Skip to playerSkip to main contentSkip to footer
  • 3/24/2025
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing prior to the congressional recess, Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) spoke about the consequences of adopting an 'employee model' for student athletes.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript


Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Transcript
00:00Thank you, Mr. Chair. This one is from the National Library of Medicine dated
00:04February 2017. On average, two NCAA football players die per season. Without
00:12objection, the gentleman from Kansas is now recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr.
00:16Chairman. I yield to my colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Frye. Gentleman's
00:23recognized. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for yielding. What's
00:28interesting to me in this whole debate is this is the disconnect from
00:33Washington, D.C. with the rest of the world, right? That we're talking about a
00:37federalization on the other side of college athletes with commissions and
00:41regs and all this stuff. That is the disconnect, right? When you
00:45cross the Potomac, somehow these things crop up. Last week in the Energy and
00:49Commerce Committee, we heard from student-athletes and they resoundingly
00:52said, we don't want the employee model. We hear that on the other side, that this is
00:57where we should go. We hear from the coaches today who are very talented.
01:00They don't want the employee model because it changes the face of a
01:04student-athlete. And so, Director McIntosh, you're on the hot seat for a
01:09little bit, but I want to kind of walk through some of the the implications
01:12that if Congress were to adopt what others on the other side are saying in
01:16an employee model, what does that do? First of all, if they're
01:21employees, you have an employer-employee relationship, which presumably means that
01:25they could get fired if they're injured, is that correct? That is correct, sir.
01:28Okay, and you also have additional taxes that the university would pay on their
01:33behalf, the student-athletes behalf, is that correct? That's correct. Of course, they
01:36would be paying taxes now as well on any revenue that they
01:40receive, right? I think it's actually worse than that, Congressman. I think they
01:44would be taxed on the revenue that they received and taxed on benefits that
01:48they currently receive in which they're not paying taxes on. Right, so
01:53mental wellness coaches, tutors, room and board, food, swag that they get, these
02:00will all be taxable under existing law, is that correct? Potentially. Okay,
02:05and what about what happens in the event that an athlete is injured?
02:11I think that's the problem. One of the benefits that our student-athletes
02:19have right now is they have guaranteed scholarships for four years even if they
02:23are injured. I live this myself as an employee in a sports organization in the
02:30NFL as a player. I was injured in the second year of my contract and I was
02:35terminated after the third year. All right, so how many student-athletes
02:38are at the University of Wisconsin? Approximately 800, sir. 800. So if you go
02:43to an employee model, you have just hired 800 additional employees of the
02:48University, correct? Theoretically, yes. What does that do to your budget? It puts
02:53tremendous pressure on our budget. I'm trying to envision our HR department
03:00processing 800, posting 800 positions, posting a position for a wide receiver
03:07on our football team. It seems impractical, sir. Right, and to be fair,
03:13you might, as the University of Wisconsin, be able to absorb better than other
03:17schools, correct? So smaller schools would be really on the chopping block. I think
03:22that is true. I think we would have a better chance. I think it would be
03:25detrimental to programs at lower levels. So if we go, if we decided to go
03:29to an employee model, which I think is a mistake, you're now paying more money and
03:35what happens naturally when you've got to pay more money but there's a finite
03:38amount of money that you are budgeted every year? You have to make cuts
03:42elsewhere, is that correct? We would be forced to find the money through growing
03:45of revenues or cutting of expenses. Okay, and cutting of expenses probably means
03:49cutting of sports, correct? We would take every step necessary to avoid that. That
03:54would be the last resort. But it is a reality that that could happen? I think
03:59that would be a reality for many programs at lower levels. And also, what
04:02happens too, we have, this has not been discussed at all, so if you're injured as
04:05a college athlete and you're considered an employee of the university when
04:09you're injured, does that also trigger workers' compensation laws within the
04:12state? Presumably. What does that do to the state budgets that are impacted? So
04:17I mean, so basically all the schools, including, I mean, we did a liability
04:20safe harbor bill last year that was supported by big schools, small schools,
04:24historically black colleges, student athlete organizations and entities,
04:28because they need that oxygen in which to come up with their own framework. But
04:32if we go to this model, that's the, that's the rub, is that when somebody is
04:36injured, which injuries happen in college sports, you're now blowing wide open a
04:40state budget from a workers' compensation perspective, because student
04:44athletes do get hurt. They recover, but they do get hurt. Is that correct? That's
04:48correct, sir. I just think it's important that we remind ourselves, this is not
04:52what our student athletes are asking for. I'll take it just briefly, my last
04:56remaining seconds. The NCAA and other entities, and I'm not going to apologize
05:01for prior actions of the NCAA, but they can't even enforce the rules right now
05:05without being sued. And I understand that y'all are, I say collectively, the
05:09college sports are seeking a liability safe harbor that would kind of go along
05:14with any federal legislation. How important is that liability shield to
05:18help preserve college athletics in the future? Yes, thank you, Congressman. I
05:22think it's extremely important. I think it's important to distinguish. We are not
05:27asking for blanket antitrust exemption. We are looking for a limited safe harbor
05:32in areas in which we need to be allowed to make rules, like around eligibility,
05:37that can preserve the opportunity for future student athletes in the future. I
05:41don't think we want 12, 13 year college athletes. Those are the types of rules
05:48right now that are being determined by the courts. So like the basketball player
05:53that just was granted his eighth year of eligibility, right? I'm not
05:57gonna call him out by name, but I mean we're institutionalizing the Van Wilders
06:01of college sports if we go down that model. That's the risk that's
06:06out there right now. All right, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
06:09The gentleman yields back. That concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing
06:12before the committee today without...

Recommended