Now politicians across the country come after the NCAA

"By watching this debate nationally for three or four years, the momentum for this type of change has grown," said SB Nation, Democratic Senator, Nancy Skinner. "There is a consistent expression of student athletes, professional athletes and former NCAA personnel that a change is needed."

A college athlete who gets paid no longer shakes the audience as before. Polls suggest that the NCAA definition of amateurism is losing popularity. Players denounce their rules more often than in the past. The court system undermined the power of the NCAA, providing players with relatively modest benefits and costing the NCAA millions.

And now, more politicians than ever before are touring the NCAA at the same time, with several laws on the table.

"For me, as I've been following the question for a long time, presenting it this year seemed like a good time," said Skinner.

It will probably take external actors to evolve the NCAA because it has always done so.

Historically, when university sports leaders remained stubborn, they had to be pushed.

In 1906, President Teddy Roosevelt ordered an investigation into college football due to the deaths of players, eventually leading to the formation of the NCAA. In 1983, the Supreme Court guaranteed schools (unlike the NCAA) the control of broadcasting rights, an explosion of revenues and the establishment of the current situation.

The NCAA earns about $ 1 billion a year in broadcast fees alone for its men's basketball tournament, which distributes most of it to schools. The Big Ten pays its members more than $ 50 million a year through its own media agreements. Even the non-energy CAA will soon pay $ 7 million a year to their schools. But the players' compensation formula has hardly changed.

The NCAA recently lost two important lawsuits against its amateurish model, but none of them led to rule changes allowing players to be paid.

This is where the politicians came in. Among them are legislators from several states, a member of the US Congress, an American senator and a presidential candidate. In different ways, they adopt a saturated system, well organized to resist changes, even incremental.

Legislative approaches begin with the opening of the free market without requiring schools to pay a cent.

This is happening in at least three states and in Congress. None of these bills would force a school to pay players, but they would seek to allow players to earn money for their images and likeness without losing their eligibility. State invoices also provide for players to be allowed to hire agents.

These are not the first bills to comply with NCAA rules. In 2003, lawmakers in Nebraska and California insisted that schools pay athlete participation fees. But we have never seen such a national push and bipartisan allowing players to be paid for their own image.

When Republican Rep. Drew Stokesbary spoke with SB Nation, it was the second day of the opening round of the NCAA Men's Tournament. For the first time that he remembered March Madness, Stokesbary had not watched any game again. Graduate Duke, he was once the mascot of the Blue Devil.

During the Christmas holidays, Stokesbary began drafting Bill 1084 of the Washington House. Introduced in January, the bill would require Washington's universities to allow athletes to collect guarantee funds or hire agents. It would seek to prevent the NCAA from sanctioning programs that allow athletes to receive such compensation.

A month later, in California, Skinner presented his bill two days before the football dedication day. She consulted with Stokesbary when she wrote what she called the Fair Pay to Play Act.

In Colorado, Republican Senator Owen Hill aims to pass a similar bill through the legislature. According to one source, he enjoys bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

US Congressman Mark Walker, a Republican from North Carolina, introduced a bill in March to amend the tax code to remove the exemption of any amateur sports organization that "substantially impedes a student-athlete from use or be reasonably indemnified for, the name, image or likeness of that student-athlete. "

"We do not ask the NCAA, a college, or a university to write checks or pay these players a dollar," Walker told SB Nation. "What we're saying is that we think it's a huge problem, if not an injustice, that these student-athletes are restricted and have no access to their image and image. This is the only group of people in our society to deal with this restriction. "

Walker also has a connection with Duke. He said he arrived in North Carolina five days before the Blue Devils' epic victory over UNLV in 1991, en route to the first national title of the school run by coach Mike Krzyzewski. But the Michigan Fab Five – a potential duke opponent – caught Walker's attention.

Walker said it was unfair that the Five "literally change the dynamics of college basketball" but are not paid. Ray Jackson and Jimmy King, Michigan, who did not stay in the NBA, were "messy" because they are not allowed to be paid.

Walker represents a part of the country obsessed with college basketball. It is easy to understand why he is interested in the subject. But why should Congress?

"If I am a young man or a young woman aged 20 to 21 and I am in the beginning of my remunerative career because I have a particular skill or talent, that someone forces me to sign a moratorium that means no, you can not go get a single dollar – any profit made on this project will come back to the university, to the NCAA – I do not understand why everyone does not get angry Says Walker.

In 2018, the NCAA Committee on Collegiate Basketball solved the problem by asking courts to decide whether players should be allowed to take advantage of their name, images and similarities. The courts did not, however, prevent the NCAA from dealing with the issue itself. So, rather than waiting for the NCAA, Walker says it's up to someone else to act.

Major footballers and male basketball players would probably be the first to take advantage of their images through a new system. But Walker said his efforts were aimed as much at the remaining 99% of athletes who, as the NCAA says, will become professionals in other fields than sports. As the hypothesis that he gave about a quarter backup in Elon, a FCS school in his district:

"If he wants to go back to his hometown and sign autographs at the car dealership for half a day on a Saturday and earn a few hundred dollars, he should be able to do it," Walker said, adding that "there's no way around that." he was in agreement with the schools. prohibiting players from wearing their uniforms and explicitly representing a university at such an event.

Walker said Illustrated Sports he would like to see the NCAA rules changed without a new law. He stated that he had opted for an amendment to the tax code because he felt that it was the best way to streamline the efforts. The presentation of the bill in Congress by a Democratic co-sponsor, Cedric Richmond, Louisiana, gave these efforts a bipartisan legitimacy.

In the other assembly, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, a Democrat, released a report in March criticizing the unfairness of the NCAA model. He plans to publish more stories that "will address a range of issues related to university sports". In a statement to SB Nation, he left open the possibility of drafting legislation:

I see injustice in the system, but I am not expert enough to know the right solution. What is shocking to me is that the NCAA has not even tried to find a way to pay its players. They sat in my office and told me that it was impossible to know who to pay and how much to pay them. I do not buy that. I would first like to keep up the pressure on them, and if the NCAA does not act, I will consider introducing a bill.

Some of these bills are more likely than others, like Stokesbary in Washington, for example, who is currently living, but it is clear that the country's legislators are on the hunt.

Another approach would have force schools to pay players. This has found its place in the platform of a Democratic presidential candidate.

Andrew Yang, a New York-based businessman nominated for the 2020 Democratic nomination, wants some schools to pay. In doing so, he focuses on the clearest competitive reality in football: only a small subset of a section of the Power 5 teams can actually win a title.

According to Yang's idea, a handful of top-level Power 5 players are entitled to a salary from a taxable organization.

At present, sports departments are almost universally classified as 501 (c), non-profit organizations that do not pay income tax. Yang wants these schools to create separate, taxable organizations, funded by taxes such as broadcast rights, to pay for paid athletes.

While Walker's bill respects the tax code, Yang says he would threaten school results in another way: with federal funding and Pell Grant allocations.

"This is not my first decision," Yang told SB Nation. "But we have to do things."

He said the NCAA is "in some ways, a very, very serious example" of a larger problem.

"Why are universities two-and-a-half times more expensive in the last 30 years and have not changed in quality?" Yang said. "Part of that at the level of public education, some of these kids are getting less support, but that's largely because their price has gone up because they've become bloated on the administrative plan. "

Would a plan like Yang's ruin be a competitive equilibrium? As it stands, there is a difference of at least $ 30 million between annual television payments between a typical Power 5 school and any other school. Power conferences spend a lot more money on these coaches and facilities, and they already dominate both on the ground and on the tracks of recruitment. The competition for the national title is limited to about 15 teams per year, about half of the amount that Yang plans to pay players.

You do not need to have a degree in economics or a thorough understanding of the NCAA to see the disparity between the haves and the non-athletes. Division I is already divided in many ways, including Power 5 leagues with the power to develop their own rules.

Yang did not speak to the NCAA and is far from having an influence on her. He says his "first approach is simply to sit down with people".

"We can try to recognize the reality of what is happening in these institutions in a way that does not hurt you and actually improves things," Yang said. "And if that does not work, we will have to look at what is the regulatory mechanism."

The NCAA has little incentive to change until it is forced.

"The NCAA is a very powerful organization. I do not expect them to fall back on it, "Walker said.

After Walker rejected his bill in Congress, the NCAA issued a statement stating that the bill was "useless" but did not explain its problems in detail:

This bill is useless and will benefit only a small number of student-athletes and will have unintended consequences and negatively impact opportunities for all other college athletes. It is essential to keep this in mind as the NCAA offers a unique model that creates opportunities for academic and athletic success for nearly 500,000 student-athletes in 24 sports each year.

The NCAA is a 501 (c) (3) tax exempt organization that supports other exempt organizations by providing close to $ 1 billion annually to the higher education community. through payments and programs. As such, the rules developed by NCAA members are essential to the preservation of university sports in the United States, which are distinct and distinct from professional sports.

The NCAA General Counsel and the Managing Partner of his lobbying company also met with Walker, Illustrated Sports.

When the policy prompts the NCAA to change, it can evolve rapidly. Walker saw it first hand. In 2017, the NCAA withdrew seven competitions from its state championship in North Carolina in response to a bill banning transgender people. The events came back when lawmakers put in place a partial repeal measure.

The NCAA was not motivated enough to significantly change players' pay. He spent a lot of money lobbying Congress. Universities have spent a lot more for their own influence activities, both federally and statewide.

To change the NCAA, you need to do more than work on the NCAA itself. You must work on the schools that make it up.

Stokesbary thought the opposition would come from the NCAA itself. In a roundabout way, he did it.

"The NCAA never showed up to talk to anyone [in Washington state]as far as I know, but the universities have done it, "he said. "People were willing to give universities the benefit of the doubt."

Dealing with the NCAA means more than dealing with President Mark Emmert or a group of lobbyists.

The NCAA is not just the central building of Indianapolis.

It is also the collection of member schools.

And that tends to be one or the other, whichever suits the situation best. In practice, this means that its 1,200 schools, much more popular than the NCAA itself, can act on behalf of the organization.

"The institutions came in and somehow insisted that they were not opposed to that, but they went from legitimate problems with the initial project to resorting to alarmist tactics when every iterative project fix the problem, "said Stokesbary.

Schools have persuaded lawmakers in Washington to declare that this bill could result in the removal of the NCAA Huskies and Cougars from Washington State. Representatives of UW, WSU, Gonzaga and Whitman College have expressed opposition, although the bill states that changes will only take effect if states representing 15% of the US population also adopt laws Similar.

But universities have not yet succeeded in stopping the California bill. At a hearing, Democratic Senator Richard Pan asked a school representative what reservations the schools could have.

Do not tell me that the NCAA rules force us to do something. It's a separate conversation. I understood that, said Pan.

The only response from the school was to seek clarification on the meaning of the word "compensation" in the bill. Then the bill passed its vote in committee, 7-0, with five Democrats and two Republicans.

Different political bases have different opinions on the issue, but the gap may be narrow enough to allow for a consensus.

According to a survey conducted in 2017 by the Washington Post and at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, about 62% of Republicans thought that scholarships were sufficient compensation for athletes, compared to about 51% of Democrats.

This raises a question. If Republicans see themselves as part of free markets, should not they support this Free market?

"I do not believe the government has the right to start telling non-profit or for-profit groups how to run a business," Walker said. "What we are doing is defending the rights of those who are being violated."

"Our view of the world is that if two people want to do something, they should be allowed to do it, and the government should not oppose it," Stokesbary said. "So, in this case, if Nike and Zion Williamson want to make an agreement and they both benefit and it does not hurt anyone else, why should it be stopped? "

Republican lawmakers have found it helpful to explain the problem to their bases in these terms.

"At first we would have a bit of repulsion, but that should not stop you from doing what you feel is the right thing," Walker said.

"People say," Yes, well, these athletes should not be paid. They already receive a scholarship. Once you have a chance to start breaking it down, we do not ask the college or university to pay. We are simply asking that these athletes – these adults – have the same rights as you to use their skills, talents and identities to earn a living, whether they are at university or not. "

It could take years before legislative changes are made But there is a reason for these efforts to have more momentum than ever before.

Stokesbary said that a three to five year delay for a legislative change is reasonable. He considers that it is good to have a few states with legislation on the table and another bill in Congress. Walker considers what is happening now as a "fundamental change".

But the proposals and the platform on a website do not help an athlete whose family could use some money to pay a mortgage now.

"It's difficult," said Stokesbary. "Athletes are dealing with this a lot longer than I do in the legislature. And I'm doing everything I can with my little platform to try to come up with a fairer solution as quickly as possible. It's hard. It's a terrible system.

For college athletes, a new day is closer than ever, as more and more powerful people join the fight. But politicians have already tried and failed.

The essential of the effort is the public pressure.

The NCAA is losing more and more public, which makes it vulnerable, drawing attention to NCAA lawsuits and warning lawmakers that it is now time to go on strike. Maybe one day, it could even get the NCAA to change its rules without being orderly.

"I think," said Walker, "it's a bit of a pivot, to the extent that it says," You can not do business that way anymore. "