The Senate Commerce Committee's hearing on the "Protect College Sports Act" was a fascinating, albeit predictable, affair. It's clear that the NCAA and its member institutions are seeking a governmental bailout, a license to break the law without fear of accountability, after decades of antitrust violations. This is a concerning development, and it's important to analyze the hearing's key points and their implications.
One thing that immediately stands out is the lack of performative nonsense and grandstanding. This is encouraging for the republic, but it also highlights the fact that the problem doesn't require a Congressional solution. The hearing's second point of interest is the devil in the details of the proposed legislation. The fee-shifting provision, which allows the prevailing party in any litigation to recover attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, is a common device used by the government to enhance the available resources for policing and enforcing the law. However, in this case, it swings both ways, potentially causing many potential plaintiffs to punt on potential lawsuits.
The issue of agents also came up multiple times during the hearing. It's clear that they need to be regulated, but the hearing didn't go as far as it could have. The NFL's Commissioner has the power to impose rules as a result of collective bargaining with the players, and the NCAA could benefit from a similar approach. The fourth point of interest is the claim that only Congress can fix this problem. This is not true, and a nationwide union would give the colleges exactly what they want: an antitrust exemption that would allow for the creation of rules regarding transfers, limits on player pay, and everything else they want from Congress.
Finally, the hearing raised the issue of the impact of paying players in high-revenue sports on low-revenue sports. It's clear that the efforts of the players in the sports that make money should not subsidize the sports that don't. The colleges need to figure out a way to finance sports that don't pay for themselves, and picking the pockets of the profitable programs isn't the fair and just way to do it. It remains to be seen where this goes from here, but it's clear that the SEC and the Big Ten oppose the current bill as written, and the real problem is that the folks in charge don't like the fact that those who previously got nothing are getting plenty.
