If anyone thought college sports would cool down after NIL restrictions were lifted, the track record since July 1st, 2021 has proven them wrong. Not only did National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo release a memo stating that college athletes should be classified as employees, but now the states are now getting involved in college athlete labor rights.
Last week, representative Bruce Hunter (D-IA) released a bill that, if passed, will grant college athletes in the state of Iowa classification as employees. The bill in question, House File 2055, is significant for a few reasons.
Related: Are College Athletes Employees?
State Bills Affect Public Institutions
First, unlike the NLRB, which governs private institutions, state bills affect public institutions, meaning that if House File 2055 is passed, it will impact athletes at the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa.
The Bill Applies to ALL Iowa College Athletes
Second, the bill appears to refer to all college athletes at public institutions in Iowa, and not just scholarship athletes or those in revenue-generating sports. Past legislation and the NLRB's recent memo have discussed employee rights for college athletes, but the definitions are a bit more narrow. For example, Abruzzo's memo heavily referenced football and men's basketball players, and indicated that “certain” athletes at private institutions should be considered employees.
That said, other bills could require non-scholarship athletes to demonstrate to the NLRB that they are being compensated with gear, travel expenses, and other athlete perks to prove an employer-employee relationship between them and their universities. These developments are all a step in the right direction, but what sets HF-2055 apart is that it appears to apply to all in-state college athletes equally.
Will Other States Hop on the Trend?
Finally, state-by-state legislation is what catalyzed the name, image, and likeness movement for college athletes, and the Iowa bill indicates similar energy for a different issue. Should other states jump on board and push for college athletes to have workplace rights, this could be the starting point for another big movement in collegiate athletics.
Not Everyone is Impressed
Even so, an anonymous high-ranking source from an Iowa public school told CBS Sports: “My intel says it [the bill] has no legs.” Here are a few of my guesses why:
1. No Financial Incentive
First, with NIL, there was tax money to be earned and notoriety to be gained by the states and universities, which likely influenced widespread approval of updated policies. Employee rights for college athletes won't offer the same benefits.
2. Similar Bills Haven't Made it
Furthermore, other bills addressing college athlete rights, like California's Collegiate Student Athlete Protection Act, or the Congressional Advisory Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics have been introduced, but either remained in their introductory stage or eventually died in committee. This leads me to believe that bills providing solely economic benefits are more likely to pass, and bills addressing workplace rights, while beneficial to athletes, are less likely because they will not benefit the economy or universities like NIL can.
3. Varying Labor Laws
The bill would also involve labor laws, which vary from state-to-state. NIL laws also differ at the state level, but labor implications might be different because, whereas NIL was new, state-level athlete employee bills will interact with laws that already exist. It's unclear how such legislation will hypothetically proceed, given the legal context.
4. New Representatives
Additionally, representative Bruce Hunter has announced that he will not pursue re-election in 2022, meaning that the fate of this bill will likely be in the hands of a new representative that may or may not be interested in college athlete rights.
5. NCAA Resistance
Finally, the NCAA will assuredly fight back if more states jump on board. The NCAA has been suppressing labor efforts on behalf of college athletes since the 1950's. The NCAA's similar resistance to NIL also countered political efforts enacted by the states and, although it ultimately failed, still slowed progress for NIL rights. It's also worth noting that many NCAA policies and school-specific NIL rules explicitly state that college athletes are not employees and forbid athletes from being paid for their performance, arguing that pay-for-play would essentially establish an employee-employer relationship. The NCAA will almost positively put up a more fervent fight against workplace rights to preserve its definition of athletic amateurism.
Katie Lever isn't a lawyer (so her articles don't constitute legal advice), but she is a former Division I athlete and a current doctoral candidate at the University of Texas, who studies (and tweets about) NCAA discourse. Follow her to keep up with the NCAA on Twitter and Instagram: @LeverFever.
Have an idea for a story or a question you need answered? Want to set up an interview with us? Email us at [email protected]
* Originally published on February 8, 2022, by Katie Lever, Ph. D
