Why Are Student-Athletes Still Shut Out of the Room?
OPENING STATEMENTS
As lawmakers, the NCAA, conferences, and university presidents are all busy drawing up plans for college athletics, we once again are asking a basic question: Why are student-athletes – the ones living this reality, the ones central to its operation and success – still sitting on the sidelines?
The last few years have demonstrated that those running college sports were never looking out for student-athletes. For decades, they built a system that enriched themselves, while the athletes who powered it got nothing. Now that the courts have forced change, and athletes have begun receiving a fairer share of the value they create, the same people who created the mess in the first place are trying to reshape it. That’s resulted in gridlock, whack-a-mole approaches and endless court battles.
Two narratives from the last week reinforce that it’s time to get athletes in the room, something that should have happened immediately following the House v. NCAA decision.
The first is what’s happening in Congress. The SAFE Act. The SCORE Act. Perhaps a new bill from Ted Cruz. Each one claims to “fix” college sports. But Congress can’t even pass a budget on time. And college tuition has risen more than 180% since 1980, putting higher education out of reach for millions. Why, in that context, is Congress so preoccupied with regulating the few hundred thousand student athletes instead of the 19 million other students struggling under the cost of college?
The answer is clear: these bills aren’t written for athletes. They’re written for institutions. They’re designed to restore power to the very people who built the broken system in the first place. Look how the debate is framed: “chaos” in college sports. But who defines chaos? University leaders and NCAA executives, those who used unpaid labor to fund eight-figure coaching salaries and bloated athletic departments. Courts finally blew that open. Now, instead of reckoning with the truth, institutions are running to Congress to restore their control.
The second is that the College Sports Commission’s NIL Go platform seems to be falling apart before it really gets started. This week, two eye-opening headlines:
First, multiple major collectives have already abandoned NIL Go, citing long delays and unclear rules. Some are paying athletes on unapproved deals. Others are skipping the system entirely. “I have deep concerns as to the longevity of this system,” a source told Front Office Sports in the aforementioned link.
Second, CSC rolled out what amounts to a “snitch line” for reporting violations, an apparent admission that it can’t actually monitor the number of NIL deals.
This system was supposed to bring order. Instead, it’s sowing chaos. In trying to review every deal, CSC has built a system it can’t possibly manage. Collectives see it. Athletes feel it. The whole thing is collapsing under its own weight.
What ties these two stories together? Leadership still thinks it knows best. Congress writes laws. The NCAA spins fear. CSC builds unworkable systems. And through it all, athletes are treated as the problem to be managed, not the people whose voices should lead.
If there’s any path forward, it has to start with athletes. Schools already have student-athlete advisory councils. Strengthen them. Build regional and national bodies. Put athletes in front of lawmakers and commissions, not filtered through the NCAA or administrators.
Because athletes know what’s at stake. They know how to balance revenue with protecting women’s and Olympic sports. They live the reality of NIL’s promise and its flaws. And they’re the only ones who don’t profit from propping up the old system.
Until that happens, new bills and crumbling platforms like NIL Go aren’t solutions. They’re just more evidence of a system that still won’t listen to the people at its core.
EXHIBIT A
The Diego Pavia eligibility case seemed to conclude this week, as the Sixth Circuit declined to rule after the NCAA granted the Vanderbilt QB a waiver. No shock there. Buried in Judge Whitney Hermandorfer’s opinion is what may prove far more consequential: the JUCO Rule may not withstand legal firepower. She wrote that “under prevailing theories of antitrust harm, NCAA member schools’ market coordination through the JUCO Rule raises red flags.” What follows is practically a roadmap for future lawsuits, spelling out how athletes could challenge restrictions that limit transfers from junior colleges.
EXHIBIT B
The Big Ten seems to be closer to a private capital deal that could pump at least $2 billion into the conference. Talks, ongoing for months, would create “Big Ten Enterprises,” a commercial arm to house all media rights, sponsorships, and revenue streams. In exchange for upfront cash, schools would extend the league’s grant of rights through 2046, locking members in for the long haul. Nearly all schools are on board, though Ohio State and Michigan remain cautious. A MSU Regent publicly opposed, tweeting, “I believe selling off Michigan’s precious public university assets would betray our responsibility to students and taxpayers. I will firmly oppose any such effort – and I hope colleagues at @MSU and @OhioState will stand with me as well.” Three private equity firms are in play, with a decision expected in the coming weeks. As always, it’s the details that matter, particularly whether this is centered on locking schools into a system that guarantees institutional stability, or one that will help with athlete empowerment, support for Olympic sports, adherence to Title IX, etc.
ON THE DOCKET
While the CSC was busy setting up a snitch line, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors adopted new NIL rules this week that raise serious legal red flags. One prohibits schools from guaranteeing athletes money from third-party NIL deals, restricting compensation opportunities in ways that may violate antitrust law. Another requires a “direct activation” clause in all collective and booster agreements, a mandate that limits contract freedom and undermines athletes’ autonomy over their own economic rights absent a collective bargaining framework. These rules once again miss the mark for student-athletes. Change is inevitable. The only questions are what form it takes, who drives it, and how it ultimately gets enforced.
FOOTNOTES
“To be successful you need both [NIL and revenue share], and going into next year in men’s basketball we’re going to be behind in both. Our revenue share has got to go up, or our off-court NIL has got to go way up or we’re not going to be able to maintain success. Everybody here knows that and everybody’s trying to put together a plan to come up with it.”
– Mark Byington, Vanderbilt head men's basketball coach (via Yahoo Sports).
