New Faculty Sports activities Invoice Urges Income Sharing and Taxpayer Funded Fee

Congress has yet to consider one more bill to allow college athletes to commercialize their advertising rights.

The new legislation, titled The College Athlete Bill of Rights, co-authored by Sens. Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal, contains some novel elements for proponents of names, imagery, and likeness. For example, the bill is designed to allow college athletes to do business with clothing brands that compete with their university’s clothing agreements. However, it is required that athletes wear school sponsored equipment (other than shoes that they can choose) at team events. In addition, college athletes are not prohibited from supporting companies in any industry unless the school is prohibited from supporting companies in the same industry.

For example, if the bill becomes law, a college athlete will be allowed to sign a contract with Puma even though his school is sponsored by Nike. He would be allowed to wear Puma studs in the field, but the rest of his uniform would be Nike-approved clothing provided by the school. If a school has a contract with a gambling company like PointsBet (see: University of Colorado), the school’s athletes can also sponsor similar gambling.

However, the part of the Booker / Blumenthal bill that appropriately gets the majority of people’s attention deals with the requirement that schools must share their earnings with certain college athletes. The Senators want athletes in sports who generate income that is higher than what is spent on scholarships in order to receive 50% of the net money after the scholarships are paid out. As explained by ESPN’s Dan Murphy,

For example, in FBS soccer, the commission would add up the revenue from all 130 soccer programs and subtract the total cost of the scholarships for all of those programs. Half of the remaining money would be divided equally among all FBS level players. The sports that Booker’s office says are currently generating enough money to qualify for this revenue sharing are soccer (both FBS and FCS levels), men’s and women’s basketball, and baseball.

The other part of the proposal under consideration is to set up a college athletics commission to propose changes to the rules, investigate wrongdoing, and receive $ 50 million in taxpayers’ money for the first two years.

“It’s strangely exaggerated and funded by the taxpayer … that’s weird,” said a sports manager on condition of anonymity. “Nonrevenue sports will be wiped out in 2021 and probably at least a year or two later. In a few months from 2020 we will see how high the deficits really are in the sports department. “

Many believe the bill has good intentions, but that it solves a problem of too much power in the hands of the NCAA with another – giving too much control to the government. There are also fears that this could negatively impact sports that were already put down during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“These [will] literally destroy college athletics like us [k]Now it’s time, period, ”tweeted sports agent Jason Belzer. “Any sport without income would be gutted. You literally had schools playing football and basketball on the men’s side and that’s it. “

One thing that everyone would agree on is that if the bill were to become law, it would be a game changer. Most people also believe these are rights college athletes deserve. However, will it cost many who participate in nonrevenue sports?

Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Lawyer Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an associate professor at Levin College of Law, University of Florida. You can reach him by email at and follow him on Twitter @DarrenHeitner.

Comments are closed.