Union Power Play: Why Athlete Voice Has to Be the Next Big Bracket Buster
OPENING STATEMENTS
As one of college sports’ most celebrated events kicks off this week, there are so many disparate conversations happening about where everything goes next. University presidents are huddling in high‑profile meetings, Congress is dusting off the SCORE Act, and the White House is openly floating an executive order to drag athletes back toward the old scholarship but no pay model. Against that backdrop, Jennifer Abruzzo’s recent reminder that college “players are workers” who deserve the right to organize and bargain over their conditions has stuck with me, not because it’s radical, but because it names what the rest of the system keeps trying to talk around.
So I wanted to consider further the comments from the former National Labor Relations Board general counsel’s comments and what unionization and collective bargaining allow for student-athletes.
In plain terms, unionization would allow student-athletes the legal right to sit across from schools, conferences, or a new league office and bargain over money, schedules, health protections, and discipline rules. Right now, those terms are largely set by the NCAA, the College Sports Commission, and school leaders, and athletes are expected to accept whatever lands on their phones and in their inboxes.
Unionization could also unlock a legal shield that pro leagues already rely on. Today’s revenue‑sharing cap, which started at $20.5 million per school and is tied to a percentage of certain revenues, was imposed through an antitrust case, not negotiated with athletes. That means it’s exposed to more litigation and constant tinkering, with athletes stuck reacting to changes instead of helping design the system in the first place. A collectively bargained deal would be harder to challenge and could build in protections that matter on the ground.
The fairness case for collective bargaining starts with something simple: power. Athletes now live in a world of revenue sharing, NIL contracts, private equity deals, and conference media plays, yet they almost never have a binding vote on any of it. When new rules roll out, whether it’s a university participant agreement with the CSC, stricter enforcement through NIL Go, or transfer limits with hidden penalties, institutions and regulators sign first, and athletes find out later.
A union or union‑style structure would allow student-athletes to demand:
Guardrails on practice and travel so athletes can actually pursue the majors they choose, not just what fits the team’s schedule.
Clear rules and enforcement around healthcare, second medical opinions, and long‑term support after injuries in a NIL and revenue‑sharing world.
Real input on how the $20.5 million pool is allocated across sports, positions, and years, instead of leaving those decisions to spreadsheets built by people whose jobs depend on winning and maximizing revenue.
For women’s and Olympic sport athletes, unionization may be the only way to stop being treated as the softest place to cut when budgets tighten. As private equity models and spin‑off entities like Utah’s brands and entertainment arm take hold, the legal duty to deliver returns can easily crowd out the educational mission. A players’ union could make it explicit: you don’t get to fund football and men’s basketball by trimming women’s rosters and Olympic opportunities in the dark.
None of this is free or easy. Once athletes are treated as employees and bargain for pay floors, benefits, and protections, those obligations show up as hard costs in budgets. Schools already struggling with realignment costs, buyouts, and facility arms races will look for places to save, and history tells us where they’ll look first: non‑revenue sports, walk‑ons, and athletes whose games don’t drive TV deals. If we’re not careful, we could end up with a “solution” that improves conditions for a small slice of athletes while thousands quietly lose chances to compete.
There are design questions too. Who is the employer when conferences spin off media and commercial rights into separate companies? Do public and private schools end up in different bargaining structures? How do we make sure football doesn’t dominate every vote and leave women’s and Olympic athletes with formal membership but no real leverage? Those aren’t reasons to walk away from unionization; they’re reasons to start building smarter models now, before the next wave of deals is signed without athlete input.
The industry is already planning for a world with some form of collective bargaining. ESPN has reported that multiple athletic directors, and at least one sitting university president, are seriously engaging with Athletes.org’s draft CBA and see a negotiation where athletes have “a real collective voice in setting the rules” as the best path to a sustainable future. Yahoo Sports detailed Tennessee AD Danny White’s public presentation of a collective‑bargaining framework and reported that more than 30 college athletics leaders support some form of collective bargaining with athletes, with several ADs describing it as essential or inevitable.
That leaves athletes at a crossroads. The choice is not between unionization or nothing. It’s between a future where the people doing the work have a structured, enforceable voice in shaping college sports, and a future where everyone else signs the contracts and calls it reform. The question I keep coming back to is this: if college sports is willing to professionalize everything except athlete power, whose interests are we really protecting?
EXHIBIT A
Women’s sports delivered a string of wins this week. ESPN is pouring more money, talent, and technology into its NCAA women’s basketball tournament coverage, signaling it sees sustained growth, not a one‑time Caitlin Clark bump. The David & Nicole Tepper Foundation committed $250,000 to UNC Charlotte women’s athletics, funding health, facilities, and leadership development for 200 women student‑athletes. A federal judge ordered Stephen F. Austin to keep its women’s teams while a Title IX class action over recent cuts moves forward, a crucial reminder that courts are now a front line for protecting women’s sports opportunities. In the pros, the WNBA and its players reached terms on a new labor agreement, and the NWSL opened 2026 with a record 129,202 fans across eight matches, including 30,207 for Boston Legacy FC’s debut at Gillette Stadium. Quite the week in women’s sports.
EXHIBIT B
Wisconsin just offered a real‑time example of the NIL secrecy trend I wrote about last month. Lawmakers approved a bill that sends roughly $14.6 million a year in taxpayer money to UW-Madison athletics for facility debt while explicitly shielding NIL contracts and related “strategy, allocation, revenue generation and news” from the state’s open‑records law. Supporters keep framing this as protecting athlete privacy and competitive interests, but athletes didn’t write this bill and don’t control what gets hidden. Whether you’re making six figures from NIL or nothing at all, it’s your market being kept in the dark so everyone else can define “fairness” for you.
ON THE DOCKET
Sounds as if House GOP leaders are making some revisions to the SCORE Act with the intention of bringing it to the floor next month. The latest tweak list reportedly includes NCAA organizational changes, new transfer limits, more disclosures – and even talk of touching coach pay. I’ll believe that last part when the system that created runaway buyouts suddenly decides to regulate itself. What’s clear is this bill still comes from the industry, not athletes, and still centers protecting the model over fixing it. For now, plan on a mid‑April House vote with very little involvement from student-athletes.
FOOTNOTES
$32 million
Indiana University’s operating budget in FY 2025 for its men’s basketball program, nearly $9 million more than any other public institution
