Dem
53
Ties
2
GOP
45
Yesterday, the Senate managed to pass a substantive bill, and with a sizable bipartisan majority of 77-22. It is the Protect College Sports Act, (PCSA) which would, if its name is to be believed, protect college sports. And, as every reader knows, there has never been a bill passed by the United States Senate with a name that was anything other than 100% accurate and honest.
Pretty much anyone who follows college sports agrees that they are on a problematic trajectory. In short, the fact that colleges can now pay players has created a world of haves and have-nots. That is true in terms of the athletes (those famous/skilled enough to earn big bucks vs. the rest) and it is particularly true in terms of universities (some can afford to keep up with the arms race, most cannot). A related issue is that players now have almost unlimited freedom of movement (coaches, too, though that's always been true for them). That pretty much all players are free agents at the end of each season is (largely) good for them, but it's not great for less-well-heeled universities, since even if they discover a diamond in the rough, it's likely that diamond will move on to greener pastures (and we mean "greener" on multiple levels).
The bill is something of a frankenbill that is meant to address these issues. Here are the main elements of the legislation:
Salary Cap: Officially, college football teams are only allowed to spend $21.5 million on their rosters. In reality, there are numerous teams that are circumventing the cap in various ways. The PCSA would more than double the cap, to $49 million, and would back that with federal might. The general idea is that teams can now spend a lot (and some, roughly 15 of them, are already in the ballpark of the $49 million figure), and they can be above-board about it, but they won't be able to circumvent the rules because of the more serious enforcement. In practice, elite teams are pretty good at finding ways to spend on their players over and above salary (for example, deluxe practice facilities). Further, outside of the elite teams, most programs can't afford the $21.5 million, much less $49 million. So, this provision actually has the potential to make the have/have-not problem worse.
Conference Alignment: There are currently four "power conferences" in football: the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC. But not all power conferences are created equal, and the SEC (16 teams) and Big Ten (18 teams) currently tower over the other two, particularly in football. The PCSA prevents any conference from growing beyond 19 teams. This is meant to keep the SEC and Big Ten from forming a superconference that would almost completely dominate college football. The legislation also says that any team that wants to switch from one power conference to another has to spend 3 years as an independent school before making the jump. This is meant to keep the SEC and Big Ten from raiding the Big 12 and ACC for their best remaining schools. Whether these limitations are legal is a question that will likely end up in court. Also, the "no screwing around with the conferences" provision sunsets in 2031, when the TV contracts just so happen to be up. For those who don't follow the business of sports, it's always right around TV-contract time that teams make these kinds of jumps.
Player Movement: Players would be limited to a maximum of 5 years of eligibility, starting with the day they graduate high school or on their 19th birthday, whichever comes first. They would be allowed to transfer schools without penalty just one time. Thereafter, they would have to sit out a year if they wanted to transfer again.
Player Agents: Player agents would be more closely regulated, and their fees would be capped at 5% of the player's salary.
Coaches: The only new limit placed on coaches is that they cannot change schools mid-season. That is already basically unheard of, and so does not represent a substantive change. Coaches are free to change jobs in the offseason as frequently as they wish, and there is no limit on what they can be paid (their salary does not count against "the cap").
Non-Revenue Sports: The bill forbids schools from cutting scholarships for non-revenue sports (basically, Olympic sports, plus any team sports that are not basketball or football) for 9 years. Advocates for the legislation say this is necessary to keep these sports from being eliminated for the sake of football and basketball. However, the number of scholarships awarded to non-revenue athletes has actually ticked upward slightly since the new era of paying football/basketball players began. So, this is a hypothetical problem, and not currently an actual one. This looks like a provision put into the bill to make it seem "fair to athletes."
Tuition: The PSCA requires that athletes receive assistance with tuition and other educational expenses for up to 10 years after their eligibility expires. The 10-year-window is to allow them to have an athletic career, then return to school once the career is over. They also get 5 years of post-eligibility health insurance/medical coverage. These provisions are also clearly meant to make the bill seem "fair to athletes." They are more substantive than the non-revenue sports provisions, however.
Ombudsman: The bill also calls for schools to create an office for a student-athlete ombudsman. We are both academics, and the next time an ombudsperson exercises any meaningful power will be the first time.
Antitrust Exemption: The universities are granted a limited antitrust exemption, similar to the one baseball enjoys, so as to give them more legal cover/power to enforce the new regime.
Perhaps you can tell that, while we are aware of the problems the bill is trying to address, we are underwhelmed by this particular solution.
It is instructive, we think, to list some of the supporters of the PCSA:
Donald Trump: He was on TV this weekend flogging the bill.
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX): He is the main sponsor of the legislation, and has been on TV for weeks flogging the bill. His appearances have been a vintage display of Ted Cruz sleaziness. For example, he's claimed that "hundreds of thousands" of athletes will lose their scholarships, but for the PCSA. This is only true if every non-basketball and non-football scholarship is wiped out, something that, as we note above, is not remotely close to coming to pass.
Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-WA): The moderate senator is co-sponsor of the bill.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL): He's not 100% thrilled with the legislation, but he voted for it. It's a red-letter day for him, because this might be the first bill he's voted on that he actually understood.
Roughly 50 Other Republicans, and Roughly 25 Democrats: The final roll-call vote has not been posted to the Library of Congress' website, but based on various procedural votes, it's clear that about half the Democrats, along with all the Republicans who are not Rand Paul (KY) voted for the bill.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association: This is the organization that represents the management of the nation's universities and athletic departments.
The American Football Coaches Association: This is the group that represents all college football coaches.
The National Association of Basketball Coaches: This is the group that represents all college basketball coaches. It is led, incidentally, by Barack Obama's brother-in-law Craig Robinson (not the actor/comedian).
And here are some of the opponents of the PCSA:
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): He is a leading opponent of the bill, as he feels the provisions weigh particularly heavily on Black athletes.
The Congressional Black Caucus: They agree with Booker.
The NAACP: Them, too.
Roughly 21 Democrats, Plus Rand Paul: The Democrats who voted against the bill, judging by the procedural votes, were largely the more liberal members and the four Black members. Paul voted against the bill because he's really a Libertarian, and he favors the unregulated Wild West in virtually all contexts.
The AFL-CIO: They are among several labor groups that came out against the bill.
The College Football Players Association: This group represents college football players. It's not a union, more like a guild. The leadership observes that no athletes, and nobody representing athletes, was part of the negotiations over the bill.
Let us use this opportunity to note that total freedom of movement for athletes is not 100% good for them. Marvin Miller, legendary head of the Major League Baseball Players' Association from 1968-82, realized that it was actually best for labor if the "supply" was limited each year. So, if the players had been invited to the table, they might well have agreed to some sort of limits on movement. But they weren't invited.
Taking a look at these lists makes the bill even more malodorous to us. It sure looks like Republicans, along with many moderate Democrats, decided the only path forward was to give the wealthy and powerful a bunch of boons, and to toss a few bones at everyone else. By and large, it looks like a lot of schools that don't have well-heeled donors/alumni, and a whole lot of athletes, are going to get the short end of the stick. Certainly the bill is skewed enough that its "broad bipartisan support" is, at very least, misleading.
Cruz very much wants Republicans to make the bill the centerpiece of their closing argument in the last month of the campaign. He may be sleazy and dishonest, but he's also clever. And so, he knows at least three things: (1) The GOP doesn't have a whole lot else to run on; (2) Red states (like Texas and Ohio) love, love, love college football; and (3) If Cruz's bill becomes a big deal, it boosts his presidential hopes in 2028.
There are some flies in the ointment, however. First, some folks might notice some of the problems we've pointed out above. Maybe Texas and Texas A&M alums will be excited about the bill, but maybe not so much alums of, say, the less well-funded Rice or TCU. Second, "we had 2 years, and we passed a college sports bill" is a pretty thin record to run on. Third, it is not likely that the bill will become law before Election Day, as the House is not in session between now and then.
And when the bill does come before the House, it could have a tough row to hoe. There are, again, many Democrats who don't like the bill. On top of that, while Senate Republicans managed to (largely) come together, there are many House Republicans who don't like the legislation either. Some of them are opposed for libertarian reasons. Some of them think that athletes who don't play "real" sports should not be protected. Some of them represent districts that are home to one of the smaller schools who are likely to get stiffed.
So, Cruz is taking a victory lap for now. Heck, he might even take a trip to Cancun to celebrate. But we'll see how long the party lasts. (Z)