As a researcher who once worked with Black college athletes and has now studied them for almost a decade, I can confidently say: This bill continues to miss the mark.
The National Urban League, a leading civil rights organization, said the bill “would transfer billions in wealth from student athletes to coaches and institutions.” They cited language from Section 114 of the bill that prohibits athletes from receiving payment from “associated entities”, such as collective, media partners, corporate sponsors, and brands contractually affiliated with the university. Athletic departments have used these “associated entities” to circumvent the current pay cap. Nineteen college athletes from several sports and universities raised a similar concern about this language, saying the bill will “greatly inhibit student-athlete compensation.”
This is significant for Black athletes, and history tells us these concerns are valid. Researchers estimate Black football and basketball players, lost $17-21 billion in earnings between 2005 and 2019. That’s almost $250,000 per athlete, per year in lost generational wealth. You know who was building generational wealth? Coaches and athletic departments. The wealthiest football coaches made an average of $4 million per year, and universities like Texas brought in $200 million in annual athletics revenue in 2019.
Imagine how much Black generational wealth will be lost when Congress gives the College Sports Commission (CSC) greater authority to reject name, image, and likeness (NIL) payments that offer athletes’ their fair market value? $200 million worth of NIL deals have already been rejected or placed in review limbo since the commission was created last summer. Many of these deals are with "associated entities” The CSC is actively being sued over this.
Meanwhile, the bill does nothing to stop multimillion dollar-coach contracts and buyouts worth more than the average college athlete will earn in a lifetime. When wealth is unlimited for everyone but the athletes, it’s not a coincidence. It’s deliberate.
Senator Cruz said, “the wealthiest conferences continue to consolidate power and resources while many mid-major programs increasingly serve as feeder systems for the sport's biggest brands.” While true, this bill offers no protections for HBCUs, mid-major programs where 20% of Black Division 1 athletes compete. The same language that limits Black athlete generational wealth, hurts HBCUs.
Historically underfunded and cut out of lucrative media payouts, HBCUs are already competing at a structural disadvantage. The president of Texas Southern University, James Crawford III, said they need cost controls to end the “continual bidding” for athletes and to save non-revenue sports at HBCUs. But many HBCUs rely on “associated entities” like collectives, third-party organizations that fundraise to create NIL opportunities for athletes. Leaning on collectives and other “associated entities” allow HBCUs to engage and retain athletes and compete with wealthier universities. HBCUs must not be punished for structural barriers they did not create, nor must they be punished for wealthy universities’ abuse of the system.
If it’s truly Congress’ goal to protect or save college sports, mustn’t attention be paid to ensuring athletes graduate from college? Last year, only 53% of Black Division I college athletes graduated—12 points below the Division I average and 19 points behind white athletes. Despite attending the same universities, Black athletes experience very different outcomes.
The bill offers some academic provisions, like coaches and athletic departments can’t stop athletes from pursuing a specific major or extracurricular activities, but universities lose nothing for failing to graduate Black athletes. Black athletes do not sacrifice their bodies, time, and education by accident. They do it on the promise that universities will take care of them in return.
In my own research, I’ve called for policies that humanize Black athletes by addressing systemic inequities that normalize their exploitation and disposal in college sports. One Division I athletic administrator told me: “This is a people business that has a financial component to it, but it's a people business first.” A “people business” approach to college sports reform requires centering the people who have been most vulnerable after decades of systemic failures allowed Power universities to accumulate unchecked control, power, and wealth at the expense of Black athletes, who just played their sport while everyone around them got rich.
Thursday’s vote proved that Congress cannot put the needs of the people above the financial component of college sports. It also proves why educators and researchers who’ve been working through and studying these issues must be a part of conversations about reform. Who better to design policy that enables athletes to “build a foundation for life beyond the field or court”, than folks who have been discussing barriers to Black athlete graduation, structural inequalities at HBCUs, and reforming college sports for several decades.
A bill that limits Black generational wealth without concern for Black athlete’s education is not the reform athletes truly need. Until educators are invited to these conversations, humanizing reform in college sports is impossible.
Ezinne Ofoegbu, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at Santa Clara University, who examines the intersections of American education, sport, and culture. Her research focuses on the experiences of Black women in sport, justice and equity in college sport, and Black immigrant-origin students in higher education. Her work has been published in the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, the Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education, and the Sociology of Sport Journal, among others.
