House Panel Advances GOP Bill to Ban College Athletes as Employees

A potential ban of college athletes as employees of their schools, conference and the NCAA advanced in the legislative process at the conclusion of a Congressional hearing Thursday.

The U.S. House of Representatives Education and the Workforce Committee held a markup hearing on assorted bills, including H.R. 8534, dubbed the “Protecting Student Athletes’ Economic Freedom Act” and sponsored by 11 Republican members. The bill contemplates a prohibition of college athlete employment recognition, which in turn would prevent them from unionizing. 

At the end of the hearing, in a partisan vote, a majority of the GOP-led committee voted to report the bill to the House with a favorable recommendation. 

Whether H.R. 8534, which will go to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson for further consideration, ever becomes law is another story.

The bill’s main sponsor, Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), framed H.R. 8534 as a response to President Biden’s National Labor Relations Board becoming an “action arm for big labor.” Good insisted the current NLRB is determined to expand opportunities for “union dues” and is motivated not out of desire to further the interests of college athletes but instead to boost union membership. 

A former college wrestler and senior associate athletics director at Liberty University, Good went so far as to claim Biden would prefer “one more unionized employee” over opportunities for thousands of college athletes whose sports—Good professes—would be cut if they became employees.

Good suggested that college athletes should be pleased with having recently “won new freedoms,” including name, image and likeness and the ability to transfer schools without enhanced restriction.

Classifying those developments as “new freedoms” is debatable. NIL removed NCAA restrictions barring athletes from using a legal right they already possessed, the right of publicity, and only came about after states passed NIL statutes. As to the NCAA lifting transfer restrictions, that only surfaced after the NCAA lost in court on those very restrictions.

Good also blasted “unelected” NLRB officers for reimagining employment in America. His commentary alluded critically to NLRB regional director Laura Sacks recognizing Dartmouth College men’s basketball players as employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and those players then unionizing. Good believes schools will be forced to cut sports as new labor and administrative costs rise with athlete employment. He also warned that universities will be exposed to “massive liabilities.”

Other Republican members offered similarly enthusiastic viewpoints on H.R. 8534. 

Rep. Rick Allen (R-Ga.), a co-sponsor, rebuked the NLRB for “attempting to expand its authority” by expanding unionization across the country. He says the NLRB has “continued to overstep” its mandate in crafting federal labor policy and that employment recognition would “restrict student freedom” and “reduce athletic opportunities.”

Allen predicted schools would cut sports, especially women’s sports, if athletes become employees. He did not address how Title IX would likely protect women’s sports in that scenario. 

Further, Allen posed a series of questions aimed at encouraging passage of H.R. 8534. “Can a student athlete be fired?” “Will [college athletes] have to pay into insurance plans?” “Will [college athletes] be required to pay union dues?”

He added that since his state, Georgia, is a right to work state—meaning one where union membership cannot be required as a condition of a job—college athletes there could not be compelled to pay union dues.

Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Penn.), meanwhile, argued that college “faculty, staff, administrators and student athletes themselves” oppose employment status since it could spark “drastic cuts” especially at smaller colleges. Likewise, co-sponsor U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) warned that employee recognition would lead to Olympic sports being cut, which would in turn damage the country’s “Olympic pipeline.” He added that H.R. 8534 is “common sense legislation that pushes back against the NLRB.”

Offering a very different take, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) spoke in firm opposition to H.R. 8534. He said the bill contains “technical” errors in how it is worded and would not protect athletes’ rights but instead strip them of rights. 

Scott asserted it is “premature to start legislating” employment given that issues such as NIL and workers’ compensation are new in the college athlete context and need to be sorted out. He said the Republicans are “jumping the gun” on a topic that requires thorough analysis by legal experts on whether college athletes meet applicable tests for employment. 

Scott also pushed back against the more romanticized depiction of college sports offered by his Republican colleagues. He said college athletes consistently talk about the pervasive and employment-like control of schools over their lives, including mandatory weigh-ins and de facto limitations over which majors they can pursue due to sports scheduling obligations.

In a statement, Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), a former varsity athlete at Georgetown University and advocate for college athletes’ rights, said, “Once again, Republicans in Congress have decided to plow forward with legislation to limit the rights of college athletes with little to no input from athletes themselves.”

She found it “disappointing” that her Republican colleagues would “advance a bill targeting a hypothetical issue over the very real challenges currently facing athletes, including Title IX loopholes that hurt women and international athletes not having NIL rights.”

As Sportico explained Wednesday, H.R. 8534 will face several layers of political and legal opposition. Biden, a strong supporter of union rights, would likely veto H.R. 8534 or any bill like it. Even if H.R. 8534 became law, it could be challenged in court on equal protection, states’ rights and other grounds. 

To that point, Paul McDonald, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in Johnson v. NCAA, responded to the committee advancing H.R. 8534 by saying the bill “is unconstitutional.” McDonald argues that denying college athletes “the same employee status, rights, and hourly pay as fellow students in Work Study-style programs violates Equal Protection.”

He predicts if the bill is enacted it “would never survive judicial challenge” and maintains “the only thing accomplished by the NCAA in needlessly dragging out the recognition of college athletes as hourly employees like their fellow students is to significantly increase the cost of resolution borne by its membership.”