Latest NIL legislation draft threatens collectives with perjury, calls for tip line
A draft of Congressional legislation circulating around collegiate stakeholder groups would require NIL collectives to disclose contact details for boosters or risk “perjury,” while also establishing a website to report alleged NIL violations. The bill was independently obtained by On3.
The latest edition of the Fairness, Accountability, and Integrity in Representation (FAIR) of College Sports Act, which was initially released in May, comes from Florida Rep. Gus Bilirakis. The draft would prohibit collectives from entering into NIL agreements with athletes until they’ve been enrolled at a school for 90 days.
It also bans tampering and calls for the creation of a public database where figures from NIL deals from across college sports can be displayed. Agents could not sign agreements with an athlete until they’ve spent 45 days enrolled in an institution.
Bilirakis, the chair of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has quickly become one of the most vital figures in the fight for NIL reform. Bilirakis played a pivotal role in organizing March’s legislative hearing on college athletics. Working closely with Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a cast of stakeholders and current and former athletes testified in front of his subcommittee for nearly three hours.
In a letter sent to stakeholders Friday, obtained by On3, Bilirakis wrote the “draft reflects changes we’ve made based on the more than 40 redlines and other forms of feedback we have received since the initial release.” The bill would establish an independent U.S. Intercollegiate Athletics Commission (USIAC) to oversee, set rules, enforce and provide guidance to student-athletes and collectives.
Collectives would be required to register with the USIAC and provide their list of donors. Within 30 days of signing an agreement with an athlete, a collective would have to provide the USIAC with a copy of the agreement and “an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that the registered collective has not used the NIL agreement as an inducement.”
As one collective leader texted On3: “This is purely an anti-collective bill in its current form.”
A 21-member board of directors would be appointed by members of Congress. The USIAC would create a registration process, create a database for NIL information and provide quarterly transparency reports. The USIAC would refer enforcement to existing agencies and state attorneys general for agents and third parties, while the NCAA retains enforcement authority for student-athletes.
Within six months of the board of directors being established, the USIAC would be responsible for establishing a “public-facing website to facilitate the reporting of alleged NIL agreement violations.”
The bill does not address employee status for athletes – a key focus for the NCAA – antitrust protection nor health and medical benefits for athletes. Similar to many NIL bills and discussion drafts that have been introduced, the Bilirakis’ legislation would provide the state preemption the NCAA and Charlie Baker have been seeking.
According to the draft, schools could prohibit NIL deals in gambling, tobacco, vaping, alcohol, controlled substances and lewd and lascivious behavior. Yet, if an institution, conference or association prohibits one of those items, they may not enter or continue any sponsorship in the same category.
Examining the NCAA’s aggressive push for federal NIL laws
What Congress’ return means for NIL
The same day Colorado’s move to the Big 12 was formalized, Congress broke for its August recess. Many of the conference realignment dominoes that have reshuffled college athletes have yet to happen.
As of now, the Pac-12 appears on track to cease to exist after the 2023 season. The Big 12 has emerged as a third power conference, yet not competing with the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC expanded last week to include Stanford, Cal and SMU. Only Oregon State and Washington State don’t have a home after the Pac-12 crumbled.
After so much time and effort spent by Baker to rally conferences together to lobby Congress for a federal NIL mandate, ESPN and FOX reorganized everything. How elected officials view the move remains to be seen. The Senate is expected to reconvene Tuesday, while the House will reorganize on Sept. 12.
After so much time and effort spent by Baker to rally conferences together to lobby Congress for a federal NIL mandate, ESPN and FOX reorganized everything. How elected officials view the move remains to be seen. The Senate is expected to reconvene Tuesday, while the House will reorganize on Sept. 12.
Baker expressed in a statement earlier this month his concern over the realignment moves, calling them “highly disruptive.”
Even before college sports saw a landscape shift for the third consecutive summer, many were skeptical Congress could bring NIL relief. With an upcoming Presidential election, the war in Ukraine and a possible government shutdown, where fixing college sports fits in is unknown.
Former U.S. Congressman and current CEO of LEAD1 Association Tom McMillen recently told On3 last week he was not optimistic about movement on the topic coming from Capitol Hill.
“I don’t think it’s an either-or proposition,” Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti told On3 in July.
“I think support from Congress is really important. And I know the NCAA, commissioners of conferences have been putting a lot of effort individually and collectively, in those efforts to be supportive. You saw the statement that we put out around the Booker and Blumenthal bill and Manchin and Tuberville bills, all great, like in terms of just trying to create energy and figuring out what’s next there and providing support.
“But at the same time, I believe that we also have to do the work together to see if something doesn’t come to be, what’s the next thing that we’re doing? You have to make the adjustments that are needed to have a fair system.”
While a Plan B is still in the works for the NCAA, making quick adjustments depending on how Congress opens up in September could be paramount to Baker’s success of a stringent NIL mandate.