The NCAA has taken a significant step towards evaluating President Charlie Baker’s proposal for the creation of a new subdivision within Division I sports. In a letter to members, Baker suggested the formation of a tier for highly resourced schools that would require them to provide a minimum annual payment of $30,000 to at least half of their athletes through a trust fund. Additionally, Baker proposed allowing all Division I schools to offer unlimited educational benefits to athletes and enter into licensing deals involving their name, image, and likeness.
Georgia President Jere Morehead, who serves as chairman of the Division I Board of Directors, emphasized the importance of engaging in this conversation but acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding its outcome. The proposal will now be reviewed by the Division I Council, which consists mainly of athletic directors and conference commissioners. The Council will collaborate with various stakeholders, including college presidents and conference commissioners, to explore the feasibility of Baker’s idea and report back with updates during the April meeting.
Congress holds the key to stabilizing the collegiate environment, according to Morehead. He highlighted the various bills currently being introduced or set to be introduced and expressed the need for prompt action. If discussing a new model facilitates progress towards reaching a solution, Morehead believes it is imperative to undertake the conversation.
Republican Congress Members to Hold Hearing on College Athletics and NIL
Republican members of Congress, Cathy McMorris of Washington and Gus Bilirakis of Florida, have announced that they will be hosting a hearing on January 18 to discuss college athletics and NIL (name, image, and likeness). This hearing will mark the 11th one on Capitol Hill since 2020 regarding college athletics, and it will be the second hearing for Baker within the span of four months.
The NCAA has been seeking assistance from Congress for several years to regulate NIL compensation, especially after the passing of various state laws. In response to potential litigation, the association took a relatively hands-off approach. However, the NCAA is now taking a more active role. Recently, the council approved a set of new NIL rules designed to bring transparency for athletes and schools. The NCAA aims to encourage athletes to report their NIL deals, building a comprehensive database for informed decision-making. Moreover, the NCAA aims to establish a registry of agents and companies that work with athletes, along with standardized components for NIL contracts.
The council is still working on another proposal, similar to one put forth by Baker. This proposal would involve bringing NIL activities in-house, allowing schools to facilitate deals between athletes and companies. However, the schools would still be prohibited from directly paying athletes for NIL or using it as a recruiting incentive. This proposal seems contrary to Baker’s vision of a new subdivision.
Florida deputy athletic director, Lynda Tealer, who chairs the council’s NIL working group, acknowledged that Baker’s plan for schools to compensate athletes might require congressional intervention to avoid considering these athletes as employees of their respective institutions. Tealer further mentioned that the board has requested the council to address Baker’s proposal as a whole, while also considering the possibility of discussing it in separate parts.
Ultimately, the council will flesh out the details further and seek approval from the board.
