhere else. uh be because as as as my friend who I've known who coached me for for many years
uh Mr. Temple has said we've got 24 25 26 28 year olds um playing college athletics and limiting opportunities for our high school student athletes. I >> I only got a few seconds left. I I do want to ask you um on a different subject as the NCAA and and Congress
both fall down on the we're both falling down on the job. We're not we're not doing what we're supposed to do and pass a national law to confront the the big issue in front of us. A lot of states are looking at what they can do which creates a patchwork of state laws around the country. Can you talk about how
complicated that is for recruitment and for how confusing that is for student athletes if different states are passing laws and and we continue to fail to do something at this level? >> Absolutely. And I think that's a great question. Um, and I know we're pressed for time, so I I'll I'll share this.
Multiple jurisdictions are now affecting what's going on in college athletics, right? It's causing this competitive environment. I'll give you an example. The state of Alabama passes um passes laws to be able to not tax,
right? So, what does the state of Louisiana do? We follow suit because LSU has to play Alabama, right? Gremlin has to play Alabama State and right and so they're trying to level this competitive playing field. Um and and states now
becoming in increasingly involved uh and manage the the jurisdiction the process within their state lines with those higher education institutions. And so as we continue um this this very unstable environment, um states are going to become increasingly involved in
generating legislation that's going to allow their institutions at the state level to have a competitive advantage. >> Thank you. My time is expired. >> Senator King, >> thank you. Um I've got two topics that I would like to address with y'all. Thank you for your testimony on this important
issue. I got to start with bragging about a Virginia team, right? I mean, and the team I want to brag about is the UVA women's swimming and diving team. They just won their sixth straight NCAA championship. They're the leader now in the nation in a in the run of NCAA
championships. Uh on these six teams, there were 11 uh the six teams contributed to 11 medals at the Paris Olympics. A lot of broken world records, but it's a non-revenue sport. So, if we do legislation here, I think there's a
lot of balances we're going to try to strike. I think some are looking at the big versus small school balance. Some will look at men's sports versus women's sports balance. I think I'm going to be really focused on revenue sports versus non-revenue sports balance.
To the extent that you haven't said something already, I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, but if we want to try to legislate and get the revenue sport versus non-revenue sport balance right, what are things we should be paying attention to? And that could be for any of you.
Mr. Anderson, you want to jump? And then it looked like Miss Lynch was about to jump in. >> Thank you, Senator K. And I I I think the key is that it's not a one-sizefits-all approach. what is true for Alabama football is not true for Stanford cross country or or for V Virginia swimming. Um and I think that's
the key is that we don't treat everybody with with one fell swoop because then there will be issues. >> Yep. Lynch, were you going to say something? >> I was and I think this is a great opportunity. I know we've been dugging on the NCAA a little bit because of some past shortcomings, but this is where
recently they have done a really phenomenal job and restructuring their governance model. There is a sports specific committee for every NCAA division one sport and there's student athletes that sit on these committees talking with coaches, administrators and recently the swimming committee had a
bit of a um the swimming specific committee had a little bit of a back and forth with their coaches and administrators because they cut the BFs and that had to do with um TV time. They didn't have enough for it and that's when the student athletes were really like hey we want to bring this back. Like at the swimming national
championship, people were literally chanting, "Bring back bees, bring back bees." And so that's when a sports specific committee that we already have existing and ha that can have real impact is so important for these non-revenue sports to already have a
voice. And so going off of your question, it's important that we have committees that already in place and we utilize our student athlete voice and have them sit at the tables with the administrators, with the coaches to actually make an impact.
>> Great. I'm going to switch to gambling in a second, but others who want to weigh in on the how do we make sure we're doing right by non-revenue sports. >> Okay. Should I go to gambling or or do you want to say? >> Sure. think I'd like to so you still have time for gambling. But I think
there's a balance between we need to preserve opportunity and that's what we're all here to do. Revenue, non-revenue, that's a non-negotiable. We also need to respect the economic realities of the different sports. Um, and so I think collective bargaining through one union can help strike that
balance where there's different rooms for each sport, but also recognizing that all athletes deserve an opportunity and deserve to be protected. >> I I'm going to ask a question about gambling and I'm going to start with you, Dr. Scott if if I could. So I'm I'm just troubled by the whole phenomenon and it it it really worries me the um
people especially I think young males getting into gambling in ways that are very destructive and this is just in college you know athletes. It's like just a a phenomenon that I'm really troubled about. But I'm also troubled about this gambling on prediction markets and what it does to athletes
that athletes who, you know, miss a shot at the end and turns out somebody's bet a lot of money on them and then they end up getting harassed online or facing all this pressure. College sports is pressure enough without having, you know, the world find a path to your door, which and they can find you now
pretty darn easy and harass you because you didn't live up to whatever weird expectation they have based on a bet that they placed. How are you at at Gramling kind of dealing with the gambling issue with with your student athletes and what advice would you have for us? >> Thank you for that question. Um, Senator
Kaine, I think, you know, for us it's about educating the student athlete. Um, but also about empowering the student athlete. I think you know we cannot necessarily control their environment because in most cases
um you know some of these and I want to be very delicate here in how I describe them but some of these folks that are praying on these student athletes more often than not they're introduced via social media right and so that's more of an environment that of course we we
can't control um so what we what we choose to do is educate our young men and women on on being able to of course identify the pressures of gambling and what happens um when something happens when when something occurs even that frontline communication. Uh and so
robust compliance education is increasingly important. U being able of course to be forward facing, have those conversations uh and be honest with your student athletes. Look, we're in a multi-billion dollar business. when they hear that uh Grahamlin State University
is going to Ohio State and making a million dollars, they want to know where the money is, right? And so it it provides a student athlete with a a a thought process of saying, "Well, hey, can we have some of that? I'm struggling. I need we have, right?" Like those questions then come abound and
then it opens them up and makes them susceptible to responding to the communication should it happens. And so for us, just being able to offer that robust amount of communication, being really open. Uh we have a saying in our department, our door is always closed, but it's always open. Uh and also, uh
invite the coaches in to have those conversations with those young men and women, of course, to to be able to educate them, have very real conversations, um about gambling and and the negative impacts on gambling on college athletics. >> Thank you so much. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
>> And I've got two more questions, Mr. Anderson. Your approach is different to Miss Pivix. You specifically spoke about limiting unionization to the revenue producing sports, which would typically be men's basketball and men's football. Mr.
Temple spoke about how even at LSU and South Carolina packing the house, they're losing $68 million with, you know, I think they were the first women's basketball team to be shown on broadcast TV in prime time. And despite that, they're still losing money that
that magnitude. So, so how do you kind of phrase your approach differently than Miss Pivix, which would include all sports and your you specifically mentioned revenue? >> Thank you for the question, Senator Cassie. Let me clarify. Uh it is not our position that that is only revenue
generating sports that should be able to unionize. It is our position uh very similar to hers that athletes should be the motivating factor behind who becomes unionized. I think in my testimony I
said that uh if Congress is to act it is to push the revenue sports in that direction. If we believe that Congress should not be taking away rights from anybody we do not believe that Congress should be the one to draw the line. It is just those sports that it is most
clear are deserving of employee status and the right to unionize. Where you draw the line, I can't answer that question. >> Now, next, and I'll have two more questions. If one thing that Miss Lynch brought up, I think Mr. Temple, that once you begin to
put someone into a union, I know Miss Lynch did, then they may have to pay tax on a training table. they may have to pay tax on a value of a scholarship. Uh if they're required to study extra in order to keep their GPA up, are they going to be compensated for those hours,
therefore taxed? Now, a non-revenue sport, that's going to drive up the expense. I mean, if if if suddenly they've negotiated rights to get paid x number of dollars and uh and hourly wage,
uh I don't see how it doesn't drive up expense. Uh but then the athlete then has to pay taxes on that expense. Um and so they're not going to earn that much because it's non-revenue sport. But the value of the scholarship at a place
like Stanford, I'm sure Stanford cost $80,000 a year. So over the course of the year, that'll be a $240,000 scholarship that they're paying taxes on. But no offense, I'm thinking that cross country doesn't generate that
revenue. Uh, and just being honest, let's say they get paid $10,000 a year, but they got to pay taxes on $240,000 a year. Square that for me. It seems like that's really to the disadvantage of the athlete. >> Two things I would say to that. One is
that it's not clear that scholarships would be subject to any different tax treatment under an employment scheme. Uh, and the second is that I haven't said that that a cross-country runner like myself necessarily should be an employee. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I'm saying that as an unresolved question.
>> So, and then lastly, again, the employment issue seems to be the major dividing point. Everything else there's a lot of common ground on. Um, and one point being made is that at least by M. Dr. Scott and Miss Lynch is that if you do employ that that will dry up
resources for non-revenue sports. Well, Mr. Temple said the same thing. So, let me ask the two of you. Um, if collective bargaining did result in less compensation or maybe fewer
scholarships, fewer roster spots for non-revenue generating sports, would you still support collective bargaining rights for the athlete? >> Take this one. I'll take this one first. I would say athletes would not be in
that position. If we got to the negotiating table, we would result in a better deal than we >> I'm giving you the theoretical, the hypothetical. >> I'm I it just stipulate that it is going to raise cost and that that athletic
department has to squeeze someplace. I gather during COVID 11 sports were ended at Stanford because they couldn't support it with because they had no revenue. So, we know it's real. So, just let's stipulate. You know, maybe later on we find it's
wrong, but if these folks are right that the absence of revenue andor the increased expense will cause non-revenue sports to be trimmed out, would you still support collective bargaining rights? >> I support collective bargaining in terms
of raising the revenue. So the raising the revenue for different opportunities that we can preserve and we would have >> sure how raising house collective bargaining will raise the revenue, but Mr. Anderson, >> to your point about Stanford cutting 11 sports, after they cut those 11 sports,
they generated so much outcry from the Stanford community, from alumni, that those sports were brought back. >> I understand that with with philanthropy, if you will, >> that's how most of most of the non-revenue sports are. >> But but go back. We're stipulating that if you increase the expense for the
department that the department will have to trim someplace and it will and if we stipulate that it would that it would trim by trimming trim expense by trimming programs as Dr. Scott said um and Miss Lynch said um would you still
support those collective bargaining rights? >> I support collective bargaining rights unconditionally. I want to be clear though that I think the costs associated with employment status whether just for football and basketball players or for everybody is marginal. Uh and I think
there's plenty of room at the top of most athletic departments. You look at outsized coaching salaries, even athletic directors making $3 million a year. There is plenty of room. >> Okay. So I think you answered it with my stipulation. you would un you would that
even if it caused trimming you would still support unconditionally but then you modified my stipulation but but I do think it's fair to say that as I originally stipulated you would you would pres you would you would still promote
um even if it caused trimming of roster spots um go ahead >> the NCPA's position is is that we need to protect all sports uh and I I I The premise is a false premise. I I don't
think it's true that that the squeeze would be so significant that it would be the end of Stanford cross country or of of of anybody else's opportunity for that matter. >> I will point out that Miss Lynch, Dr. Scott, Mr. Temple, and Coach Tubberville
um various levels of management or involvement disagree with you. But uh so it's not me, it's they. But all of you, thank you for being here. It's an important topic for the future of college athletics which means for the importance of all those who participate
in student athletic student athletes. So I really Yes sir Mr. simple >> as you ladies and gentlemen entertain this process. Senator Armstrong and Senator Cassidy and other members,
please please take into consideration that there may be another path to help solving it. And that is to put some guard rails on the salaries of coaches and and and professional athletic leaderships in the in the world
of management. Because if you add up all of the salaries of the head coaches in the SEC, football and probably basketball, you'll find some some monies that could trickle down
to student athletes and really serve a great purpose. >> Okay. >> So, I don't know as you manage this process, just take those kind of things into consideration. I'm not sure we can do that, but I thank you. You see your point? I thank you all for being here.
Thank you for serving our country. >> Oh, one more thing. I'm sorry.Oops. For any senator wishing to ask additional questions, questions for the records due at 5:00 pm Thursday, April 9th. Again, thank you for being here. The committee stands adjourned.