Bill Overview
Title: Collegiate Athlete Compensation Rights Act
Description: This bill addresses the rights of student athletes and issues of transparency and accountability regarding student athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements. Specifically, an athletic association, conference, or institution must permit a student athlete or a group of student athletes to market, or earn compensation for the value of, their NIL; and obtain or retain a certified agent for any matter or activity relating to such compensation. A third party may not use the NIL of a group to sell or promote any product or service without obtaining the written consent from each member of the group for that purpose. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) must make available specified educational resources for student athletes with respect to financial and contract literacy and earning compensation for the commercial use of the student athlete's NIL. The bill sets forth prohibitions on activities of institutions, boosters, and third parties, including a prohibition on institutions, athletic associations, or conferences entering into NIL agreements with student athletes. The bill limits transfer penalties and prohibits incentives intended to induce the student athlete to enroll in, maintain enrollment in, or transfer to a particular institution. The FTC must establish an Office of Sport. The Government Accountability Office must report to Congress on the health, safety, and education needs of student athletes.
Sponsors: Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]
Target Audience
Population: Student Athletes
Estimated Size: 480000
- The bill specifically addresses the rights and compensation issues related to student athletes.
- Only student athletes who seek to market or earn compensation from their NIL are directly affected.
- The bill sets regulations for how institutions can interact with student athletes concerning NIL, affecting students at educational institutions offering athletic programs.
- The bill involves the FTC establishing educational resources, focusing on financial and contract literacy for student athletes.
- The modifications in transferring rules and prohibition on incentives potentially affect all current and future collegiate athletes.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy is collegiate student-athletes, estimated at 480,000 in the U.S. This group encompasses athletes across various sports and different levels of collegiate competition.
- Within this population, only those who seek to market their name, image, and likeness are directly impacted. However, the policy changes could broadly influence collegiate athletic programs and potentially impact non-athletes indirectly through institutional changes.
- Cost constraints limit the breadth and depth of the policy's impact in its implementation phase, prioritizing educational resources over financial compensation mechanics.
- The policy emphasizes legal and financial literacy, which might show significant benefits for athletes unfamiliar with contract negotiations and personal branding before joining a professional sport.
- The policy will have varying levels of impact for those already leveraging NIL deals and those without previous experience. Interactions with institutions will drive different opinions based on individual circumstances.
Simulated Interviews
Student athlete (football) (Austin, TX)
Age: 20 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems beneficial for athletes like me who are already exploring NIL agreements.
- I'm relieved that it limits excess influence from boosters and creates more transparency around NIL deals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Student athlete (soccer) (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am excited because I now have the opportunity to monetize my social media following legally.
- It's great that the FTC will provide resources to help us understand contracts better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Student athlete (basketball) (Birmingham, AL)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see much impact on my day-to-day life from this policy.
- I'm happy the policy restricts unfair recruiting practices that could harm educational priorities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Student athlete (track and field) (Columbus, OH)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulating NIL agreements makes sense, although I'm not directly affected yet.
- Hopeful that eventually all this leads to better opportunities for lesser-known sports.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Prospective college athlete (baseball) (New York, NY)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's clarity on NIL might help me choose a college that supports my career aspirations.
- Knowledge about transfer rules will impact my collegiate decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Non-athlete college staff (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More regulations mean more compliance work for us but also greater transparency.
- The educational resources for athletes are a positive development and might reduce NCAA violations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Marketing agent (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This offers a clearer framework but could limit how aggressively I pursue deals for my clients initially.
- Ensuring athletes get fair agreements is crucial, and this policy supports that.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College coach (tennis) (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potential changes in recruit transparency could alter how I select future team members.
- Concerns about maintaining focus on education amidst increased athlete commercialization.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
High school sports counselor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Glad this policy paves the way for more structured guidance on NIL issues.
- Understanding these regulations will help me better prepare students for college sports.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Athletic director (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Logistical challenges anticipated but necessary for fairness and protecting student-athlete rights.
- The prohibition on institutions being involved in NIL agreements will focus on education integrity
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $48000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $65000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $75000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy involves the FTC's establishment of an Office of Sport, which has ongoing financial implications.
- Administration and enforcement of NIL rights might require significant monitoring and regulation.
- Educational resources aimed at enhancing financial literacy among athletes are crucial but could present costs not fully accounted for.
- The policy's long-term economic effects depend on athlete participation and effectiveness of financial literacy programs.