Link: https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/Testimony_Whitman_24be7cb503.pdf
1. First, we ask your help in codifying into federal law various benefits and protections for student-athletes, many of which already exist in NCAA rules, and establishing a uniform national NIL and revenue sharing framework largely in line with what is contemplated by the House settlement.
2. Second, we request that you preempt state laws that have become an unending race to provide competitive advantages to schools in their respective jurisdictions. Such laws began by allowing student-athletes to take full advantage of NIL opportunities and have evolved to restrict the NCAA and conferences from enforcing rules. We cannot compete on a national stage with such divergent laws benefiting certain members while disadvantaging others.
3. Third, we seek not a blanket antitrust exemption but a safe harbor that will allow us needed flexibility to create a reasonable and enforceable regulatory framework that serves the underlying mission of the collegiate sports model. At this point, virtually all eligibility rules are under siege through judicial intervention and the misplaced lens of antitrust. As but one example, in February 2023, a judge granted a temporary restraining order to allow a men’s basketball player to participate in an eighth season of competition. On the topic of transfers, any recent effort to restrict eligibility based on student-athlete movement has been soundly thwarted by the courts, which runs counter to the educational mission of our 9 programs and damages the experience for others on both the departing and receiving teams.
4. Fourth and finally, we ask you to clarify that the relationship between student-athletes and institutions is not that of an employer and employee. We wish for the focus of the relationship between a school and a student-athlete to remain rooted in education. Through the House settlement and other intended changes outlined herein, we are in the process of providing substantially more benefits, financial and otherwise, for our studentathletes – to the tune of billions of dollars. Against that backdrop, characterizing studentathletes as employees is not only unnecessary but jeopardizes the ability of our institutions to support the scale and scope of changes we intend to make for their benefit.
