- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 783,551
- Reaction score
- 53
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A task force of the Congressional Black Caucus is in negotiations with its Republican colleagues to amend portions of the college sports legislation, the SCORE Act, some of which have already been agreed to.
The caucus, made up of 59 Democrat members of both the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, is a key bloc of lawmakers in the effort from college leaders to pass the Republican-authored sports bill dubbed the SCORE Act (Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act).
Speaking Thursday from a conference at the Washington Convention Center, Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), a member of the caucus, revealed that the group has reached an agreement on several changes to the legislation — a notable move that may accelerate the once-stalled progress of the bill to get through the House.
“The authors of the SCORE Act are around the table negotiating with us. That’s a good sign,” Sewell said.
The Alabama congresswoman spoke from a stage as the moderator of a panel discussion with SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and SWAC commissioner Charles McClelland, delivering a 50-minute talk as part of the CBC’s annual legislative conference in the nation’s capital.
While “no piece of legislation is perfect, we know that something has to be done,” Sewell said of the college sports bill in speaking to a ballroom room full of attendees.
However, she noted, “It’s important that all views are taken into account when you’re talking about legislation that has an impact on such a big swath of peoples’ lives.”
Republicans have agreed to changes with two of the caucus’ four areas of concern, Sewell said, including (1) extending the bill’s medical provision that would require schools to provide five years, and not three, of post-graduate healthcare; and (2) increasing athlete representation on NCAA governance committees from 25% to 35%.
The CBC and Republicans remain in negotiations, Sewell suggested, over the caucus’ desire to change the Act’s overseeing and enforcement entity from state attorneys generals to the Federal Trade Commission. Attorneys general enforcing the act is “problematic,” she said, implying that their in-state bias serves as a conflict of interest. “I really doubt that the AG of Alabama would actually sue the University of Alabama [over violations of the Act],” she said.
The possible amendment to the oversight provision of the bill is a “reasonable part of the conversation,” said Sankey, who is in regular dialogue, along with other power league and NCAA executives, with the bill’s authors.
The ongoing negotiations with the Congressional Black Caucus are paramount to the bill’s chances of, first, passing the Republican-controlled House, before its more difficult hurdle of the Senate. With several House Republicans pushing back against the legislation, the caucus stands as a critical voting bloc.
Earlier this month, Republicans were preparing to introduce the bill onto the House floor for a vote under a belief, at one time, that they held the necessary simple majority to adopt the bill. However, several obstacles arose — some of them within college athletics administration — that delayed any floor discussion until, at the earliest, next month.
Though in favor of most of the SCORE Act, a group of 10 non-FBS DI conferences sought amendments to the bill in a move that swayed some lawmakers to delay possible action. However, the biggest swing came from the influences of Texas billionaire Cody Campbell, a close ally of President Donald Trump and someone encouraging congressional lawmakers to both amend the SCORE Act to replace the NCAA entirely and open the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 — a way, he believes, to better stabilize the industry.
One by one, compromises are being made in an effort to push the legislation across the goal line.
For instance, earlier this week, at conference commissioner meetings in Chicago, the SCORE Act took center stage. Coalition leaders from the 10 non-FBS conferences made progress on their requested changes to the Act during discussions with power league commissioners, those with knowledge of the talks tell Yahoo Sports. Those amendments are related to weighted voting governance and Division I minimum standards.
Meanwhile, Republicans — and those from the NCAA and conferences — have agreed on at least two of the Congressional Black Caucus’ four concerns, as Sewell noted. The group’s second outstanding issue — of which Sewell did not mention Thursday — is related to the bill’s common law provision protecting schools from legal action. The caucus wants to see a clarification around that provision that, if changed, may open a legal avenue for athletes to pursue.
“It’s very important that we protect those most vulnerable, and in this scenario, it’s the student-athletes,” Sewell said.
The SCORE Act’s main tenants include (1) codifying the NCAA’s House settlement, including requiring athletes to submit NIL agreements to the NIL Go clearinghouse; (2) pre-empting state NIL laws; (3) prohibiting athletes from being deemed employees; and (4) perhaps most notably and most concerning for some, granting the NCAA the power to enforce and create a wide variety of policy in what college officials describe as “limited liability protection.” The bill also requires schools to provide healthcare for athletes within three years of their eligibility ending and regulates agents, capping their fees at 5% (that’s important).
Over the last several weeks — if not months — college conference officials and NCAA executives have accelerated their lobbying efforts over the Act, sending letters to Congress in support of the legislation and publicly imploring fans to contact their local lawmakers.
For McClelland, the legislation’s provision prohibiting athlete employment is of the utmost importance for those lower-resource leagues that cannot afford to employ college athletes. “The employment issue is so critical to our survival,” he said.
Sankey pushed back against those who describe the SCORE Act as granting a sweeping antitrust exemption for the NCAA and conferences.
“Embedded in the SCORE Act is what I’d call a limited liability protection,” he told Sewell and the crowd before him. “I’ve never walked on Capitol Hill and asked for an antitrust exemption and the characterization that that is the ask is incorrect. What we’re looking for is protection to enact these changes without being constantly sued.”
The NCAA and conferences are at the center of a host of lawsuits, most notably over eligibility standards, transfer policies and, perhaps eventually, NIL-related athlete compensation.
On Thursday, speaking to Sewell and those present, Sankey highlighted the negative impact of multiple transfers on an athlete’s educational goals, telling those on hand that the SEC has some athletes who are on their fifth and sixth schools in their career — a note that elicited an audible gasp from those present.
“Part of what I’d like to see in the SCORE Act is the ability to say, we want to facilitate … if you make a mistake, go make that transfer (once),” he said. “But let’s also create something that builds you as a person that maybe you have a disagreement with a coach but it’s actually in your long-term interests to grow through that, not depart from it.”
Continue reading...
The caucus, made up of 59 Democrat members of both the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, is a key bloc of lawmakers in the effort from college leaders to pass the Republican-authored sports bill dubbed the SCORE Act (Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act).
Speaking Thursday from a conference at the Washington Convention Center, Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), a member of the caucus, revealed that the group has reached an agreement on several changes to the legislation — a notable move that may accelerate the once-stalled progress of the bill to get through the House.
“The authors of the SCORE Act are around the table negotiating with us. That’s a good sign,” Sewell said.
The Alabama congresswoman spoke from a stage as the moderator of a panel discussion with SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and SWAC commissioner Charles McClelland, delivering a 50-minute talk as part of the CBC’s annual legislative conference in the nation’s capital.
While “no piece of legislation is perfect, we know that something has to be done,” Sewell said of the college sports bill in speaking to a ballroom room full of attendees.
However, she noted, “It’s important that all views are taken into account when you’re talking about legislation that has an impact on such a big swath of peoples’ lives.”
Republicans have agreed to changes with two of the caucus’ four areas of concern, Sewell said, including (1) extending the bill’s medical provision that would require schools to provide five years, and not three, of post-graduate healthcare; and (2) increasing athlete representation on NCAA governance committees from 25% to 35%.
The CBC and Republicans remain in negotiations, Sewell suggested, over the caucus’ desire to change the Act’s overseeing and enforcement entity from state attorneys generals to the Federal Trade Commission. Attorneys general enforcing the act is “problematic,” she said, implying that their in-state bias serves as a conflict of interest. “I really doubt that the AG of Alabama would actually sue the University of Alabama [over violations of the Act],” she said.
The possible amendment to the oversight provision of the bill is a “reasonable part of the conversation,” said Sankey, who is in regular dialogue, along with other power league and NCAA executives, with the bill’s authors.
The ongoing negotiations with the Congressional Black Caucus are paramount to the bill’s chances of, first, passing the Republican-controlled House, before its more difficult hurdle of the Senate. With several House Republicans pushing back against the legislation, the caucus stands as a critical voting bloc.
Earlier this month, Republicans were preparing to introduce the bill onto the House floor for a vote under a belief, at one time, that they held the necessary simple majority to adopt the bill. However, several obstacles arose — some of them within college athletics administration — that delayed any floor discussion until, at the earliest, next month.
Though in favor of most of the SCORE Act, a group of 10 non-FBS DI conferences sought amendments to the bill in a move that swayed some lawmakers to delay possible action. However, the biggest swing came from the influences of Texas billionaire Cody Campbell, a close ally of President Donald Trump and someone encouraging congressional lawmakers to both amend the SCORE Act to replace the NCAA entirely and open the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 — a way, he believes, to better stabilize the industry.
One by one, compromises are being made in an effort to push the legislation across the goal line.
For instance, earlier this week, at conference commissioner meetings in Chicago, the SCORE Act took center stage. Coalition leaders from the 10 non-FBS conferences made progress on their requested changes to the Act during discussions with power league commissioners, those with knowledge of the talks tell Yahoo Sports. Those amendments are related to weighted voting governance and Division I minimum standards.
Meanwhile, Republicans — and those from the NCAA and conferences — have agreed on at least two of the Congressional Black Caucus’ four concerns, as Sewell noted. The group’s second outstanding issue — of which Sewell did not mention Thursday — is related to the bill’s common law provision protecting schools from legal action. The caucus wants to see a clarification around that provision that, if changed, may open a legal avenue for athletes to pursue.
“It’s very important that we protect those most vulnerable, and in this scenario, it’s the student-athletes,” Sewell said.
The SCORE Act’s main tenants include (1) codifying the NCAA’s House settlement, including requiring athletes to submit NIL agreements to the NIL Go clearinghouse; (2) pre-empting state NIL laws; (3) prohibiting athletes from being deemed employees; and (4) perhaps most notably and most concerning for some, granting the NCAA the power to enforce and create a wide variety of policy in what college officials describe as “limited liability protection.” The bill also requires schools to provide healthcare for athletes within three years of their eligibility ending and regulates agents, capping their fees at 5% (that’s important).
Over the last several weeks — if not months — college conference officials and NCAA executives have accelerated their lobbying efforts over the Act, sending letters to Congress in support of the legislation and publicly imploring fans to contact their local lawmakers.
For McClelland, the legislation’s provision prohibiting athlete employment is of the utmost importance for those lower-resource leagues that cannot afford to employ college athletes. “The employment issue is so critical to our survival,” he said.
Sankey pushed back against those who describe the SCORE Act as granting a sweeping antitrust exemption for the NCAA and conferences.
“Embedded in the SCORE Act is what I’d call a limited liability protection,” he told Sewell and the crowd before him. “I’ve never walked on Capitol Hill and asked for an antitrust exemption and the characterization that that is the ask is incorrect. What we’re looking for is protection to enact these changes without being constantly sued.”
The NCAA and conferences are at the center of a host of lawsuits, most notably over eligibility standards, transfer policies and, perhaps eventually, NIL-related athlete compensation.
On Thursday, speaking to Sewell and those present, Sankey highlighted the negative impact of multiple transfers on an athlete’s educational goals, telling those on hand that the SEC has some athletes who are on their fifth and sixth schools in their career — a note that elicited an audible gasp from those present.
“Part of what I’d like to see in the SCORE Act is the ability to say, we want to facilitate … if you make a mistake, go make that transfer (once),” he said. “But let’s also create something that builds you as a person that maybe you have a disagreement with a coach but it’s actually in your long-term interests to grow through that, not depart from it.”
Continue reading...
