H.R
5528 aka CACIA Act of 2019
proposed by Rep. Donna Shalala to establish a
Congressional Advisory Commission to investigate the relationship between
institutions of higher education and intercollegiate athletic programs, and
for other purposes."
The findings listed in Section
2 lists several statements of fact many pertaining to the finance of college
athletics. Some are mundane others propaganda (e.g. #7 and use of the term
subsidize). The findings collection is not convincing of problem necessitating
a federal commission. Importantly, the bill fails to address the fundamental failures
of the current system. That being that the denial of basic property rights to
athletes participating in intercollegiate sports.
The bill's crux is presented (Section 3) with
the cynically vague [Commission shall] "review policies maintained by
athletic governance associations and institutions of higher education with
respect to ensuring that student athletes can succeed in academics and
athletics." The
NCAA's convention of entangling education and athletics to the detriment of athlete
rights is clearly maintained. Note using NCAA's paternalistic term
"student athlete" (sans hyphen), propaganda devised to help deny the
right to an athlete's workman's compensation claim. The laundry list specifying the
commission's duties, poses some fairly usual concerns and critiques of college
sports; proposing it look into academic integrity, athlete safety and heath
care, Title IX compliance, recruiting excesses, financial transparency, etc. Some things among those listed will appease reformers. But
the list is one symptoms not its causes, and is at once in lock step with the
NCAA, which is in fact demanding federal legislation, lobbying hard to let it
off the hook from laws that apply to all else.
This bill is representative of the NCAA lobby.
On the surface it's beneficial, or innocuous at worst. However, there are
plenty reasons to be skeptical and see the lack of challenge to the NCAA's
denial of rights for athletes and potential college athletes as a major red
flag. NCAA amateurism rules force athletes sacrifice all of
their rights to negotiate or profit from the value of their human capital, and
the property rights to their Name Image Likeness (NIL) as under challenge by
state laws - CA & others. If amateur
policy were addressed and corrected, many of the symptomatic problems would
also be fixed. The bill does not consider questioning amateurism nor promise
any review as to why standard federal antitrust, employment and labor law are
not applied to the NCAA.
Rep. Shalala is a former Univ. president/chancellor
at two Power Five institutions Wisconsin and University of Miami. To think that
the bill contains anything to challenge her peers in Higher Ed is senseless.
Much was made of reform potential when the athletic directors ceded NCAA
control to presidents 20 years ago.The presidents of course had the same
incentives as athletic directors. That is to grow the revenue/publicity of
their sports programs & maintain the unlawful limit on the economic rights
of athletes. Lots of lip service then about the academic mission. Nothing that
mattered changed.
The expectations for change should be exactly
the same for the Commission. However, more likely is this bill will open the
door to a recommendation, and then an outcome, that will make meaningful reform
in the future all but impossible. The bill itself does not mention the sought-after antitrust
exemption. Yet, do not think that is not a primary goal as a solution to the
listed concerns.
The Drake Group presents themselves as a
primary influencer of this legislation and is doubtless lobbying for seats on
the Commission. The Drake
Group (and the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics) have a long and
consistent policy position against fair compensation of college athletes. Drake
has pushed an antitrust exemption for the NCAA to ensure that proscriptions on
compensation cannot be challenged to fix what they believe is a distorted role
of athletics in academia. Much of the concern about finances reflected in this
bill is right out of the Drake/Knight playbook- i.e. suggesting that the
primary problem is misallocated collection and distribution of funds.
Those misallocation problems
typically identified as overspending on coach salaries and athletic facilities
are mitigated if antitrust (Sherman Act) is applied and reallocated toward
athletes. An antitrust exemption will simply shift the misallocation of
resources elsewhere. The university president and athletic
directors, who control the NCAA, want an antitrust exemption, not only because
it takes away challenges to athlete compensation, but it also solves their
prisoners' dilemma on coaches' pay. Of course, they would rather pay coaches
less too. But it is a dream to think savings in coach
pay (or facility investments) would be instead allocated to improve athlete
welfare with anything other than nominal changes.