House Panel Advances Bill to Ban Student Athlete Employee Status

Legislation that would bar student athletes from being considered employees by virtue of their participation in college sports advanced in a House committee.

The House Education and the Workforce Committee voted 23-16 along party lines Thursday to advance the Protecting Student Athletes’ Economic Freedom Act (H.R. 8534).

The bill, introduced last month by Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee Chair Bob Good (R-Va.), would establish that college athletes may not be considered employees of an institution, conference, or association under any regulation as well as any federal or state law.

When introducing the legislation, Good said it was an attempt to “maintain a balance between athletics and academics” and to ensure that college sports “remain viable, beneficial, and enjoyable for all student athletes.”

During Thursday’s markup, Good pointed to recent gains for student athletes, including the right to profit off their name, image, and likeness and the flexibility to transfer and retain eligibility to play.

“While employment status might initially sound like the way to get more benefits, I sincerely believe student athletes don’t want the consequences of union dues, employment contracts, awkward relationships with coaches, and the inability to be regular students,” Good said.

Several unions and nonprofits submitted letters opposing the bill, including the AFL-CIO, the National College Players Association, and the Service Employees International Union.

SEIU said in its letter that the bill was “grossly over-broad, clumsily constructed, and fails to take into account that our legal system has developed various tests in statute, regulation, and common law under myriad federal and state legal regimes to determine employee status.”

“Instead of clarifying employment laws, this legislation uses a sledgehammer to demolish the legal rights of the players it purports to protect – with a ‘solution’ that leaves players completely unprotected,” the union said.

Ongoing Litigation

The measure is aimed at a burgeoning unionization campaign among student athletes that began with Dartmouth College basketball players voting to join a union in March—a move the Ivy League institution is challenging.

A National Labor Relations Board judge is also contemplating whether players at the University of Southern California are employed by the university, the Pac-12 Conference, and the NCAA.

Separately, a case regarding whether student athletes should be considered employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act for minimum wage and overtime purposes currently is awaiting a decision in federal appeals court.

The House committee action also follows the NCAA and Power Five conferences agreeing to pay $2.75 billion in damages to college athletes to resolve three pending antitrust lawsuits. The agreement includes a framework for revenue sharing between universities and the athletes, but doesn’t go as far as to call them employees.

Employment status for college athletes would open several new legal questions, such as whether tuition benefits would become taxable, whether athletes could be “fired” from their institutions, and whether athletes would be covered by workplace safety and employment discrimination laws.

Republicans have called the classification of college athletes as employees an “existential threat” to university athletics. Yet despite being pro-union, Democrats have struggled to balance their support for workers with consideration for the total transformation in sports that would occur if student athletes won employment status.