House settlement enters political arena, where there's much congressional debating — and sniping — over college sports' future

Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) on a potential federal college sports bill: 'We're almost there, but I know we can make some tweaks that could improve the bill. We are close to filing the bill and getting it to markups.' (Photo byfor Breakthrough T1D)
WASHINGTON — Just a few minutes into Thursday's congressional hearing on college sports, a Democrat member accused her Republican colleagues of secretly drafting the legislation, intentionally cutting out members of her party and not properly giving public notification of the hearing.
Seconds later, another member put aside college sports talk to discuss how President Donald Trump, he says, is 'trying to destroy American higher education.'
Advertisement
And a third sitting committee member, very flatly, described her feelings on legislation that would grant the NCAA and power conferences liability protection: 'This is something I cannot support.'
If anyone thought the approval of the House settlement would result in a newfound focus and agreement among lawmakers over a federal college sports bill, think again.
'I just want to get this straight,' began Lori Trahan, a Democrat U.S. House representative from Massachusetts and a former college volleyball player, 'this committee is considering a bill that would constrain or roll back athlete rights, block further progress and give them little in return?'
Strong push — and pushback — to get to a House vote
Thursday's near 2 1/2 hour hearing before a House Commerce subcommittee signaled, quite clearly, that a bipartisan resolution over congressional legislation may still be leagues away — despite the passage of a landmark settlement ushering in the age of athlete revenue sharing within college sports.
Advertisement
In fact, Democrat members of this committee — the one that controls the future of any college sports bill in the House — launched criticisms toward the settlement itself. They don't, for instance, like the cap on athlete compensation (the settlement comes with an annual rev-share spending max per school). And they don't like the new enforcement entity (it stands to make athletes ineligible if third-party NIL deals are rejected by a new clearinghouse).
'I have some concerns with the current iteration of this bill as well as some provisions of the settlement,' said Yvette Clarke, a Democrat representative from New York. 'I am extremely hesitant to grant any kind of liability limit on antitrust exemptions at this stage given that antitrust lawsuits are the driving factor in bringing about this long overdue era of fair compensation for college athletes.'
And then, nearly two hours into the hearing, Clarke voiced publicly what so many inside and outside college athletics believe to be a solution. 'There needs to be some kind of legitimate collective bargaining between college athletes and the NCAA and its member institutions,' she said.
Despite Democrat pushback Thursday, Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), the chair of this House Commerce subcommittee, plans to soon introduce his bill, a draft of which was socialized last week and was at the center of the hearing. The bill mostly grants the NCAA and power conferences all of their requests for federal legislation: (1) preempts state NIL laws; (2) grants limited protection to enforce rules by codifying the settlement terms; and (3) deems college athletes as students and not employees.
Advertisement
After the hearing, Bilirakis told Yahoo Sports that he is open to considering suggestions from Democrats on changing portions of the draft. He is in the process of attempting to find a Democrat co-sponsor for the legislation, and he will now begin negotiating with members of two other House committees — Judiciary and Ed/Workforce — to attempt to reach a bipartisan agreement that seems, if not impossible, improbable.
Either way, a bill is coming.
'We're almost there, but I know we can make some tweaks that could improve the bill,' Bilirakis said. 'We are close to filing the bill and getting it to markups.'
But what then?
'Intentionally vague' future in college sports
Because of the Republican majority in the House, the bill, even without Democrat support, could work its way out of committee and onto the floor, where a vote along party lines may see it approved and then shipped to the Senate for a similar process.
Advertisement
However, despite a Republican majority in the Senate, legislation there faces a much more difficult path because of filibuster rules. Without 60 senators voting for the bill — that includes seven Democrats or independents — it is subject to delay.
If Thursday's hearing is any indication, Democrats believe that this legislation grants the NCAA and conferences too much antitrust protection and 'halts' progress made by athletes over compensation.
A similar draft of a bill exists in the Senate from Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas who has spearheaded negotiations over a college sports bill in that chamber. Five senators — three Democrats and two Republicans — have held regular in-person gatherings over legislation since March. No agreement has been reached, but Cruz, like Bilirakis, seems determined to introduce a bill soon.
The hurdles in reaching an agreement include (1) the breadth of liability protection and to which entity to grant those powers; (2) the anti-employment clause and its duration; and (3) long-term medical and healthcare support for athletes.
Advertisement
One thing is becoming abundantly clear: Without federal legislation, the NCAA and power conferences fear that the stream of legal challenges against its rules will continue, even within the House settlement structure.
The settlement leaves college sports' future 'intentionally vague,' described South Carolina Republican House member Russell Fry. But does this bill 'go too far?' he asked aloud. 'You don't want to go too far and create more problems than you solve.'
One of the big problems, lawmakers and college stakeholders say, is the unlimited amount of transfers within the industry — something that evolved into a leading discussion point in Thursday's hearing.
One witness in the hearing, William King, the SEC's associate commissioner for legal affairs, told lawmakers that officials need federal legislation to 'regulate transfers' — something that even some Democrats agree with. While new revenue-share contracts struck between schools and athletes are expected to limit movement, the contracts are not employment deals, thus many are questioning their enforceability.
Advertisement
'I thought it was crazy that kids were transferring during the NCAA tournament,' said Democrat Marc Veasey of Texas.
However, later on, Veasey said that pro-NCAA legislation such as this turns back college sports to a past without athlete compensation and other benefits.
'The past,' said Veasey, 'was jacked up.'
The Republicans fired back.
'We are not here to micromanage college sports,' Bilirakis said. 'We are here to strengthen it.'
Few across the aisle see it that way. In fact, Trahan took issue with the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission, and the NIL clearinghouse, 'NIL Go,' that is expected to review third-party athlete NIL deals to determine if they are 'real NIL and not pay-for-play,' as King described Thursday.
Advertisement
'This bill rewrites [the NIL] process to guarantee people in power always win and the athletes who fuel this multi-billion dollar industry always lose,' Trahan deadpanned.
NCAA keeps stacking up wins over eligibility
One of the issues not seriously raised Thursday: a player's eligibility, a concept that has been at the center of lawsuits from players requesting additional years of competition.
In fact, as the hearing began, the NCAA got good news from a state that, lately, has become a thorn in its collective side. A Tennessee judge denied a preliminary injunction in the eligibility case brought by Vols basketball player Zakai Zeigler, who, despite exhausting his college eligibility, filed suit challenging the NCAA rules granting athletes four competition seasons over five years.
Advertisement
The NCAA has now won 17 of 20 injunction decisions in eligibility cases in the past year, and the organization is appealing the three it did not win. NCAA president Charlie Baker told Yahoo Sports this week that he 'believes we will win those three' on appeal.
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the argument for a college sports bill marches onward. Despite the House settlement's approval, disagreements linger and divide exists.
What now? More talk, perhaps even more hearings and, maybe weeks from now, the introduction of legislation that may or may not go anywhere.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Libyan Express

2 days ago

• Libyan Express

Trump faces internal Republican rift over possible Iran intervention

Steve Bannon says let Israel 'finish what they started' The prospect of United States military involvement in Iran has exposed growing divisions within the Republican coalition, particularly among members of former President Donald Trump's political base, some of whom are urging caution against further entanglement in the Middle East. Several prominent figures associated with the so-called 'America First' movement — a key component of Trump's electoral support in 2016 and 2024 — have voiced concern over reports that the US could join Israeli efforts to target Iran's nuclear infrastructure in the absence of a diplomatic solution. Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist and a longstanding advocate of non-interventionist policies, said the US should not repeat past military engagements without broad national support. 'We can't do this again,' Bannon said at a press briefing in Washington on Wednesday. 'We can't have another Iraq.' Bannon reiterated his position on his War Room podcast, where he was joined by Jack Posobiec, another prominent conservative commentator. Posobiec argued that involving the US in regime change efforts could lead to unintended consequences. Bannon responded that such political change, if it occurs, 'has to come from the people, not from a foreign power.' The comments reflect wider concerns among certain Republican factions that military action could mark a departure from Trump's traditionally cautious approach to foreign conflicts. Critics have pointed to the potential deployment of advanced US munitions, including bunker-busting bombs, as a sign of possible escalation. Iran has issued warnings about any direct American involvement, suggesting it would have significant consequences, though it has not specified what form those might take. Trump downplays internal dissent Asked about opposition within his support base, Trump appeared dismissive of the idea that the issue could cause lasting political damage. 'My supporters are more in love with me today than they were even at election time,' he said at the White House on Wednesday. 'I only want one thing: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' While acknowledging that 'some are a little bit unhappy now,' Trump insisted that others agree with his assessment that preventing Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal is a priority. 'I'm not looking to fight,' he said. 'But if it's a choice between them fighting or having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do.' Trump has not formally announced any military plans, stating only that he has 'some ideas' on the path forward. Intraparty tensions The debate has highlighted a divide within the Republican Party over how the US should respond to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Marc Short, a former senior adviser to Trump and an ally of ex-Vice President Mike Pence, described the disagreement as 'a pretty large rift.' However, he suggested that Trump's political base was likely to remain loyal. 'Most of the president's followers are loyal to him more so than to any worldview,' Short said. Others argue that supporting Israel could strengthen Trump's standing among more traditional conservative voters. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in March found that 48% of Republicans supported using US military force to defend Israel, compared with 28% who disagreed. Among Democrats, only 25% agreed, while 52% expressed opposition. Iran has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons, but US and Israeli officials believe Tehran's programme could lead to regional instability. Analysts have warned that an Iranian nuclear capability could trigger a wider arms race in the Middle East. MAGA figures call for restraint Bannon urged the administration to provide greater clarity on its intentions. 'This is one of the oldest civilisations in the world, with over 90 million people,' he said. 'This is not something you play around with. You have to think this through, and the American people have to be on board.' Other high-profile Republicans have echoed those concerns. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote on social media: 'Anyone calling for the US to become fully involved in the Israel–Iran war is not America First. We are tired of foreign wars.' Former Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson has also criticised interventionist rhetoric, including in a recent exchange with Senator Ted Cruz, in which Carlson challenged Cruz's stance on regime change in Iran. Senator Lindsey Graham, a long-time Republican figure on foreign affairs, took a different view, telling Fox News he hoped Trump would support Israel's campaign. 'Iran is an existential threat to our friends in Israel,' Graham said. Vice President JD Vance attempted to address the debate by expressing confidence in the president's judgment. 'People are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue,' he wrote online. As of Wednesday evening, no decision had been announced. Trump said discussions were ongoing and that a final determination had yet to be made.

Libyan Express

15-06-2025

• Libyan Express

US envoy Massad Boulos to visit Libya next week

BY Libyan Express Jun 15, 2025 - 04:03 Massad Boulos, US special envoy to Africa, pictured with President Donald Trump during a White House meeting Massad Boulos, the United States' special envoy to Africa under President Donald Trump, is scheduled to visit Libya next week amid escalating tensions in the region. This will be his first official trip to the country. According to Middle East Eye, Boulos intends to begin his visit in Tripoli, the seat of the Government of National Unity, before travelling to Benghazi, where forces loyal to Khalifa Haftar are based. Earlier this year, Boulos was expected to visit Libya but instead went to Cairo, reportedly at the request of Egyptian authorities. Sources cited by Middle East Eye reveal that during this period, Boulos held talks with a senior advisor to former Libyan Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah regarding the unfreezing of billions of dollars in Libya's sovereign wealth funds, which remain frozen under sanctions. The discussions included the potential investment of some of these funds through American companies operating in Libya. In a related development, NBC reported that the Trump administration allegedly pressured the Libyan government to accept up to one million Palestinians from Gaza—where Israeli military operations have been ongoing since 7 October 2023—in exchange for the release of these funds. Meanwhile, Saddam Haftar, son of Khalifa Haftar, is reportedly gaining influence within the Trump administration's national security circles. According to US and Arab sources speaking to Middle East Eye, Saddam's profile has risen, positioning him as a potential future leader. In April, Saddam Haftar visited Washington, meeting with Boulos at the State Department. Notably, he also held confidential discussions with senior US intelligence officials, details of which had not previously been disclosed. Middle East Eye also notes that in 2019, former President Trump gave tacit approval to Khalifa Haftar's offensive to capture Tripoli, although the campaign ultimately failed following Turkish intervention. The views expressed in Op-Ed pieces are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Libyan Express. How to submit an Op-Ed: Libyan Express accepts opinion articles on a wide range of topics. Submissions may be sent to oped@ Please include 'Op-Ed' in the subject line.

Shafaq News

13-06-2025

• Shafaq News

US distances itself from Israeli strikes on Iran

Shafaq News/ US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed late Thursday that the United States was not involved in Israel's military strikes against Iran, describing the operation as a 'unilateral action' by Tel Aviv. 'Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran,' Rubio said in a statement issued by the White House shortly after reports of explosions in Tehran surfaced. 'We are not involved in strikes against Iran, and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region.' Rubio noted that Israel had informed Washington of its intention to strike and had framed the action as a matter of self-defense. He emphasized that President Donald Trump's administration has taken 'all necessary steps' to ensure the safety of US personnel and maintain coordination with regional partners. The remarks came as Israel confirmed launching Operation Rising Lion, a broad military campaign that targeted key Iranian nuclear and military sites. Iranian media reported explosions in Tehran and other cities. 'Iran should not target US interests or personnel,' Rubio warned, making clear that while the US was not a party to the strikes, it would act to defend its assets if provoked.