The House Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce held the 11th NIL Congressional hearing on January 18th, 2024 that debated several topics regarding collegiate name, image, and likeness (NIL). However, it’s uncertain that this hearing actually had any influence on whether or not a federal NIL law will be passed. The one thing that was clear, though, is the divide among athletes’ opinions regarding their employee status, which was a major topic of Florida Rep. Gus Bilirakis’ discussion draft for the “FAIR College Sports Act” — the focus of this hearing.
Some athletes like Meredith Page, a Radford Volleyball player, are gravely concerned that enforcing an employee model in college athletics could mean the potential of non-revenue sports being cut and, thus, hindering athletes’ right, “To grow, to prosper, and acquire an education.” Another issue Page raised in her presentation was how such a model would negatively impact the matter of Title IX. On the other hand, UCLA quarterback and NIL entrepreneur Chase Griffin delivered his resolute argument that Bilirakis’ bill would “deprive another generation of college athletes of a proven and growing pathway to the American Dream.” Griffin even went so far as to state that college athletes already act as employees given the time and effort they commit to their sport, some might say implying they should be given the opportunity to be compensated as such too.
As for any final decision on enacting an employee model for college athletics, we’re still waiting. What we do know is there are two National Labor Relations Board cases deliberating whether at least a portion of athletes should be considered their universities’ employees.
Savannah NIL 