Another One
Unpacking the latest with college sports on Capitol Hill
Another One
I’m going to do this in two parts, the first a meat-and-potatoes breakdown of who/what/where/when, the second a dump of thoughts about the latest with college sports on Capitol Hill, pretty stream-of-consciousness.
So. On Tuesday, the House’s subcommittee for commerce, manufacturing and trade held a markup hearing for the SCORE Act, which I’ve written about extensively (here, here, here and here, then some more here on social media in recent days, when the Republican-led bill was formally introduced with two Democratic co-sponsors). There were opening statements. Democratic reps, led by Lori Trahan (MA) and Yvette Clarke (NY), introduced amendments to a bill that would check off all the NCAA’s longstanding asks of Congress and then some. There was debate over the proposed amendments. When there were votes, the Republicans used their control of the subcommittee to vote the amendments down. Then there was a roll-call vote on whether to advance the bill to the next stage, which went 12-11 in favor, split straight across party lines.
Here’s what’s next: The bill will go to a markup hearing at the committee level, which will include a vote on whether it will advance to the House floor. Of the many college sports bills that have been introduced in recent years, exactly none have made it to the the House or Senate floor, meaning this bill has a shot to reach uncharted territory.
Three committees — Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, Education and Workforce — are pushing the bill together. And while each of those committees could hold its own markup, it would only take one to nudge the bill forward. All of this, brain-melting as it may be, gives the bill a decent shot of passing through the House, a simple-majority chamber that wouldn’t require bipartisan support (read: Democratic votes) at any step of the process. But — and this is a big, big but — the bill WOULD need bipartisan support in the Senate to ultimately pass. That’s where, as currently written, the bill’s chances start to weaken. Though the Republicans have control of the Senate, they would have to sway seven Democrats to break a filibuster. And that also assumes every Republican senator is on board with this version of the SCORE Act, which is not a guarantee.
If you feel like you’ve read those sentences before, it’s because you probably have, either in this newsletter or from another writer sick enough to keep up with the college sports/D.C. crossover. In that vein, I will probably be on a short vacation when the next hearing happens. And because the sickness has some bounds, I do not plan to be thinking about or reporting on Congress (or anything else). But before I go, as promised, here are some additional thoughts on Tuesday’s hearing and related matters:
When I watch these hearings, I’m looking for which representatives seem actually engaged on the issues, especially if they are outside the group of usual suspects. Trahan, a former Georgetown volleyball player, has long been the most vocal on college sports among House Democrats. In the past few opportunities, Clarke has taken strong stances, too. On the Republican side, Gus Bilirakis (FL), the subcommittee’s chair, introduced the bill with Brett Guthrie (R-KY), chair of the Energy and Commerce committee. Their participation is expected. Colleagues tend to take their lead. But on Tuesday, a few other main/supporting characters emerged. I’ll tick through them below.
Frank Pallone (D-NJ): As the highest ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce committee, Pallone has typically maintained that there are far bigger issues in higher ed than college sports (and he’s right). But on Tuesday, he took that tack while also hammering that Congress does not need to act on college sports at all — saying the SCORE Act would further exploit athletes instead of protecting them. Beyond Trahan, Clarke and Debbie Dingell (D-MI), to a degree, most Democrats have often seemed pretty indifferent to these issues, allowing the Republicans and NCAA to set the tone with a relentless lobbying campaign for Congressional intervention. But with the bill making some headway, Pallone swapped indifference for a reasoned viewpoint on why he’s against it. (Side note: If Pallone’s next act is in podcasting or narrating audiobooks, I wouldn’t be surprised.).
Russell Fry (R-SC): He’s a member of two of the three committees working on this bill: Energy and Commerce + Judiciary. During the markup hearing, he repeatedly went head-to-head with Trahan, jumping in to counter each of the amendments she proposed. Trahan’s first amendment asked to strike language that would provide broad antitrust protection for the NCAA and its members, pre-empt state laws to further insulate the NCAA and its members from legal challenges and bar athletes from becoming employees. Fry immediately argued that the amendment was outside of the bill’s scope. It was not voted on.
Kathy Castor (D-FL): Even more than Pallone, Castor inserted herself in many of the debates Tuesday, both to share her views on Title IX/gender equity and back Trahan up. Castor’s involvement in the hearing pleasantly surprised a few aides for other Democrats on the subcommittee. And like Pallone, it pushed against the notion, if only lightly, that most Democrats lack strong-held beliefs on college sports.
After Fry objected to Trahan’s first proposed amendment, she introduced two more. One asked for clarification on who would enforce the athlete protections in the bill (and how they would enforce it). The other looked to soften the state pre-emption provision, which would make NCAA rules override state laws, slowing — or completely halting — the rush of lawsuits on eligibility and other issues. And it was the first amendment, focusing on enforcement, that led to a spirited and head-scratching back-and-forth. Trahan pushed the Republicans on how the bill would be enforced. In the middle of a vague answer, Bilirakis said that if the NCAA or its members violated the terms of the bill, their antitrust protection would go away. Trahan pounced on that, asking for further clarification on how that would happen. Bilirakis did not have a clear explanation, saying he would like to work with Trahan to make it clearer. Guthrie stepped in, also saying they could smooth out that part before the next markup hearing. If SportsCenter did highlight reels for Congressional hearings — and it’s a good thing it doesn’t — this part would have made the cut.
Related: Bilirakis and Trahan met Monday, in advance of the subcommittee’s markup hearing, to discuss the bill. It sounds like they might have to meet again.
The Republicans, as the drivers of this bill, spent most of their time knocking aside the Democrats’ arguments.
If the Democrats have a unified view of the bill, it’s that there doesn’t need to be a bill at all — that the bill has too many question marks, including but not limited to enforcement, to keep advancing as is, and that broad antitrust protection, insulating the NCAA from future lawsuits, is antithetical to how progress and change has been achieved. Trahan even suggested narrower antitrust protection, mirroring the recently approved House settlement, that would sunset after a set period of time, keeping it from being an indefinite shield from legal challenges. “Make them prove to us that they deserve this shield,” Trahan said, describing the sunset provision as a check on the NCAA’s and conferences’ power (and a way for Congress to address issues that arise over the next decade).
Clarke, in her opening statement, called the bill The NCAA Wish List Act.
To get in on that action, Fry, responding to Trahan’s amendment to maintain an athlete’s ability to sue over mistreatment, called that effort The Trial Lawyer Protection Act.
In that make-believe TV segment, SportsCenter might also have a graphic listing all the phony bill names the reps used to needle one another. Maybe it would even hold a fan vote for the best one.
Speaking of voting, there was a little bit of drama at the end of the final roll call. It was tied 11-11. Somehow, they were missing the 23rd vote. There was some grumbling into the microphone. Intrigued, confused, following on a grainy stream from another time zone, I texted an aide: “So, uh, what now?” Then that last Republican vote emerged. The score was 12-11, the bill advancing to the next round.
Extremely complicated and beyond my comprehension so thanks for making it easier to identify some of the political players!