The Senate Commerce Committee's hearing on the "Protect College Sports Act" was a missed opportunity for genuine reform. The hearing failed to address the core issues and instead became a platform for the NCAA and its member institutions to seek a governmental bailout. This bailout would allow them to continue breaking antitrust laws without fear of accountability, a situation that has persisted for decades. The hearing also lacked the predictable performative nonsense and grandstanding that often characterizes such events, which is a positive development for the republic. However, this absence of theatrics may have also masked the true nature of the problem.
One of the key issues highlighted during the hearing was the provision allowing the prevailing party in any litigation to recover attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. This is a common device used by the government to enhance law enforcement resources. However, in the context of the Protect College Sports Act, it has a significant catch. If a student-athlete sues and loses, they would have to pay the attorneys' fees and litigation expenses of the university or conference, potentially causing many potential plaintiffs to avoid filing lawsuits due to the financial burden. This provision effectively prevents lawsuits, even in cases of clear and egregious violations, as potential plaintiffs fear the financial consequences.
The issue of agents and their regulation was another significant point of discussion. Former coach Nick Saban brought up the contrast between the regulation of agents in the NFL and the lack of such requirements in college sports. He argued that the NFL's Commissioner has the power to create universal rules through collective bargaining, which is not possible in college sports without a union. This highlights the need for a unionized workforce in college sports to address antitrust violations and create a level playing field for agents.
The hearing also raised questions about the impact of paying players in high-revenue sports on low-revenue sports. The author argues that the efforts of players in profitable sports should not subsidize less profitable sports. This raises a deeper question about the fairness and sustainability of the current system, where the success of some sports may come at the expense of others.
In conclusion, the hearing on the Protect College Sports Act failed to address the fundamental issues and instead became a platform for the NCAA to seek a bailout. The provision for attorneys' fees and the lack of agent regulation are significant concerns. The author concludes that the current system needs genuine reform, and the NCAA should not be allowed to continue its antitrust violations without accountability. The American way should be to comply with the laws that everyone is expected to respect, and the NCAA should find a way to finance its non-profitable sports without relying on the success of high-revenue sports.
