Future of college athletes’ salaries depends on presidential election

Controversy over what college athletes are paid to train, compete and represent their schools is playing out on U.S. campuses, in sports programs and in courtrooms.

But the most important playing field may be the presidential election this fall.

Donald Trump And Kamala Harris have radically different views on labor and unionization. And more than 1,000 520,000 The incoming President’s appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which will decide whether the majority of college athletes under the NCAA umbrella are considered employees, will truly professionalize the college environment.

This is no ordinary policy debate; this election is a critical championship game for college sports reform.

Today, athletes can profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL), earning money through sponsorships, product endorsements, and public appearances.

The vast majority of NIL earnings go to star athletes, student athletes in Florida among the country’s leaders in securing major contracts.

But in reality, most student-athletes don’t make much money off the NIL. Accordingly NCAA figuresmedian income for student athletes only $461 per year.

Many athletes stand to gain much more from the NLRB’s actions, which would permanently classify college athletes as employees of their universities. This would grant them not only the right to be paid, but also additional employee rights, such as workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and the right to both unionize and collectively bargain with their schools.

The Biden-Harris administration — and their NLRB appointments — have been labor-friendly, and we can expect a Harris-Walz administration to continue the same approach. But Republican appointees would be more likely to reject unionization and maintain the NCAA’s status quo — no matter how vague — without granting student-athletes employee status or benefits.

What does Harris’ win mean for college athletes?

A Harris win would be transformative for most student athletes who don’t have five-, six- or seven-figure NIL deals. As employees, athletes would gain the right to form unions, like the Dartmouth men’s basketball team. I already did itinitially with NLRB support.

Four more years of a pro-employee NLRB could also help prevent legacy NIL disasters. University of Florida recruiting Jaden Rashada sue football coach Billy Napier and one of the Gators’ top boosters who allegedly walked away from a $13.85 million deal.

But classifying college athletes as employees could also threaten the NCAA’s very existence. The athletic model for college sports could soon resemble professional leagues rather than the hybrid amateur/professional model it has been implementing since the NIL era began in 2021.

Employee status can also affect scholarship protections. If athletes underperform on the field, they can be fired and have their scholarships taken away more easily than athletes who are employees.

Additionally, if universities face millions in new payroll costs, some may opt to cut teams and sports entirely, which could reduce scholarship opportunities for future athletes. Schools outside the Big Ten and SEC—like FAU, FIU and USF—are already struggling to balance their athletic budgets.

What a Trump win means for college athletes

Many sports law experts, employee status as an inevitable condition for athletesA Trump win would overturn the steady progress that has supported this outcome and either maintain the status quo or lead to a law that would bar college athletes from being considered employees or unionized.

Under Trump, college athletes will remain independent contractors, meaning they will not enjoy the guaranteed wages or labor protections associated with employee status.

It remains to be seen how a second Trump administration would respond to the outstanding challenges. House v. NCAA settlementproposes distributing up to $22 million in revenue sharing to athletes per school. The deal would allow universities to keep their power and a large portion of their revenue, while star athletes would still be able to negotiate individual salaries, though most athletes would receive no additional compensation beyond their scholarships and would have NIL deals to negotiate for themselves.

But there’s one potential wild card outcome that neither party seems eager to embrace: Congressional reform to expand the Ted Stevens Act, the same law that governs Olympic sports. Lawmakers have the power to create a new model for college athletics that protects both the athletes and the universities that support them.

But knowing how difficult it is for Congress to agree on even a new post office name, the future of college athletics likely hinges on this presidential race. The decisions made in the voting booth could reshape the lives of student athletes for generations to come.

___

Robert Boland He is co-chair of the Entertainment and Sports Business Sector at the Shumaker Law Firm and operates a practice focusing on collegiate and professional sports. Boland can be contacted at: (email protected).

Post Views: 0