U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–709 PDF 2015

BIG LABOR ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES: 

EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES 

OF UNIONIZING STUDENT ATHLETES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 8, 2014 

Serial No. 113–58 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 8, 2014 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Miller, Hon. George, Senior Democratic Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce ............................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Eilers, Patrick, C., Managing Director, Madison Dearborn Partners, Chicago, Illinois ................................................................................................... 63 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66 

Livingston, Bradford, L., Partner, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Chicago, Illinois .. 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

Muir, Bernard, M., Director of Athletics, Stanford University, Stanford, 

California ....................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 54 

Schwarz, Andy, Partner, OSKR, LLC, Emeryville, California ..................... 40 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42 

Starr, Hon. Ken, President and Chancellor, Baylor University, Waco, 

Texas .............................................................................................................. 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Additional Submissions: 

Chairman Kline: 

Letter dated May 7, 2014 from Molly Corbett Broad, President, 

American Council on Education ........................................................... 75 

Mr. Miller: 

Decision and Direction of Election from Peter Sun Ohr, Regional 

Director, National Labor Relations Board, Region 13 ........................ 109 

College Athletes Players Association Goals ............................................ 133 

Northwestern Football Sample Schedule ................................................ 134 

The Stanford Daily, Stanford Athletes had Access to List of Easy 

Courses ................................................................................................... 78 

Mr. Muir: 

Courses of Interest Winter 10-11 ............................................................. 136 

Letter dated May 14, 2014 from Bernard Muir, Director of Athletics, 

Stanford University ............................................................................... 138 

Mr. Starr: Addendum to Congressional Record dated May 22, 2014, 141 

Questions submitted for the record by: Marchant, Hon. Kenny, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 144 

Mr. Schwarz’s response to questions submitted for the record 146 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

BIG LABOR ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES: 

EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES 

OF UNIONIZING STUDENT ATHLETES 

Thursday, May 8, 2014 

House of Representatives, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, McKeon, Foxx, Roe, Thompson, 

Walberg, Guthrie, DesJarlais, Rokita, Bucshon, Brooks, Messer, 

Byrne, Miller, Scott, Tierney, Holt, Davis, Bishop, Courtney, Fudge, 

Polis, Bonamici, and Pocan. 

Staff present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members Services 

Coordinator; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Benjamin 

Hoog, Senior Legislative Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of 

Education and Human Resources Policy; Marvin Kaplan, Workforce 

Policy Counsel; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; James Martin, Professional Staff Member; Zachary McHenry, Senior Staff Assistant; 

Daniel Murner, Press Assistant; Brian Newell, Deputy Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Jenny Prescott, Legislative Assistant; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Alexa Turner, Legislative Assistant; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Jody Calemine, Minority 

Staff Director; Melissa Greenberg, Minority Staff Assistant; Eunice 

Ikene, Minority Staff Assistant; Brian Kennedy, Minority Senior 

Counsel; Julia Krahe, Minority Communications Director; Brian 

Levin, Minority Press Secretary; Leticia Mederos, Minority Director 

of Labor Policy; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Megan O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel; Rich Williams, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Michael Zola, Minority Deputy 

Staff Director; and Mark Zuckerman, Minority Senior Economic 

Advisor. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the committee will 

come to order. Well, good morning. I would like to begin by welcoming our guests and thanking our witnesses for joining us. We 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

appreciate the time you have taken to share your thoughts and expertise with the committee. 

College sports have become a favored pastime for millions of 

Americans. Whether filling out a tournament bracket—never works 

for me, by the way—to tailgating on a Saturday afternoon, or simply cheering on an alma mater for many fans college sports is a 

way to spend time with loved ones and stay connected with old 

friends. Where fans are known for their loyalty, student athletes 

are renowned for their passion and talent, and look to leverage 

their athletic ability in pursuit of different dreams. For some, competing at the collegiate level is a step toward a career in professional sports. 

For others, in fact for most student athletes, playing a college 

sport is a ticket to an education they simply couldn’t access without 

an athletic scholarship. Regardless of why student athletes play, 

their dreams can be turned upside down by a sports-related injury. 

When that happens, institutions must step up and provide the 

health care and academic support the student needs. Most institutions are doing just that, and standing by their athletes for the 

long haul. But some are not. 

No student athlete injured while representing their school on the 

field should be left behind because of the misplaced priorities of a 

college or university. Can the NCAA and institutions do more to 

protect students? Absolutely. They can start by giving students a 

greater role in shaping policies that govern college athletics. They 

could also work to help ensure a sports injury doesn’t end a student’s academic career, and find a responsible solution that will deliver the health care injured players may need. While promoting 

change is often difficult, student athletes deserve a determined effort to address these concerns. 

Does that mean that unionizing student athletes is the answer? 

Absolutely not. When he signed the National Labor Relations Act, 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared, ‘‘A better relationship between labor and management is the high purpose of this 

act.’’ It is hard to imagine President Roosevelt thought the law 

would one day apply to the relationship between student athletes 

and academic institutions. Yet that is precisely where we are. 

A regional director of the National Labor Relations Board recently ruled football players at Northwestern University are employees of the school for the purpose of collective bargaining. The 

ballots cast in an April 25 election have been impounded, pending 

review by the full board. Given the track record of this NLRB, I 

suspect the board will rubber stamp the regional director’s decision, 

setting a dangerous precedent for colleges and universities nationwide. In the meantime, schools, athletic organizations, students 

and the public are searching for answers to countless questions 

stemming from this unprecedented ruling. 

For example, what issues would a union representing college athletes raise at the bargaining table? Would a union negotiate over 

the number and length of practices? Perhaps a union would seek 

to bargain over the number of games. If management and the 

union are at an impasse, would players go on strike? Would student athletes on strike attend class and have access to financial 

aid? How would student athletes provide financial support to the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

union? Would dues be deducted from scholarships before being dispersed to students? Or are students expected to pay out of pocket? 

We know many student athletes struggle financially. How will 

they shoulder the cost of joining a union? Speaking of cost, where 

will smaller colleges and universities find the resources to manage 

labor unions with student athletes? A lot of institutions operate on 

thin margins, and college costs are soaring. Are these schools ready 

to make some difficult decisions, such as cutting support to other 

athletic programs like lacrosse and field hockey, or even raising 

tuition? And finally, how will other NLRB policies affect your higher education system? 

Are college campuses prepared for micro unions and ambushed 

elections? Are administrators equipped to bargain with competing 

unions representing different athletic programs? Will students be 

able to make an informed decision about joining a union in as few 

as 10 days, while attending class and going to practice? These are 

tough questions, and they should be discussed before students and 

administrators are forced to confront a radical departure from longstanding policies. We share the concerns of players that progress 

is too slow, but forming a union is not the answer. Treating student athletes as something they are not is not the answer. 

The challenges facing student athletes should be addressed in a 

way that protects the athletic and academic integrity of higher education. The recent NLRB decision takes a fundamentally different 

approach that can make it harder for some students to access a 

quality education. I strongly urge the Obama board to change 

course, and encourage key stakeholders to get to work. 

I look forward to today’s discussion, and will now recognize the 

senior Democratic member of the committee, Mr. George Miller, for 

his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

Good morning. I’d like to begin by welcoming our guests and thanking our witnesses for joining us. We appreciate the time you’ve taken to share your thoughts 

and expertise with the committee. 

College sports have become a favored pastime for millions of Americans. Whether 

filling out a tournament bracket, tailgating on a Saturday afternoon, or simply 

cheering on an alma mater, for many fans, college sports is a way to spend time 

with loved ones and stay connected with old friends. 

Where fans are known for their loyalty, student athletes are renowned for their 

passion and talent and look to leverage their athletic ability in pursuit of different 

dreams. For some, competing at the collegiate level is a step toward a career in professional sports. For others – in fact, for most student athletes – playing a college 

sport is a ticket to an education they simply couldn’t access without an athletic 

scholarship. 

Regardless of why student athletes play, their dreams can be turned upside down 

by a sports-related injury. When that happens, institutions must step up and provide the health care and academic support the student needs. Most institutions are 

doing just that and standing by their athletes for the long-haul, but some are not. 

No student athlete injured while representing their school on the field should be left 

behind because of the misplaced priorities of a college or university. 

Can the NCAA and institutions do more to protect students? Absolutely. They 

could start by giving students a greater role in shaping policies that govern college 

athletics. They could also work to help ensure a sports injury doesn’t end a student’s 

academic career and find a responsible solution that will deliver the health care injured players may need. While promoting change is often difficult, student athletes 

deserve a determined effort to address these concerns. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

Does that mean unionizing student athletes is the answer? Absolutely not. When 

he signed the National Labor Relations Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared, ‘‘A better relationship between labor and management is the high purpose 

of this Act.’’ It’s hard to imagine President Roosevelt thought the law would one day 

apply to the relationship between student athletes and academic institutions, yet 

that is precisely where we are. 

A regional director of the National Labor Relations Board recently ruled football 

players at Northwestern University are ‘‘employees’’ of the school for the purpose 

of collective bargaining. The ballots cast in an April 25th election have been impounded pending review by the full board. Given the track record of the Obama 

NLRB, I suspect the board will rubber stamp the regional director’s decision, setting 

a dangerous precedent for colleges and universities nationwide. In the meantime, 

schools, athletic organizations, students, and the public are searching for answers 

to countless questions stemming from this unprecedented ruling. 

For example, what issues would a union representing college athletes raise at the 

bargaining table? Would a union negotiate over the number and length of practices? 

Perhaps the union would seek to bargain over the number of games. If management 

and the union are at an impasse, would players go on strike? Would student athletes on strike attend class and have access to financial aid? 

How would student athletes provide financial support to the union? Would dues 

be deducted from scholarships before being disbursed to students? Or are students 

expected to pay out of pocket? We know many student athletes struggle financially. 

How will they shoulder the cost of joining a union? 

Speaking of costs, where will smaller colleges and universities find the resources 

to manage labor relations with student athletes? A lot of institutions operate on thin 

margins and college costs are soaring. Are these schools ready to make some difficult decisions, such as cutting support to other athletic programs like lacrosse and 

field hockey, or even raising tuition? 

And finally, how will other NLRB policies affect our higher education system? Are 

college campuses prepared for micro-unions and ambush elections? Are administrators equipped to bargain with competing unions representing different athletic programs? Will students be able to make an informed decision about joining a union 

in as few as 10 days, while attending class and going to practice? 

These are tough questions that should be discussed before students and administrators are forced to confront a radical departure from long-standing policies. We 

share the concerns of players that progress is too slow, but forming a union is not 

the answer; treating student athletes as something they are not is not the answer. 

The challenges facing student athletes should be addressed in a way that protects 

the athletic and academic integrity of higher education. The recent NLRB decision 

takes a fundamentally different approach that could make it harder for some students to access a quality education. I strongly urge the Obama board to change 

course and encourage key stakeholders to get to work. 

I look forward to today’s discussion, and will now recognize the senior Democratic 

member of the committee, Representative Miller, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that we are 

having a hearing to better understand what is really happening in 

college athletics, to air out the very legitimate grievances that have 

been raised by the Northwestern University and around the country. Let’s start by setting the stage. The nostalgic days when student athletes really were, ‘‘students,’’ first, and when college sports 

was just about learning teamwork, self-discipline and sportsmanship while getting some exercise and friendly competition, those 

days are pretty much over in high-level athletic programs. 

During the last four decades, colleges and universities, through 

the NCAA, have perfected the art of monetizing athletic play of 

their best football and basketball players and teams, while steadily 

encroaching on the players’ academic opportunities. They have created nothing less than a big sports empire. The empire is consumed 

and driven by a multibillion dollar exclusive television, radio, 

multimedia deals, branding agreements, primetime sports shows 

and celebrity coaches with seven-figure salaries. Our nation’s talented athletes have become commodities within this empire. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

They are units of production that are overscheduled and overworked, left without safeguards for their health and safety, encouraged to put their education on the back burner in favor of success 

on the field. Some athletes have figured this out, and now they are 

starting to ask really smart questions about this whole arrangement. They want to know what happens to them if they suffer a 

catastrophic injury on the field that leaves them with a lifetime 

disability. Will they lose their scholarship, and with it the chance 

of an education and a career? 

How much of their health care will they and their families need 

to pay out of pocket? They are reading about new studies in longterm effects of head injures, and they want to know if the schools 

and coaches are doing all that they can to prevent concussion and 

brain injury on the field. Will their health come first when the decision is being made about whether or not they are fit to play, or will 

their team’s desire to win trump the health concerns of the individual player? They are raising questions about the adequacy of 

their scholarships and the restrictions that leave them with little 

or no support for out of pocket and incidental expenses they face. 

Why are some of the teammates finding themselves unable to afford enough food to eat or books for their classes while the university makes millions from their effort? They want to know why so 

many players didn’t finish their academic programs. They want to 

discuss a fairer transfer policy. How can policies be changed to support the players’ success in academics, not just athletics? The National Labor Relations Board decision regarding Northwestern University football players documents an all-consuming, sometimes 

eye-popping demand of a college football player in today’s megaprofit-driven NCAA world. 

At Northwestern, the daily life of a football player revolves 

around practice and preparation, commonly a 40-to 50-hour a week 

commitment during the fall season, with any classes or homework 

squeezed on top. You can see the sample schedule displayed here, 

I believe, on the screen of the Northwestern players. Oh, it is over 

on—underneath the screen, excuse me. Players are expected to report to their training room by 6:15 on Monday mornings for their 

medical checks. By 7 a.m., it is various and team and position 

meetings, then pads and helmets until noon. 

At night, they meet with coaches to review game films. And there 

are always the agility drills, conditioning, weightlifting, workouts 

and playbooks to study in between. From the beginning of the 

month-long August training camp, through the grueling 12-week 

season, to post-season bowl play into mid-January, winter warmups to February winning edge week, to mandatory spring workouts, 

to high-stakes football preparation, nonacademic obligations become the focus of these players’ lives and the obsession of their 

coaches. Meanwhile, players worry about their health and safety, 

their financial future and their prospects for jobs after graduation. 

The big-business empire of college sports is doing very well. Its 

revenues are up 32 percent in the last six years. And many universities are hiking tuition and fees, turning to underpaid, overstretched adjunct faculty and cutting student services. So the 

NCAA and the superstar football programs are making more and 

more money, and the athletes they depend on are getting less and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

less. In the end, this is a classic labor dispute. The NCAA empire 

is holding all the cards, making all the rules, capturing all of the 

profits. The hardest-working, most valuable components in this 

system, the players, are left with little to say, little leverage, and 

no blocking or tackling but themselves. 

By banding together and bargaining, these athletes can win the 

kinds of things union workers have demanded, and won, across the 

country: a say about avoiding serious injury on the job, medical 

benefits and securities if something goes wrong, meaningful input 

into how they will balance their work—in this case, football is their 

work—with their academic needs and their other responsibilities, 

the respectful treatment and care they so richly deserve. 

I look forward to today’s hearing and hearing from today’s witnesses about how we can do more to help protect and support these 

hardworking student employees. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all committee members will be 

permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record will 

remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the 

record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing will be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel. And 

in light of my failing voice and the very, very long resumes of our 

witnesses, I am going to be extraordinarily brief. 

Starting to my left, we have the Honorable Ken Starr. He is 

president and chancellor of Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Mr. 

Bradford Livingston is a partner in Seyfarth Shaw, LLP in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Andy Schwarz is a partner at OSKR LLC in 

Emeryville, California. Mr. Bernard Muir is director of athletics for 

Stanford University in Stanford, California. And Mr. Patrick Eilers 

is managing director at Madison Dearborn Partners in Chicago, Illinois and former Minnesota Viking. Okay, I couldn’t stop. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

remind everyone of the 5-minute lighting system. The system is 

pretty straightforward. When I recognize you, you will have five 

minutes to give your testimony, the light will be green. After four 

minutes, it will turn yellow. I would hope that you would be looked 

to wrapping up your testimony. When it turns red, please wrap up 

as expeditiously as you can. I have told witnesses before I am very 

loathe to gavel down a witness. We are here to listen to you, you 

are here to give us the benefit of your expertise. I am less loathe 

to gavel down my colleagues when we get into our 5-minute questioning session. But please, try to be respectful of the other witnesses, and wrap up your testimony. 

All right, let’s start with the Honorable Ken Starr. Sir, you are 

recognized. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are having a hearing to better understand what is 

really happening to college athletes, and to air out the very legitimate grievances 

that have been raised at Northwestern University and around the country. 

Let’s start by setting the stage: 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

The nostalgic days where student-athletes really were ‘‘students’’ first—and where 

college sports were JUST about learning team work, self-discipline, and sportsmanship while getting some exercise and friendly competition—are pretty much over for 

high-level athletic programs. 

During the last four decades, colleges and universities—through the NCAA—have 

perfected the art of monetizing the athletic play of their best football and basketball 

players and teams—while steadily encroaching on the players’ academic opportunities. 

They have created nothing less than a big business sports empire. 

That empire is consumed and driven by multi-billion dollar exclusive television, 

radio, and multimedia deals; branding agreements; prime- time sports shows; and 

celebrity coaches with seven-figure salaries. 

Our nation’s talented college athletes have become commodities within this empire. 

They are units of production that are over-scheduled and over-worked, left without safeguards for their health and safety, and encouraged to put their education 

on a backburner in favor of their success on the field. 

Some athletes have figured this out, and now they are starting to ask really smart 

questions about this whole arrangement. 

They want to know what happens to them if they suffer a catastrophic injury on 

the field that leaves them with a lifetime disability. 

Will they lose their scholarship—and with it their chance for an education and 

a career? 

How much of their health care will they and their families need to pay for out 

of pocket? They are reading about the new studies on the long-term effects of head 

injuries. 

And they want to know if the schools and coaches are doing all they can to prevent concussions and brain injury on the field. 

Will their health come first when a decision is being made about whether or not 

they’re fit to play? Or will the team’s desire to win a game trump the health concerns of an individual player? 

They are raising questions about the adequacy of their scholarships and the restrictions that leave them with too little support for the out-of-pocket and incidental 

expenses they face. 

Why are some of their teammates finding themselves unable to afford enough food 

to eat or books for their classes, while their university makes millions from their 

efforts? 

They want know why so many players don’t finish their academic programs, and 

they want to discuss fairer transfer policies. 

How can policies be changed to support players’ success in academics, not just 

athletics? 

The NLRB’s decision regarding Northwestern University football players documents the all-consuming, sometimes eye-opening, demands of a college football player in today’s mega-profit-driven NCAA world. 

At Northwestern, the daily life of a football player revolves around practice and 

preparations— commonly a 40- to 50-hour-a-week commitment during the fall season—with any classes or homework squeezed on top. 

You can see a sample schedule displayed here. 

Players are expected to report to the training room by 6:15 on Monday mornings 

for their medical checks. By 7:50 a.m., it’s various team and position meetings, then 

pads and helmets until noon. 

At night they meet with coaches to review game film. 

And there are always agility drills, conditioning and weight-lifting workouts, and 

playbooks to study in between. 

From the beginning of the month-long August training camp; through the grueling 12-week season; to post-season bowl play; into mid-January winter warm-ups; 

to mid-February ‘‘Winning Edge’’ week; to mandatory spring workouts; high-stakes 

football preparation, not academic obligations, becomes the focus of these players’ 

lives and the obsession of their coaches. 

Meanwhile, players worry about their health and safety, their financial future, 

and their prospects for a job after graduation. 

The big business empire of college sports is doing very well. Its revenues are up 

by 32 percent over just the last six years. 

And many universities are hiking tuitions and fees; turning to underpaid, overstretched adjunct faculty; and cutting student services. 

So the NCAA and superstar football programs are making more and more money, 

and the athletes they depend on are getting less and less. 

In the end, this is a classic labor dispute. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

The NCAA empire is holding all the cards, making all the rules, and capturing 

all the profits. 

The hardest-working, most valuable components of this system—the players—are 

left with little say or leverage, with no one blocking or tackling but themselves. 

By banding together and bargaining, these athletes can win the kinds of things 

union workers have demanded and won across the country: 

* a say about avoiding serious injury on the job, 

* medical benefits and security if something does go wrong, 

* meaningful input into how they balance their work—in this case football—with 

their academic needs and other responsibilities, and 

* the respectful treatment and care they so richly deserve. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about how we can do more to 

help, protect, and support these hard- working student employees. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN STARR, PRESIDENT AND 

CHANCELLOR, BAYLOR UNIVERSITY, WACO, TEXAS 

Judge STARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be 

here and to discuss this very important issue for private higher 

education. As the chair kindly recognized, I serve as president and 

chancellor of Baylor University. I have served as president and 

CEO of Baylor University since June of 2010. Baylor University is 

located in Waco, Texas. It is a private Christian university. It is 

ranked as a high research, comprehensive university, and it is a vibrant community home to over 15,000 students, including over 600 

student athletes. 

Baylor is a founding member of the Big 12 Conference, established in 1994. We sponsor 19 varsity teams. We are very blessed 

at Baylor to have student athletes who succeed both in the classroom and on the playing field. Over the past three years, Baylor 

University has been the most successful Division 1 program in 

combined winning percentages of football and men’s and women’s 

basketball. But these accomplishments do not count, ultimately, in 

terms of what we emphasize at Baylor. 

As commencement approaches next week on our campus, we are 

celebrating our academic accomplishments. In fact, we gathered together on Monday evening at Baylor’s Ferrell Center to do exactly 

that; to honor our student athletes’ performance in the classroom. 

During the prior academic year, Mr. Chairman, 86 percent of senior student athletes at Baylor received their undergraduate degrees, and many have gone on to pursue advanced degrees. This 

past fall semester—the grades are not in for the spring—our student athletes achieved a cumulative GPA of 3.27. That is an alltime high. 

And 347 of our student athletes were named to the Big 12 commissioners’ honor roll. So these are remarkable times for Baylor 

and its athletic program. Yet the reality is, is that even in these 

best of times college athletics, including at Baylor, is not a profitgenerating activity. It does not generate profits for Baylor, nor for 

the vast majority of institutions of higher education. The NLRB regional director’s recent decision in the Northwestern University 

case has characterized our student athletes as employees. This is 

an unprecedented ruling, as the chairman noted. In our view, it is 

misguided. 

The term ‘‘student athletes’’ is real on our campus. We would invite members to come to our campus and see for themselves. At 

bottom, it is a relationship which provides a college education and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

even beyond. That at Baylor, student athletes are first and foremost students, and they are expected to be and required to be. We 

are far removed from a professional sports franchise. We are dedicated to each and every student’s welfare, including our student 

athletes. 

Now at Baylor, and across the nation, student athletes benefit 

from a wide array of services that are specifically designed to maximize their potential as students, and then to prepare the student 

athletes for their journeys in life after college. These services and 

programs contribute significantly to their ultimate academic success. They include academic advising, degree planning, career counseling. Many institutions, including Baylor, provide very high-quality academic support, such as tutoring service, computer labs, and 

study lounges. We have study hall. 

Student athletes also receive specific financial benefits, which 

help them progress toward degree completion. And these traditional benefits are very familiar: tuition, room, board, fees, books, 

and other related educational expenses. 

Now, what is the purpose? The purpose in offering financial assistance is to encourage our student athletes to carry on, and to 

complete, their academic work. And the vast majority do. Now, the 

NLRB has expressed a view that the legal issue of employee status 

is ultimately a matter of congressional intent, and we agree with 

that. 

In instance however, the regional director has mechanically, and 

we believe erroneously, applied a rigidly wooden test drawn from 

the common law, notwithstanding, as the chairman suggested, the 

absence of any congressional intent to include college athletics as 

an employment venue. 

Now, the decision, by its terms, applies only to private institutions. But it does create a dichotomy. For example, the decision 

rightly notes that Northwestern University is nonsectarian. But 

the NLRB has been struggling in various dimensions with religious 

liberty limitations on its own jurisdiction. 

So we should reasonably expect some private, religiously-affiliated universities to challenge the board’s authority to be regulating 

institutional missions expressly grounded in a religious world view. 

The second and more structurally significant disparity is the decision’s implicit exclusion of state institutions. In intercollegiate 

athletics, private universities compete with state institutions and 

this will likely create many discrepancies among the nation’s universities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Judge Starr follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 87709.001
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 87709.002
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 87709.003
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 87709.004
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 87709.005
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 87709.006
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 87709.007
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 87709.008
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 87709.009
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 87709.010
20 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Livingston, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BRADFORD L. LIVINGSTON, PARTNER, 

SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. As the Supreme Court has noted, principles developed for the industrial setting cannot be imposed blindly in the 

academic world. While I fully support the NLRA’s purposes in allowing employees the freedom to choose whether or not to form a 

labor union and bargain collectively, the NLRB itself has recognized the problem of attempting to force the student-university relationship into the traditional employer-employee framework. That 

problem is apparent here. 

A university’s primary mission is to educate its students, including student athletes. Student athletes are neither hired by a college, nor providing it services for compensation. Athletes are students who are participating in its programs with a dual role as 

both student and athlete. Treating these participants as NLRA-covered employees changes them from students who are student athletes to professional athletes who are also students. But even if student athletes could be considered employees—and the term is undefined in the NLRA—employee status conflicts with the remaining 

principles contained in that act. 

Consistent with labor agreements from other industries, a college 

athletes’ union could negotiate over the scheduling and duration of 

practice time, distribution of playing time, scholarship allocation by 

dollar value and player position; whether non-bargaining unit players—in this case, walk-ons—have the right to perform bargaining 

unit work by playing in games in the broad range of statutory 

wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment described in NLRB precedent. They could likewise negotiate over academic standards, including minimum grade point averages, class 

attendance requirements, the number and form of examinations or 

papers in any course. 

Grievance procedures could challenge a professor’s grade, and 

even potentially graduation requirements. And unlike with statutory requirements, a college cannot refuse to bargain over changes 

to its own, its conference, or NCAA rules. Eventual differences in 

the conditions under which collegiate teams practice and compete 

will guarantee competitive imbalances. If college football players 

are employees, the NLRA makes it clear that they may organize in 

an appropriate bargaining unit, not the most appropriate bargaining unit. Because the petition for a unit will be considered appropriate unless a larger group now shares an overwhelming community of interest with that group, a college would have difficulty 

proving that the remainder of the football team shares an overwhelming community of interest if a labor union seeks to represent 

just the team’s offense, perhaps just its quarterbacks. 

Different potential union rules among discrete groups within one 

team are modest, however, compared to what will happen when 

college teams compete under different work rules negotiated with 

their respective unions. In professional sports, every team is a private employer under the NLRA’s jurisdiction that can therefore be 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

21 

covered under a single collective bargaining agreement. The major 

professional sports leagues have their own multi-employer collective bargaining agreements that cover the league and all of its 

teams. Those agreements provide a relatively level playing field, 

whether with salary caps, minimum wage progressions, free agency, drug testing protocols, and even revenue sharing. 

Unlike professional leagues, the same will not be true in college 

football. Because its jurisdiction is limited to this, to private employers, the NLRB is creating rules for student athletes at only 17 

schools, fewer than 15 percent of the participants. And it is almost 

certain that the NLRA’s regime for recognizing and bargaining 

with unions will not apply to the remaining 85 percent that are 

public universities governed by state laws and beyond the NLRB’s 

jurisdiction. Some states expressly regulate public sector employee 

collective bargaining, others often either limiting it to certain subjects or types of employees. 

Other states have no laws, or prohibit public sector bargaining 

entirely. A bill before Ohio’s house of representatives clarifies that 

student athletes at its public colleges and universities are not employees. Conversely, too, Connecticut legislators indicate that they 

will introduce legislation stating that their public college athletes 

are, in fact, employees. Without a unified collective bargaining 

agreement like the NBA or NFL, every college team must fend for 

itself with its employee athletes. Athletic departments that can afford it may be able to hire the best players. Institutions whose fortunes and job offers are not as robust may attract lesser talent. 

The resulting patchwork of conflicting statuses as employees or 

not, bargaining rights, labor contracts, and student athlete rules 

will create competitive imbalances. The National Labor Relations 

Act is not an appropriate vehicle to address student athletes’ concerns or disputes with their colleges and universities, athletic conferences, or the NCAA. For these and the other reasons contained 

in my written testimony, treating these student athletes as employees covered by the NLRA is simply unworkable. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for 

the opportunity to share my thoughts with you today. 

[The statement of Mr. Livingston follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 87709.011
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 87709.012
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 87709.013
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 87709.014
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 87709.015
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 87709.016
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 87709.017
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 87709.018
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 87709.019
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 87709.020
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 87709.021
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 87709.022
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 87709.023
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 87709.024
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 87709.025
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 87709.026
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 87709.027
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 87709.028
40 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Schwarz, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ANDY SCHWARZ, PARTNER, OSKR, LLC, 

EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. SCHWARZ. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify on these 

issues related to college football. My name is Andy Schwarz, I am 

an economist who specializes in antitrust and the economics of college sports. I am a partner with the firm OSKR, but I am testifying 

today solely on my own behalf. 

As the members of the committee know, the NLRB authorized an 

election for Northwestern football athletes. And so to start, I want 

to provide a few facts from those proceedings. Scholarship football 

athletes at Northwestern devote 40 to 60 hours per week during a 

5-month season and 15 to 25 hours per week the rest of the year. 

They receive no academic credit, they are not supervised by faculty, 

and football is not a direct part of the curriculum of their undergraduate majors. 

I understand this panel is focused on unintended consequences 

of unionizing college football. So I want to explain that the biggest 

threat to college sports from collective action is the current price 

fixing cartel called the NCAA. By price fixing, I am focused on how 

351 Division 1 schools, including my own beloved Stanford, stifle 

healthy economic competition through collusion to impose limits on 

all forms of athlete compensation. College football is an enormously 

popular consumer product. It generates passion from fans and billions in revenues from schools, for broadcast television networks, 

for merchandisers and apparel companies. 

FBS football is a professional sports industry. FBS football alone 

reported 3.2 billion in revenue in the most recent federal filings. D1 

basketball added another 1.4 billion. Individual athletic departments regularly generate more revenue than almost all NHL and 

NBA teams. Former NCAA president, Miles Brand, explained that 

maximizing revenue was the only responsible path for college 

sports. That is exactly how a vibrant business should behave. But 

there is an economic dark side to college sports that comes from 

collective action, which is price fixing. 

The NLRA and the antitrust laws work together to ensure that 

when sports leagues and athletes form partnerships negotiations 

are fair. And either choice is valid; in a unionized, collective bargaining path, or a more free market approach governed by the antitrust laws. Given the one-sided power imposed by collusion, it is 

not surprising that players have turned to labor law and to unionization for a modicum of countervailing bargaining power. Other 

American sports involve a league, negotiating with a union, to 

achieve a competitive outcome. Leagues generally encourage unionization. 

In 2011, the NFL players sought to end their union. But the NFL 

went to court to demand they remain a union, against the players’ 

wishes. As an economist I focus on the athletes’ free market value, 

which is high. But as a union, CAPA is focused on very different 

things. They are focused on enhancing educational and safety component of the bargain, better medical coverage, reducing head trauCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

ma, improving graduation rates and establishing educational trust 

funds to ensure athletes can finish their degrees. 

Because of time limits I will summarize my points and leave the 

rest for the question period. Because most athletes do not go on to 

work in the NFL, NCAA collusion effectively denies 95 percent or 

more of college athletes of their four best sports earning years of 

their entire career. For some, those may be their four best earning 

years. Money that would go to male athletes is, instead, funneled 

to coaches and into elaborate recruiting palaces. College football 

coaches can make as much as $7 million a year. Shunting money 

to coaches also deprives women athletes of Title IX matching funds. 

Collusion shifts the burden from a private school like Northwestern to taxpayer-funded Pell grants, sometimes even food 

stamps, or by forcing students to leave school to support their families. The current tax code exempts from taxation the tuition portion 

of athletic scholarships as well as tuition remission paid to university employees as part of a broader compensation package. Nothing 

in the NLRB ruling should change that and, if it did, Congress 

itself has the power to make sure that doesn’t happen. 

Finally, the NCAA limits consumer choice with a centrallyplanned, one-size-fits-all product offering. I also want to say that 

the term ‘‘student athletes’’ itself was created to dodge legal responsibilities for athletes’ safety and to avoid economic competition. 

But the resources from new TV deals alone are sufficient for an orderly transition from a command and control economy to a marketbased one. Americans have a legal right to economic markets free 

of collusion. Until that right is respected for college athletes of 

course they will seek collective alternatives. 

An athlete who has bargained, individually or collectively, to ensure he is well fed, given real access to a full range of majors and 

programs at a school, and provided with health and safety rules 

that lower the risk of serious head trauma or lifelong disability is 

going to be in a better position to benefit from a true education 

than a hungry or concussed athlete forced into a dead end major. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The statement of Mr. Schwarz follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 87709.029
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 87709.030
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 87709.031
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 87709.032
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 87709.033
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 87709.034
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 87709.035
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 87709.036
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 87709.037
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 87709.038
52 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Muir, please? 

STATEMENT OF MR. BERNARD M. MUIR, DIRECTOR OF 

ATHLETICS, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MUIR. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here to provide some 

comments about the experiences of student athletes at Stanford 

University. My comments are specific to Stanford and are not focused on the details of the case currently before the National Labor 

Relations Board. But I hope to help illuminate some of the larger 

issues you are addressing today. 

Stanford has 7,000 undergraduate students and nearly 9,000 

graduate students. And the university is recognized internationally 

for its academic quality. We offer 36 varsity sports, 20 for women 

and 16 for men. About 900 students participate in intercollegiate 

sports; 53 percent of them men and 47 percent of them women. 

Stanford has won the Directors Cup, which honors the most successful program in NCAA Division 1 sports for the last 19 years. 

We are very proud of the athletic achievements of our student athletes. 

But what I want to emphasize in my testify this morning is that, 

in athletics, we never lose sight of the university’s larger mission. 

Stanford is a university first, and its academic mission comes first. 

We believe the most important thing for our student athletes walk 

out the door with, when they leave Stanford, is a Stanford degree. 

Ninety-seven percent of our student athletes achieve this goal, including 93 percent of our football student athletes. The athletic experience is not pursued at the expense of the academic experience 

or separate and apart from it. Each enhances the other. 

One out of every eight undergraduate students at Stanford is a 

student athlete. So this is not a separate group having a separate 

experience from the rest of the student body. They are in the same 

classes, the same laboratories, the same undergraduate housing. 

They have the same exam schedules, even if it means to take a 

proctored examination on the road, and the same degree completion requirements as other students. The rigor of the academic enterprise begins with the admissions process. Stanford does not 

admit anyone it is not confident can succeed academically at the 

university. 

Stanford reviews each applicant for undergraduate admission holistically, looking at the academic excellence, intellectual vitality 

and the personal context each brings to the table. This evaluation 

occurs in the admissions office independent of the athletic department. Our student athletes demonstrate how importantly they view 

a Stanford education by taking all steps they need to complete it. 

As two brief examples, Andrew Luck of the Indianapolis Colts and 

pitcher Mark Appel of the Houston Astros organization both bypassed the opportunity to leave Stanford with a year of eligibility 

left and enter the professional sports world. 

Instead, they remained at Stanford to complete their degree. 

Even among the few Stanford athletes, student athletes, who do 

not complete a degree before becoming professional athletes, many 

do come back to finish later. The overwhelming majority of our stuCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

dent athletes will not go on to earn a living in professional sports, 

but whatever path they take their Stanford experience will provide 

them with outstanding preparation for success in the world. The 

academic grounding they receive is solid, and the athletic experience builds on it by teaching leadership, strategy, team dynamics, 

problem-solving, and other capacities critical to success. I discuss 

all of these issues more extensively in my written testimony. 

I want to address a related question about how revenue from 

athletics is used. At Stanford, while football and men’s basketball 

generate net revenue through ticket sales and TV contracts, the 

vast majority of our 36 sports do not. All the revenue that the university receives from these two sports is used to support the overall 

athletic program, including the 87 percent of our student athletes 

who participate in those other 34 sports. We use these revenues to 

support athletic opportunities for the broad cross-section of our students, both men and women. Providing these opportunities is very 

important to us. 

Let me close by discussing how we address the needs and concerns of student athletes. We work very hard to ensure that both 

the academic and athletic experiences of our student athletes are 

excellent and properly supported. Soliciting honest feedback from 

our students is critical to that objective, and we have a variety of 

avenues for doing so. Many of the issues that have been identified 

by the union seeking to represent student athletes are issues we 

are already addressing at Stanford. Although there are areas 

where our actions are governed by NCAA regulations, we are always open to making improvements that are within our purview, 

and to working with the NCAA to improve its rules on issues such 

as minimum academic progress for student athletes and scholarships that include fair stipends for student athletes’ expenses. 

I hope the strengths and benefits of programs such as ours will 

be considered, as the national discussion of these issues continues. 

I also recognize that there is a variation on these issues from 

school to school. And that while I have been speaking today about 

Stanford, there may well be differences at other institutions. Stanford stands ready to talk with and work with others who are likewise interested in continually improving the experience of student 

athletes across the country. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Muir follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 87709.039
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 87709.040
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 87709.041
57 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 87709.042
58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 87709.043
59 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 87709.044
60 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 87709.045
61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 87709.046
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 87709.047
63 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Eilers? 

STATEMENT OF MR. PATRICK C. EILERS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADISON DEARBORN PARTNERS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Mr. EILERS. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and present my views on the ongoing quest to improve the environment for student athletes on college campuses. 

Before I do so, I would like to make it clear that my comments 

today are strictly my own. Although I was a student athlete at the 

University of Notre Dame and later obtained a master’s degree 

from the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern 

University, I do not speak for nor do I represent these institutions. 

I speak only for myself. 

I graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1989 with a 

bachelor of science degree in biology, while also pursuing a second 

undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, which I received 

a year later. While I was a student at Notre Dame, I played four 

years of varsity football and also played on the varsity baseball 

team. I had transferred from Yale University at the beginning of 

my sophomore year and had a fifth year of academic eligibility, affording me the opportunity to complete my second degree. I transferred to Notre Dame to pursue excellence in the classroom and on 

the football field. 

I felt Notre Dame offered me the opportunity to do well in both. 

While it wasn’t easy, it certainly was achievable. The infrastructure was, and remains, in place to assist student athletes to 

achieve at Notre Dame. I have a daughter who is currently a collegiate student athlete there, and I have witnessed even further improvements in the program such as mandatory study hall for all incoming freshman athletes. I am here today as a former collegiate 

student athlete, and I am not an attorney versed in labor law so 

I will leave the legal arguments to the experts to my right. 

The impetus for today’s panel is the NLRB regional director’s 

ruling that college athletes are deemed employees which would enable them to potentially unionize under the National Labor Relations Act. The union pursuit is a means to an end, a vehicle if you 

will, to implement improvements to our collegiate athletic system. 

I believe there is little debate about necessary logical improvements, which I will describe. I believe the debate today should, instead, be focused on seeking the most effective vehicle to cause the 

implementation of these improvements. 

The crux of the problem is that the student athletes should be 

students first and foremost. I am concerned that calling student 

athletes employees will make the system more of a business than 

it already is. In my mind, we need to gravitate collegiate athletics 

towards a student-centric model, not the other way around. I also 

worry about the unintended consequence of being deemed an employee and what unionization could bring to college athletics. That 

said, as a former student athlete I support many of the goals of the 

National College Players Association and the College Athletes Players Association that the ranking member described in front. I favor 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

mandated four-year scholarships, health insurance benefits, and 

stipends. I will address transfer eligibility briefly. 

Four-year scholarship: as a student athlete you should be able to 

maintain an athletic scholarship for at least four, and debatable 

five, years from the date you entered college, assuming you maintain the school’s academic and disciplinary standards, with the goal 

of obtaining an undergraduate degree. The obligation should be 

maintained regardless of your productivity on the athletic field, 

and even if you sustain a permanent injury. The sad reality at 

some colleges is, if the student athlete is not performing on their 

field their athletic scholarship may not be renewed year to year. 

This incents student athletes to only focus on scholarship renewable at all costs, rather than striking the right balance of performance in the classroom and on the field of play. 

Health and insurance benefits: after sustaining a sports-related 

injury, a student athlete’s scholarship should neither be reduced 

nor eliminated, and there should be guaranteed coverage for medical expenses for current and former players. Student athletes that 

sustain permanent injuries should be afforded health care insurance benefits for life. I also hasten to around that all college athletic programs should enhance their efforts to minimize the risk of 

sports-related traumatic brain injuries. 

Stipend: student athletes should be afforded stipends so they can 

handle out of pocket expenses associated with attending college, at 

the very least on a needs-based assessment. 

Transfer: if four-year scholarships are mandated, not at the option of each college, then I am okay with current transfer restrictions. I was a product of these transfer restrictions. I was ineligible 

my sophomore year at Notre Dame. However, if honoring four-year 

scholarships is not required, then the one-time, no-penalty transfer 

option should be afforded to all student athletes, not just select 

sports. 

So in conclusion, these initiatives are, in my mind, obvious and 

necessary improvements. The first three have monetary implications which I recognize make them more difficult to implement for 

athletic programs that already operate in the red. However, I believe there is clearly plenty of money in the system for necessary 

improvements that have been highlighted. 

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is, ‘‘dedicated to 

safeguarding the well-being of student athletes and equipping them 

with the skills to succeed on the playing field and in the classroom, 

and throughout life.’’ 

If this mission statement is true, why then haven’t these goals 

already been implemented? I believe this problem exists simply because of the fact that the NCAA is a membership-driven organization, ‘‘made up of colleges and universities, but also conferences 

and affiliated groups.’’ Perhaps because of this charter, it appears 

to me that the NCAA may not have been able to get consensus 

from its diverse membership on these issues. I don’t have a solution to this problem, but I question the need to unionize to effectuate the implementation of these initiatives. 

One final note. It is difficult to maintain that we truly have a 

student athlete system, given the relatively low graduation rates 

for student athletes at many institutions across the country. This 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

is not an acceptable outcome, and I don’t see how classifying these 

student athletes as employees is going to improve the situation. 

So finally, I was a student athlete at Notre Dame, period. I was 

not an employee of the university, nor did I want to be one. Conversely, I played six years of professional football, including three 

here for the Redskins where I was an employee and I wanted to 

be one. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you have. 

[The statement of Mr. Eilers follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 87709.049
67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 87709.050
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 87709.051
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 87709.052
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 87709.053
71 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. Thank all of the witnesses. A panel 

of true experts. 

Because you are on a roll there, Mr. Eilers, I am going to start 

with you. Guy from St. Paul that goes on to do all these things, 

we are very proud of you. I know that when you were at Notre 

Dame I think you were part of a national championship team, and 

I am just deeply disappointed you couldn’t help the Vikings be a 

Super Bowl team. 

You mention that your daughter is playing lacrosse at Notre 

Dame. And I am—with her—watching her experience and your experience, I am wondering if you were ever discouraged at Notre 

Dame from taking a class or pursuing a major because you were 

a student athlete. 

Mr. EILERS. I was not, and I think, further, they encouraged us 

to pursue our academic passions, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. And you wisely moved on from a bachelor’s degree in biology, which I also had and found useless, so—I think 

probably most of us on this panel, I know I can’t speak for everybody on both sides of the aisle, but you mentioned a lot of issues 

that could be and should be addressed. Injuries, for example you 

had a sort of a list of things that ought to be looked at. And your 

conclusion was that is something that the universities, Notre Dame 

and all of them, including Baylor and Stanford, ought to be addressing. And that being a member of a union, a student athletes’ 

being a member of a union, being employees, wouldn’t help that. 

Is that—am I oversimplifying your position there? 

Mr. EILERS. I don’t think you are oversimplifying. I would say 

that I think Judge Starr’s Baylor, Bernard’s Stanford, like, you 

know, Notre Dame, it is an option to provide for your scholarships. 

Each of our institutions provide that for our student athletes. That 

is not universally adopted across the country. And I think for a student athlete not to graduate from a university with a degree in 

hand is a total disservice. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. And I think, Judge Starr, you mentioned something like 86 percent. Could you take about your graduation rate for your student athletes again, very quickly? 

Judge STARR. Yes. This last year, academic year, 82 percent did, 

in fact, graduate. A number did, in fact, as did Pat, go on to pursue 

degrees, as well; advanced degrees, graduate degrees. And here is 

the key point. It is individual choice. What is the culture? That is 

the responsibility of the university. Does the university create a 

culture that encourages the student to do the best that he or she 

can? There are obviously important issues to be addressed. We 

completely agree with that, and we are part of a conversation that 

is nationwide, with respect to what can we do better. 

We know there are things that can, in fact, be improved. Especially the full cost of attendance. Completely agree with that. But 

the real question, I think, with respect to the NLRB, Mr. Chairman, is are we going to, in fact, use the National Labor Relations 

Act as a tool for negotiating improvements. And it seems to be exactly the wrong way to go. For starters, if I may just make one additional point, the collective bargaining unit that was recognized by 

the regional director doesn’t include the entire football team. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

So if you are a walk-on, if you are one of the 35 members of the 

football team at Northwestern, the representative, if the union is, 

in fact, elected, is not going to be representing you. You are going 

to be outside the unit. Quite apart, then, from the non-revenue 

sports. And that is a fundamental issue. We are treating all of our 

student athletes the same, and we want to, in fact, encourage this 

culture that we want you to go to school, we want you to earn your 

degree, and we want to help prepare you for your journey in life. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

And Mr. Muir, back to Stanford. In your testimony you talked 

about how football and basketball were moneymakers, and that 

money went to the other sports. Could you just remind us again of 

how that distribution goes? 

Mr. MUIR. Yes. The resources that we derive— 

Chairman KLINE. Your microphone. 

Mr. MUIR.—from our TV, our media rights, goes back into supporting 36 sports, in our case, which is one of the larger offerings 

around the country. But it is to enhance that experience overall for 

all of our student athletes, the 900 that we support. And so we 

think that is very important. 

Chairman KLINE. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Starr, I assume you weren’t calling for a larger bargaining 

unit. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STARR. No, I was not. But it does raise, Mr. Miller, the issue. 

Mr. MILLER. I appreciate that. I just want to make it clear. 

Mr. STARR. Yes, the continuity of interest, the community of interest. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Eilers, I want to thank you very much for your 

testimony. Because you testified in a very straightforward manner 

about the issues that the students at Northwestern were raising 

that are endemic, I believe, to the football programs around the 

country. And that really was, as you pointed out, the security of 

their scholarship—four-year scholarship as opposed to year-to-year 

that can be used as a weapon against the student or performance 

or to get out of—to add somebody else to the squad. The health and 

insurance benefits, the concern when you are injured or you have 

suffered disability as a result of that, or you lose your athletic ability and you lose your scholarship. 

These things start to accumulate on some students. The stipend 

issue that you have raised and the transfer issue. These are the 

issues that these students felt necessary to form a union around 

because they weren’t getting satisfaction. And I suspect you would 

find that if you traveled to most of the college campuses that have 

sports programs, that the students feel that they are just—they are 

caught up in a cog, and they are only there for four years, five 

years, for whatever period of time. And they are not being addressed. 

I find it interesting that other witnesses held their testimony to 

that notion, and that is their belief that this is a student athlete. 

These—your student athletes at Northwestern said what about the 

athletic side of it? What about where we spend 50 hours a week? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

73 

What is this imposition on us, and what security do we have? And 

apparently that can never quite get addressed. 

And, Mr. Schwarz, that brings me to you. If you read Mr. Livingston’s testimony, he can tell you why this labyrinth, this integral 

work between conferences and the NCAA and the colleges, and 

maybe even the media, would not be a shield against issues raised 

by this bargaining unit. They could travel all over and even has 

them going into the academic side. But that same network is used 

as a weapon against the athletes. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. That is right. 

Mr. MILLER. That same network is used as a weapon when they 

want to talk about is our stipend fair, are our policies—because 

they don’t have any voice in that at all. And then, well, the school 

is happy giving you a four-year—but that is not every school in the 

league, maybe not even in the PAC–12, I don’t know. But, you 

know, we have to check with the conference. And the conference, 

well, you know, we are bound by the rules. And also remember, 

today, what conference you get in—I mean, conferences are like 

commodities. They are moving them around to generate TV revenues. 

It is no longer allegiance to the fans or the old rivalries. It is 

about what are the revenues that will be generated on—you know, 

mid-week, weekend playoffs. So you want to explain a little bit how 

this is a—if you are a handful of student in the Northwestern program, how you are going to be heard and how you are going to get 

results during your career? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. Sure. If I could just address a couple things. One 

of the statements I heard here is that Baylor treats all of its student athletes the same. That is not true. There is a cap on how 

many students can receive scholarships, and walk-ons are prohibited from receiving scholarships if they exceed that. So there is already, in some sense, a caste system that is created—that is a term 

that Mr. Muir has used to describe paying athletes—that distinguishes between scholarship athletes and other athletes who likely 

would get a scholarship if the school were actually allowed to exercise individual choice. But instead, there is a collusive cap that prevents it. 

Directly to your point, the way I like to think about the claim 

that schools are poor in their athletic departments is that it is 

similar to, say, like a Wall Street banker who brings in a million 

dollars of salary but maybe he has been divorced twice and so he 

has alimony payments. Maybe he has kids in college, maybe he has 

a couple mortgages. And so once he is done paying for all those 

things there is not a lot of money left and Wall Street banking 

doesn’t pay that well. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, I think that is sort of the point that the 

Knight Commission found in 2010. There is not enough money to 

provide those scholarships, there is not enough money to help the 

other sports. But as they pointed out, the escalating coaches’ salaries are creating an unsustainable growth of athletic expenses. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. That is right. Once you spend— 

Mr. MILLER. And you can bury $7 million into a coach’s salary or $3 million into coaches’ salaries. And I recognize that is the exception. But more and more people are joining that fraternity. But 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

74 

then you plead, poor mouth, that you can’t quite take care of your 

athletic obligations, campus-wide. 

And so I think that we see here is that the NCAA has constructed a very, very interesting and overwhelming network to be 

used against these kinds of questions being raised. Even a commission as prominent as the Knight Commission that examined this 

impact of, and the relationship, if you will, of student athletes. And 

that is why these students chose to become employees. Because 

they recognize the situation that they were in. Classical employeremployee relationship. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter from 

the American Council on Education, which warns that treating student athletes as employees, ‘‘would have a range of negative and 

troubling consequences.’’ 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 108 here 87709.108
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 109 here 87709.109
77 

Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record 

an article from the Stanford Daily, ‘‘Student Athletes Had Access 

to Easy Courses.’’ 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 87709.054
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 87709.055
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 87709.056
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 87709.057
82 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection, both will be entered in the 

record. All right. 

Dr. Foxx? 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all 

of our witnesses here today. You have provided some fascinating 

information to us, and I am grateful to you. As someone who has 

spent a lot of time in education and higher education, I have dealt 

with student athletes and students who weren’t athletes. So I appreciate the information. 

Judge Starr, I understand Baylor’s priority is education. In fact, 

all of you have talked about that. Would you describe how Baylor’s 

athletic programs work with the academic programs to ensure student athletes can prioritize their studies while also meeting their 

commitments to the team? 

Judge STARR. One of the keys, Dr. Foxx, is the planning process 

that goes into developing the major planning, then the schedule. 

And the student athletes do have priority in terms of registration, 

so we do not have a crowding out kind of question at all. And so 

throughout the academic year there is a careful monitoring of that 

student’s progress. And if there are issues that are being identified, 

then those issues are going to be addressed. 

And I think that is why we have seen a steady increase in recent 

years, even before my watch, but it is a point of personal emphasis 

on my watch, that we want the student athletes to have that entire 

reservoir of support. And that is why the GPA, cumulative GPA average, is 3.27. It is a very labor-intensive and very student athletespecifically focused activity. 

Ms. FOXX. I am assuming you have study halls? 

Judge STARR. They are—as elsewhere, mandatory for first-years, 

for freshmen. And then there are abundant study facilities available. They are very conveniently located, as part of our Simpson 

Highers academic and athletic center. 

Ms. FOXX. Well, let me come back to the regional director’s opinion. He includes a list of restrictions placed on the athletes. He 

says that they have to obtain permission from the coaches before 

applying for outside employment, posting items on the Internet, 

and speaking to the media. They are also prohibited from using alcohol and drugs and engaging in gambling. Judge, this may sound 

like a silly question. But please tell me why you place these restrictions on student athletes. 

Judge STARR. Well, it is, in fact, to create a team culture. And 

also to ensure, as best we can, appropriate behavior. Dr. Foxx, 

when the student athlete arrives he or she is presented with a student athletic handbook. And the earliest pages say here is the kind 

of behavior that is forbidden because it reflects poorly on the university, it reflects poorly on the team and, frankly, it is destructive 

of the culture of the team. So yes, there a number of prohibitions, 

but they are all grounded in human experience. These are things 

that the student athlete should not be doing. 

Ms. FOXX. Some of those things are things no student should be 

doing, correct? 

Judge STARR. That is correct. In fact, one of the things—when 

you go through the ‘‘thou shall not’’ list it is, in fact, very, very 

comparable to that of any other student. There are obviously some 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

83 

athletics-specific activity. But it is, in fact, a community of rules 

that we are in community together and these are the rules that 

bind us all. 

Ms. FOXX. Right. I would like to ask you this question. And then 

if Mr. Muir has an opportunity to respond to it also I would appreciate it. We know that the decision made by the NLRB gentleman 

has implications beyond the NLRA. It has implications for Title IX 

of the education amendments of 1972, Workers’ Compensation 

laws, tax law, Fair Labor Standards Act—could all be implicated. 

Would you tell us your thoughts on the possible implication of 

these laws for Baylor, and then, Mr. Muir, for Stanford? 

Judge STARR. I think they are very serious issues with respect 

to Title IX in particular. If the football scholarship student athletes 

are all employees then, in fact, that is going to create a very serious issue in terms of imbalance with respect to what Title IX requires. 

There are going to be a host of other issues, as well. Injuries are 

important, health is very important. We are very sensitive to that. 

And therefore, the question will be triggered is—does OSHA have 

jurisdiction in this context, as well. So I think it is going to raise 

a hornet’s nest of issues. 

Mr. MUIR. Yes, I believe if we go down that path that first and 

foremost, you know, our students are students first. And we want 

to ensure that. Many of the issues that the Northwestern student 

athletes raise are issues that we are already covering at Stanford. 

I think if we go down the path where—eventually that we call our 

students—student athletes—employees, and they just become a 

true working employer—working relationship, then I do think some 

of those things as Title IX and making sure that we provide a 

broad offering to all of our students becomes at risk, the pressures 

become greater. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to our 

panel, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Eilers, particularly I want to thank you for you testimony. 

Because you have highlighted some of the issues that I want to 

talk about. You described the effort at Northwestern as a means 

to an end. I think it is also fair to describe it as a cry for help. I 

think that we talk about having the student athletes interest at 

the center of what we do—and I used to run a college so I—it was 

a Division 2 school. But there is really nobody talking for the students. And I think what is happening at Northwestern is that this 

is an effort to get somebody to listen. 

And so I want to address this to Judge Starr and to Mr. Muir. 

You both represent highly-regarded, very prestigious institutions 

that have succeeded both on the athletic field and in the classroom. 

You both are members of very large conferences. And I want to just 

go over what the players at Northwestern are asking for. They are 

asking for efforts to minimize college athletes’ brain trauma risks. 

They are asking to prevent players from being stuck paying sportsrelated medical expenses. They are asking that graduation rates increase. They are asking that educational opportunities for student 

athletes in good standing be protected. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

84 

They are asking that universities be prohibited from using a permanent injury suffered during athletics as a reason to reduce or 

eliminate a scholarship. They are asking to establish and enforce 

uniform safety guidelines in all sports to help prevent serious injuries and avoidable deaths. And they are asking to prohibit the punishment of college athletes that have not committed a crime. Is 

there any one on that list that I have just mentioned that is unreasonable? Is there any piece of that your institution would say no, 

I am awful sorry, we can’t do that? 

Or let me phrase it positively. Would you each be willing to lead 

an effort in your respective conferences to see to it that your fellow 

member institutions say absolutely, guys, you are absolutely right? 

We are going to do it, it is the right thing to do. 

Judge STARR. Mr. Bishop, I think that series of questions, they 

are in fact important. They are legitimate. And we are, in fact, continually working toward addressing them. Take the concussion policy. The NCAA does have a concussion policy, and requires members to—our conference requires it. And we have a concussion policy. We continually monitor that. There are studies underway, from 

the University of Virginia and the NCAA has personally has directly funded a study. So this is evolving science. So yes, we want 

to— 

Mr. BISHOP. Here is my question. 

Judge STARR. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry. I don’t mean to be rude, but I only have 

five minutes. Should we not—if unionization is as bad as so many 

of you think it is, should we not use this as a catalyst? I mean, and 

not just talk about conversations and not just talk about yes, we 

are looking at it and we are studying it. Let’s do it. Can’t—I mean, 

you are very powerful institutions in very powerful conferences 

that people look to for leadership. Can you not just say we are 

going to lead an effort to make this happen? 

Judge STARR. Again, briefly, I believe it is happening. Can we 

move more quickly? Of course, you could always move more quickly. But it is, in fact, a serious conversation. These myriad issues 

that you have rightly raised are under serious review. And it is not 

just a conversation, things are happening. The NCAA, the cost of 

attendance for the Division 1— 

Mr. BISHOP. I want to give Mr. Muir a chance. But my question 

is, in these conversations who is speaking for the student athlete? 

Mr. MUIR. I would say there are a multiple of individuals who 

are speaking for the student athletes, including the student athletes themselves. We here are—a number of our constituencies, 

both on and off campus, both saying we need the student athlete’s 

voice. And certainly we are being attentive to that. 

Our presidents are at the table. They are constantly thinking 

about this. They are trying to take leadership roles, as you so mentioned. Athletic directors, I was at an athletic directors meeting 

yesterday. Again, this is a prominent discussion point because we 

do want to make sure that the student athlete’s experience is the 

best it possibly can be. And we need to enhance it. 

Mr. BISHOP. Right. Let me just say one last thing. I hope that 

we can somehow collectively get to the point where we hold student 

athletes to the same—or hold coaches to the same standards we 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

85 

hold student athletes. A coach can break a contract with impunity. 

When you left Yale University you had to sit out a year. I don’t 

understand why it is that a coach can break a contract with impunity, and a student athlete is penalized if he wants to move from 

one institution to another institution that he thinks better serves 

his needs. 

Mr. Eilers, you want to comment on that, or— 

Mr. EILERS. No. I think I kind of said it in my testimony, Congressman Bishop. But I do think if you are—if—and I don’t understand why we can’t get there. People should go to college to get degrees, first and foremost, full stop. Part of their educational experience, at least for me, was participating in a sports-related program, 

just like someone would do drama, speech, debate, what have you. 

It has made me who I am today, it has made me a better father, 

a better husband, a better person, a better businessperson. 

And so, you know, it is—I would disagree with Mr. Schwarz’s 

characterization that it is separate and distinct from your educational experience. I think it is integral, like any of those things. 

And what we need to do is make sure that student athletes have 

the ability to go to an institution for four years and earn a degree, 

and leave with a degree. And so if that is the case, I would respectfully disagree that there should be some quid pro quo. That person 

should make a commitment to that coach to give him four years of 

service coming out of high school. 

If we don’t do that, though, then I would submit to what you are 

suggesting. That we should allow people to then flow around, it 

they should be equal. I want a two-way street to be equal for both 

parties. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Dr. Roe? 

Mr. ROE. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. And just to clarify 

a couple things that Mr. Schwarz started with. A full disclosure. 

The head basketball coach and athletic director where I was, where 

I went to college, Dave Luce, did both jobs for a long time. This 

is a mid-Division 1 school. And I am absolutely committed to college athletics. I donated the money to build the athletic academic 

center at the college. 

Mr. Schwarz, you pointed out about how much money—and I 

agree, the NCAA is. But most don’t live at that lofty level. I just 

looked—pulled up on my iPad right here, most colleges lose money 

in athletics. They don’t make money. A few of the big areas do, big 

schools do. But at Austin P, it is a $9 million budget a year, not 

a $90 million budget. And they are—most schools at that level are 

struggling. Now, I realize this is unionization at a private university, not a state university. But student athletes, Mr. Eilers, I 

agree totally with you. 

And, Mr. Bishop, a couple things. You can transfer now and— 

without loss of a time if you transfer at a different level. If you go 

from Division 1 to Division 2, or Division 2 up, you can play immediately. Just to clarify that for everyone. Either Mr. Livingston or 

maybe Judge Starr, you—I think this ruling, what concerns me is, 

at least when I played sports it was fun. I had a good—I mean, we 

sound like it is some kind of drudgery here. I—golf is sometimes, 

but for the most part sports are fun. That is why you play sports. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

86 

And as Mr. Eilers clearly said, he added his experience as a student athlete and it made him a better—he mentioned it very eloquently. I think that is what athletics—it did for me. It taught 

me—I learned a lot on the playing field I would never have learned 

in the classroom. So it is—I think it is added. Do you think this 

ruling could potentially cause schools just to drop football, or 

sports? 

Judge STARR. Well, we have to consider all options in terms of 

the best interests of the university. I know that the president of 

the University of Delaware has said that—and he was a student 

athlete himself, that the University of Delaware would not be able 

to continue. Now, it is a public university. So it really is raising 

a host of serious questions. I think it could, in fact, at a minimum 

cause programmatic curtailments. I think it raises the issues that 

we talk about under Title IX: how do you achieve the Title IX, a 

very important balance to achieve, as a matter of policy and as a 

matter of law. 

It is simply the wrong way to go to address these very important 

issues. The number of questions that are raised are so myriad they 

are just remarkably wide-ranging. And I don’t think there is a real 

answer for most of these questions. The Fair Labor Standards Act 

is yet another. The antitrust laws themselves that were emphasized earlier. So it is bringing us into a sea of complete uncertainty. 

Mr. ROE. I agree, and in the—excuse me, go ahead— 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. If I might add, the issue that Mr. Schwarz 

talked about in terms of the protection for entire leagues, where 

they all belong under one collective bargaining agreement, is absolutely correct for professional sports. That does not exist in college 

sports. The NLRB only would govern 17 out of the approximately 

120 schools that play football. And so you end up with a potential 

arms race for those that can afford it, and others—as Judge Starr 

says—may decide to make a decision to get rid of it. Sports are 

competitive, and so the teams that want to win are going to, you 

know, pay their way up to win. 

Mr. ROE. I think if Northwestern unionizes they are going to 

play 12 homecoming games is what I think they are going to do. 

In the event that the student athlete unionizes and parties can’t 

agree on the terms and conditions of employment, is it possible the 

student athletes will strike? 

Judge STARR. That is a traditional tool in collective bargaining. 

And that itself raises not only just the idea, seems to be unthinkable that the football team goes on strike. Well, then what about 

the non-scholarship athletes? So, again, that is the incoherence of 

the collective bargaining agreement. But does that mean they also 

walk out on class? If they are employees, then what is their relationship to the academic enterprise? 

Mr. ROE. I think, Mr. Eilers, I am going to you the final comment. I think you said it. When I was in college, the students were 

true student athletes. Our quarterback had a 4.0 as a physics/math 

major. And there are many people that use athletics to do what you 

have done to enhance their—if you play—you were obviously an incredible athlete because you played professional football. Well, you 

are if you got in the professional leagues. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

87 

But I think your comments were absolutely spot on, and that is 

the way we should look at it as a student athlete. And you pointed 

out that some students play in the band, some, and they practice 

for hours. Some go to ROTC. They work very hard. And drama and 

other things. And so I will give you the final say on this. 

Chairman KLINE. Actually, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

[Laughter.] 

Brilliant timing. 

Mr. Courtney? 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, you know, listening to the testimony, most people, I think, would agree that 

what happened at Northwestern was because the NCAA has created a vacuum in terms of students being treated fairly. And if you 

look at the mission statement of the College Athletes Players Association, one of the mission statement items is to provide better due 

process in sanction actions. Again, I represent the University of 

Connecticut. We had a pretty exciting spring. 

Shabazz Napier made two incredible, I think, courageous comments during the course of the lead-up to the tournament. Number 

one, describing in a way that might be embarrassing to some that 

sometimes he went to bed hungry at night. And that is because of 

the nickel-and-dime, Mickey Mouse NCAA rules in terms of defining what universities could provide to students. I mean, it was kind 

of almost comical to see Mr. Emmert rush to announce a new rule 

on April 15 that now has changed and reformed that, of course, not 

because of what Mr. Napier said. 

But, you know, for a lot of us, you know, it seems, at times, that 

the only thing that changes the NCAA is external pressure. And 

frankly, that is what I think this event at Northwestern has kind 

of produced. We wouldn’t be having this hearing to talk about the 

plight of students but for the actions of those students. But frankly, 

there are other times when these sanctions—process is far more 

pernicious than maybe, you know, missing a—a midnight snack. 

You know, we look at what Mr. Napier said about the fact that this 

is what happens when you ban us; the due process, and I use that 

term loosely, that the NCAA engages in, unfortunately, far too 

many times shoots the bystander in an effort to try and comport 

with some measure of student athletes. 

That school was banned because of a cohort of students who had 

poor academic performance. And there is—no one is going to dispute that. In 2007, not one player on that team was around at the 

university when those scores triggered an APR finding that—with 

a four-year look-back period. And yet they found themselves in a 

situation where they were banned from post season play because 

of a rule that makes absolutely no sense. 

And by the way, other schools are doing the one-and-done, you 

know, system. Which—you know, try and explain that to the average person why that is okay, and yet a student like Shabazz Napier is punished. By the—he is going to graduate in a couple 

weeks. He is getting his full degree. He is getting punished for 

something that somebody he never even knew who was at stores 

seven years earlier in terms of their performance. And that is 

where, again, I just am very skeptical, frankly, of the protections 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

88 

for students who get swept up in this bizarre, Byzantine system of 

trying to comport with some definition of student athletes. 

And with all due respect to the witnesses here, I don’t think the 

colleges and universities—because they have their own pressures 

in terms of not rocking the boat with the NCAA to really step up 

and provide real, honest to God advocacy for students who are getting swept up. Perry Jones III was disqualified at Baylor because 

his mother took three small loans when he was a high school sophomore, before he even went to Baylor. And yet he was punished 

later on in his college career because his mother was in a desperate 

financial situation, took a short-term loan from an AAU coach. 

I am sure—you know, no one wants to, you know, vouch for that. 

But nonetheless, why would he get punished for that except for the 

NCAA’s desperate attempt to try and somehow comport with the 

definition of student athletes. 

So, Mr. Schwarz, I guess—you know, when we talk about treating people with dignity—because that is, to me what is really so 

offensive about the way—you know, the NCAA violated patient 

rights in that Miami investigation. I mean, the power that they can 

exert, again, tramples on people’s ability to even just have basic 

due process rights when these sanction hearings and investigations. 

And I was wondering if you could just sort of put your comments 

in that context. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. Sure. Sure, I mean, I think it is a great step that 

the NCAA has started saying that if a school wants to give an athlete a meal they are allowed to. Previously, the individual choice 

to feed an athlete was prohibited beyond a certain number of 

meals. And that is the level of cartel control we see here. 

And you are exactly right that the issue is not whether a benevolent organization will deign to provide the people who bring value 

with some crumbs. It is a voice, it is advocacy. 

I don’t know how often James Brown is quoted in here, but here 

he is saying ‘‘I don’t want nobody to give me nothing. Open up the 

door, I will get it myself’’. And that is, effectively, what the movement here is about. It is about saying give us some avenue. Let us 

come in. It is an NCAA violation to come in and ask for money 

right now, as an example. You get permanently banned. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. And I want 

to commend him, the gentleman from Connecticut, for getting a little bragging without actually mentioning the basketball word. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. Desjarlais? 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly appreciate 

all of you being here today, bringing us your expertise. 

I wanted to go to Mr. Livingston first, and ask a few questions. 

Mr. Livingston, the NLRB regional director’s decision in Northwestern applies solely to private universities because state universities, as state government entities, are excluded from NLRA coverage. That means the decision only applies to a portion of universities in each conference and division. However, state law applies 

to public colleges. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

89 

What are the differences between state and federal laws regarding collective bargaining and do mandatory subjects of bargaining 

differ? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. There are a variety of differences and the states 

actually vary widely. The NLRA, as you know, covers organizing 

rules, bargaining unit determinations, subjects of bargaining, and 

the right to engage in economic action. All those differ under various state laws. For example, some prohibit public sector bargaining entirely. Others permit public sector bargaining on very 

limited terms. Others don’t have the right to engage in economic 

action. Others, for example, would have interest arbitration. So you 

would have different subjects being negotiated by different groups 

in different collective bargaining agreements. 

It ultimately would end up with individual bargaining and an 

un-level playing field. Different terms in different contracts. Then 

when those teams compete, unlike in professional sports you have 

got something that I simply don’t think is workable. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay, yes. And I think that is an important 

point. That if the scholarship athletes do organize the union, universities will bargain over terms and conditions of employment. 

And the parties are compelled to bargain over mandatory subjects 

of bargaining. What terms and conditions of employment are mandatory subjects of bargaining? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. I appreciate the comments that we have heard 

from everyone today about the need for college athletics to improve. 

You know, improve the lot of the student athlete. But whether it 

is the College Athletes Players Association or any other union— 

and, of course, any other union has the right to go ahead and organize—under the National Labor Relations Act they could bargain 

about a wide variety of things. The statute is wages, hours, and 

other terms and conditions of employment. That is so broad that 

it would cover compensation, signing bonuses, retention bonuses, 

hours of work—so in terms of schedules, potentially even class attendance. 

While CAPA’s goals may be limited right now, if they are eventually certified as some organization based on member desires maybe 

they become greater. And, of course, any other union wouldn’t be 

limited to the goals that we have heard today. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. In the event that student athletes unionize, 

they will pay dues to the union. Where do these payments come 

from? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Dues are an internal union matter. So how they 

decide to do it is up to them. But under section 302 of the Labor 

Management Relations Act, it is clear that an employer—in this 

case, the university—can’t pay it. An employer would have to bargain over check-off, for example, but that comes from wages. And 

so unless we are talking about wages in some form, the union 

would have to answer that; CAPA or any other union. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. We touched briefly, earlier, on taxation. These 

universities and organizations are tax-exempt. If a student becomes 

an employer are they then subject to taxation? And if so, does that 

affect Pell grants, ability to get student loans? Where do we go to— 

how do we go down that road? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

90 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Those really are beyond my area of expertise. 

But I do believe that others perhaps can answer that question. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Does somebody else have a comment on that? 

Judge STARR. Well, section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code has 

a very capacious definition of what is income. So if an individual 

is an employee, then very strong arguments, it is unsettled and, obviously, this is a new question. But it is going to open up serious 

questions about the entire range of services, including the scholarship itself. There are issues presently with respect to how a scholarship is treated. But if they are employees, then it is compensation and it is presumptively taxable. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. And if they are employees, and you presume 

that they would have to pay taxes on it, I would presume that the 

goals any scholarship negotiations, wage negotiations would be to 

increase that amount to take into account the tax consequences. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay, thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you all for being here today. 

Just want to make a couple of comments about things that I 

have heard in your earlier testimony. I want to go back to something my colleague, Mr. Courtney, said. I happen to have attended 

Ohio State University. I knew a lot of the football players when I 

was in school. This issue was a problem then, it is an issue today. 

So why has it not been taken care of in more than 30 years? There 

is no reason for it. And but for the courageous actions of these 

young men, we wouldn’t be talking about it today. So I want to put 

that on the record. 

And then, for you, Mr. Livingston, you talked about the Ohio 

statehouse, who has determined that our athletes are not employees. Just because they said it doesn’t make it so. These are the 

same people that want to restrict voting rights. So just because 

they said that doesn’t make it so. 

As well, we do know that student athletes, that scholarship athletes, are treated differently than those not on scholarship. We 

know it, and we just need to admit it and not even pretend that 

there is some difference. The restrictions they have and the time 

commitment is much different than students who are non-scholarship students. 

First question, I would really like to ask Mr. Schwarz. In your 

written testimony, you mentioned the level of profit the NAAC— 

I mean, the NCAA is making off its student athletes. Do you know 

if any of that profit is dedicated in any way to providing health 

benefits to those students? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. Some of it is. I mean, most on-field injuries, the 

immediate cost of that injury is covered. It is not required, but it 

is covered. Long-term injuries that linger typically are less likely 

to be covered. So it is not always the case. 

Could I just add one quick thing, real fast? 

Ms. FUDGE. Very quickly. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. You mention that since you were in college there 

has been a problem about the cost of attendance stipends. The reaCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

91 

son that there aren’t cost of attendance stipends is because the 

NCAA voted them away in 1973. They have been claiming that 

they have been talking about bringing them back now since 1973. 

In 1986, something was tried, they didn’t pass it. In 2006, something was tried, they didn’t pass it. Now they are telling you, oh, 

it is coming real soon. There has been a long history of its coming 

real soon. 

Ms. FUDGE. Well, thank you. You know, I mean, the NCAA also 

doesn’t want these young people to be able to make a living, the 

little bit that they can, as well. I mean, I was around when the 

whole scandal at Ohio State happened about some kids selling 

their own shirts. The university sells their shirts every day, but the 

shirts that they take off their back they can’t sell. I won’t go to that 

one. 

But I would like to ask Mr. Starr and Mr. Muir, what do your 

football and basketball coaches make annually? 

Judge STARR. I don’t have the number off the top of my head. It 

is substantial, it is a free market. And so we want to keep our 

coaches. We have had stability, so I— 

Ms. FUDGE. But you— 

Judge Starr.—I can get those for you. 

Ms. FUDGE. Would you please? 

Mr. Muir? 

Mr. MUIR. I am not at liberty to share the numbers. 

Ms. FUDGE. Is it a secret? 

Mr. MUIR. No, it is just something that we don’t share at Stanford. 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay. 

Mr. MUIR. But at the same token— 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay, thank you. That is just the only thing I wanted to ask you. 

Yes, sir? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. I know the answer for Baylor. Coach Art Briles makes—made, in 2011, $2.4 million; Scott Drew made $2.1 million. 

And the women’s basketball coach made $1.3 million. At Stanford, 

the number isn’t published. But in the one year that Jim 

Harbaugh’s salary rose above the Stanford surgeons, who are the 

top five employees, he made a little over $1 million. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Starr, you mentioned earlier that obviously the goal of attending a college or university is to obtain a degree. I am assuming 

we agree on that point. 

Judge STARR. Yes, we do. 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay, but do you also realize that for Division 1 football athletes, the admins basketball players, their graduation rates 

across the board hover around 50 percent? 

Judge STARR. At Baylor it is higher. At Baylor it is 62 percent 

for our men’s basketball team. But I could not agree more, Ms. 

Fudge. We need to create—especially in men’s basketball, but to a 

considerable degree in football, as well—this culture of student athlete. And it begins with the coaches, it begins with the head coach. 

But the entire infrastructure has to be oriented toward that. At the 

same time, these are young men and young women who are making their own choices. They decide what is important for them. All 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

92 

we can do is create a culture of encouragement and of genuine support. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. I see my time is going. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, thank you all. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. 

Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you very much. I will be brief. Anyone can 

answer this question. Do athletic scholarships give potential academic opportunities to students who otherwise would not have 

them available to them because of—shearly based on their ability 

to play a sport? 

Mr. Muir? 

Mr. MUIR. Yes, I would say that the opportunity to attend an institution like Stanford, to be afforded the opportunity to both compete at the highest level as well as get a quality education, we had 

less than five percent be admitted this past year; 40,000 applications. And so when our coaches present young people with an opportunity to come and compete at Stanford it is a wonderful experience. And I think our kids, as soon as they get in the door, understand and cherish that opportunity. And as I said, with the high 

graduation rate they understand that they are part of the fabric of 

the place. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. 

Judge STARR. There is a very significant opportunity for firstgeneration college attendees. So it is a door opener, it has been historically. I believe the NCAA has said that approximately 15 percent of student athletes who receive scholarships are first-generation; no one has attended college in their family. So it is a great 

part of the American story. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. I will just have a brief comment, then. 

I think we all here today—people testifying and members on both 

sides—know that there are substantial issues we are discussing 

today. And I am hopeful this discussion will continue and make 

things better for, and improvements to, our college athletic system. 

So that young people across the country can continue to compete. 

But also, as many of you have outlined, more importantly have access to an educational experience that helps them in their future 

careers and down the line. 

So with that, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is a 

very interesting hearing, and I appreciate your expertise, all of the 

witnesses who are here today. 

Mr. Eilers, did I say your name correctly? 

Mr. EILERS. You did. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thanks. Mr. Eilers, you talked about how the debate should be about what is the best way to address the goal. And 

I really appreciate that. I know that some of my colleagues have 

mentioned the importance of addressing the goals that the college 

athletes have set out. 

I was reading an editorial that came out after the regional director’s opinion that said that the college sports establishment has 

brought this trouble on itself by not moving to address players’ leCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

93 

gitimate grievances. Obviously, the regional director found some 

differences between what Northwestern is doing and what you 

have described in your experience and, of course, Mr. Muir and 

Judge Starr. 

I wanted to ask just a quick question. I know, Mr. Eilers, you 

said you went—you have an MBA from Kellogg school, a great program. But you are not here representing Northwestern. 

Mr. Livingston, do you happen to represent Northwestern? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. I do not. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I was just curious about that because— 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am here on my own behalf. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I was just curious about that because, you know, 

we have heard different experiences here and different facts about 

your colleges, like Mr. Muir, what Stanford is doing. But what we 

are talking about is a decision that is specific to Northwestern. And 

I—one of the things that the regional director found was that the 

scholarship players are identified and recruited in the first instance 

because of their football prowess and not because of their academic 

achievement in high school. Is that similar, Mr. Muir, you are 

shaking your head no. Is that different from your experience at 

Stanford? 

Mr. MUIR. That is definitely different. When I think about what 

our coaches are doing in identifying young people to potentially 

come to Stanford, as I said earlier the first process that they have 

to hurdle, they have to go through, is making sure that they can 

pass admissions and make sure that they can enter school just like 

the general student. So we are weeding out individuals. Because if 

they don’t have the academic record, doesn’t matter what their athletic accomplishments are. If they are not able to—in order to meet 

the needs of ensuring that they get an education that is not going 

to happen. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And I was trying to figure out from reading part 

of the regional director’s opinion, what happens if a class that—a 

player, a scholarship player, wants to take, because of his major— 

or I should say his or her major because maybe this could be expanded to women’s sports, as well—what happens if that class conflicts with practice? What does the college do? 

Mr. MUIR. So when I attend a practice, when I see our student 

athletes practicing, getting ready for a competition, there is many 

a time where I will see our football student athletes specifically 

walk off the field because they are attending a lab, they are attending a class and that comes first. And— 

Ms. BONAMICI. And they are not penalized for that, or— 

Mr. MUIR. They are not. Those— 

Ms. BONAMICI. They are permitted to do that? 

Mr. MUIR. No, those are the same kids who are—who will play 

on Saturdays, as well, too. So— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Was that your experience, too, Mr. Eilers? 

Mr. EILERS. Yes, it was. And there—you know, there are sacrifices it made. So I took organic chemistry one summer, right, between my sophomore and my junior year because of that fact and 

trying to take the labs. I would only submit one additional item, 

which is I think what Stanford has done is incredible in football, 

and what they do on the academic front, accomplishing both. There 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

94 

was a brief moment in time, before we ran into an unfortunate 

game against Alabama in the national championship, I was most 

proud of Notre Dame having the highest graduation rate for the 

football players, as well as briefly being ranked number one in the 

country. So you can do both. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Well, that is interesting. Because the regional director, I believe, found that Northwestern has a 97 percent graduation rate for its players, which seems to be pretty high. 

I wanted to ask also about what happens during the recruitment 

process? Because I mentioned what the finding was about Northwestern that they were recruited because of their football prowess. 

But what happens during that recruitment process? How are the 

prospective athletes actually made aware of all of the opportunities 

that are available to them? 

How do they decide what they are considering during that consideration process? Who informs them about, you know, whether 

they will lose their scholarship if they don’t stay on the team? Mr. 

Muir, and maybe, Judge Starr, you could respond to that, as well. 

Judge STARR. First of all, in terms of the recruitment process I 

have personally seen what that process looks like. And it includes 

a very thorough introduction to here is the academic support. They 

will meet people from the academic support staff. They will see— 

and we try, of course, to determine is there a diagnostic testing 

issue. That is done by the university. But those tried in terms of 

any learning disability. So there is a very holistic introduction to 

the university as a whole, including the academic side. And usually, the parents or parent, or loved one is there with the prospective student athlete. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And my time has expired. I yield 

back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Rokita? 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. I thank the gentlemen for 

your testimony today. 

You know, I think from what I heard Judge Starr kind of, as he 

would being a former judge, kind of really clarified the issue. And 

that is, are we going to use the NLRA as a vehicle for the improvements that you have all talked about today. I suspect—no, I can’t 

imagine—the authors of the law or the intent of Congress was to 

cover this situation. But let’s poke around with it. Let’s explore a 

little bit. 

Mr. Livingston, if the students were to strike or if the athletics 

department or university were to lock the players out, like you 

would have at a steel mill let’s say, during the collective bargaining 

process, would the students be able to attend class? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. That is an unanswered question. The only experience we really have is, in professional sports where it is the entire league that typically goes on strike or is locked out— 

Mr. ROKITA. That is in professional sports. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. But in college, because we don’t have it, we 

don’t know what would happen. And so, for example— 

Mr. ROKITA. Because in college you have classes, right, and 

teachers and whatnot? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

95 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Yes. Would they be entitled to stay in their 

dorms? Would they have to vacate those? Would they have to leave 

class, or start paying for it. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Those are unanswered questions. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. Yes, certainly not answered by the law or the 

regulations, or anything else. 

Mr. Muir, Northwestern is in the Big-10 conference, as you 

know, along with two schools in Indiana, one being Purdue, in my 

district. Let’s say that Northwestern students, student athletes, 

were to unionize and proceed to either strike or be locked out. How 

would that affect the rest of the conference? Using your knowledge 

and experience. 

Mr. MUIR. You know, not being at Northwestern I don’t know if 

it is appropriate for me to jump on that. But I— 

Mr. ROKITA. No. I just say using your experience and knowledge, 

what do you think would happen? How do you feel? 

Mr. MUIR. I think it would be difficult to continue to schedule 

and continue to have competition. 

Mr. ROKITA. If Stanford were in a similar situation, what would 

be the effects? 

Mr. MUIR. I think if that was the case, we were going down the 

path, Stanford might not opt to continue to compete at the level 

that we are currently competing at. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right, kind of to Dr. Roe’s point, or comment that 

he made earlier. 

My district also has St. Joseph’s College, which I am proud to be 

a board member of. It is a Division 2 school, which if I understand 

right you can share scholarships at that level between students, 

and there are limited funds. Again, experience—looking into your 

crystal ball—what would be the effect of Division 2 students with 

regard to this? 

Mr. MUIR. If this—again, I am not a legal expert. But if this 

were—the students at Division 2 wanted to unionize as well, too, 

I think that would dramatically affect whether institutions can continue to offer—have these offerings. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. 

Mr. MUIR. Which is part of the fabric of higher education, I 

think, intercollegiate athletics. And so that would be a shame if 

that all of a sudden changed. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes, I—these questions, and your answers, continue 

to bring clarity to me that I don’t think this law was even intended 

for this kind of situation. 

Mr. Livingston? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. May I add something? That we are talking 

about scholarships as though there is a finite limit. Under the National Labor Relations Act, the union would be able to bargain 

about the number and, of course, the value. So half-scholarships 

versus full scholarships, it is all a subject of bargaining under the 

NLRA. 

Mr. ROKITA. Understood. Thank you. 

Judge Starr, coming to you. You know, we often talk about, on 

this committee and in businesses across the nation and in union 

halls, about the cost of unionization, the cost of bargaining, the cost 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

96 

of dues, et cetera. Whether or not a union member should have to 

pay dues voluntarily or not have a choice in that. What do you 

think, in your experience, would be the cost of unionization for the 

employer and the employees? Can you estimate employer and employee cost if student athletes unionized at Baylor, for example? 

Judge STARR. I have not—we have not punched through the 

numbers enough to even come up with a reasonable estimate. What 

we do know is that the whole idea of collective bargaining is, in 

fact, to increase the whole reservoir of duly agreed upon commitments by the employer. So I think part of the question is, what can 

we do outside the collective bargaining—which has never been contemplated before—that, in fact, improves student welfare. That is 

the ultimate policy question, it seems to me, that you have rightly 

focused on. And the unionization process is just raising a whole 

host of questions that we can’t answer today. 

But what we do know, the costs will, in fact, go up. Including 

issues, then, with respect to how is that student going to be treated 

as an employee in terms of taxation, Medicare and the like. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. And that is a segue into my last question. And it is for you, Judge STARR. Considering that the world is 

a jury, watching today people might get the impression that the acknowledgment that improvements need to be made is an acknowledgment that someone was caught or that this just started as a reaction to this recent decision. Can you give us evidence otherwise, 

via your testimony? 

Judge STARR. Yes. 

Chairman KLINE. I am sorry. I am sorry, Judge. The gentleman’s 

time has expired. 

Mr. ROKITA. Can the gentleman respond? 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schwarz, in many 

cases the scholarship requires you to play, in most cases? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. My understanding is, until 2011 the NCAA mandated that the scholarship could only be for one year, whether 

schools wanted to give one or not. If you stopped playing during the 

course of that year you were allowed to continue for that year, after 

which the scholarship would not be renewed. The current deal— 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, some colleges, you get a scholarship and you can 

continue with the scholarship whether you play or not. Isn’t that 

right? If you have a needs-based scholarship? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. If you choose not to play football, the schools have 

the option per the agreement to terminate the aid, even on a fouryear deal, at the end of that year. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Now, you have indicated the number of hours 

that had to be committed. Is an athlete required to comply with 

that schedule? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. You know, in the NLRB hearing the facts that 

came out that weren’t controverted—and, in effect, I heard Mark 

Emmert say similar things—it is a 40-, 50-, 60-hour a week job 

during the season, and about half that off-season. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Now, can a student ever be—before the ruling, 

could a student ever be an employee of the college, like if they 

worked at the library or something like that? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

97 

Mr. SCHWARZ. I mean, students are employees at universities all 

the time. At the Stanford Daily, the editor in chief, I think, makes 

about $45,000. Football players— 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, in that case, is the student’s—is the status of 

a student, does that affect his status as an employee? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. No. Students, employees are mutually exclusive 

concepts— 

Mr. SCOTT. And the part-time job could be an essential part of 

the financial aid package. You get a certain amount of scholarship, 

you get a certain loan and we will make sure you get a part-time 

job at the library. That could be an essential part of— 

Mr. SCHWARZ. That is right. My roommate in college did just 

that. 

Mr. SCOTT. And it is unlikely that if you quit your job at the library you would lose the rest of your scholarship. That would be 

a little unheard of, wouldn’t it? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. I think that is right. You know, there are lots of 

ways that students outside of sports can be compensated. At Stanford, there was a class that required students to sell an app on 

Facebook. And to commercialize it was part of the requirements of 

the class, and they got credit for doing that rather than being—you 

know, losing— 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Now, is it possible that some student athletes 

would qualify as employees under this ruling, and others not qualify? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. My understanding is, the ruling applies only to 

FBS football athletes who receive a scholarship. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, what would the difference be for those who 

would—I mean, if you have a scholarship and just put a couple 

hours a week in swimming or wrestling or some other sport that 

doesn’t have the time commitment, is it possible that you would be 

a student athlete and not an employee? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. Well, I object to the term ‘‘student athlete’’ because it is a term of our design—designed to basically dodge legal 

agreements. But if you say ‘‘college athlete,’’ I think college athletes 

are college athletes if they go to college and they play sports. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well. And it is possible that some would qualify as 

employees and some would not. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. I think that is right. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if a college wanted to avoid the union problem, 

they could treat them like college students and not like employees. 

Is that right? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. I am not sure if I am fully understanding, but— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you are—if you have got a scholarship for the 

chess club or something, or band, and are not required to put in 

these kind of hours, you would be a—I think—a college athlete. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. That is right. And actually, the reverse is true. 

Right now, the chess team has more rights than college athletes because the chess team could say I want a college scholarship that 

covers more than just the athletic scholarship. They have the right 

in the market to bargain, but football athletes don’t. 

Mr. SCOTT. But it is possible, under this ruling, that some would 

qualify as employees and others would not. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. I think that is correct. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

98 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Eilers, you indicated issues of the right to scholarship, medical treatment, the right to minimize brain trauma and 

other situations like that. A union could actually—could engage 

these issues. If it is not the union, who would be in a position, in 

a bargaining position, to engage these issues and have the resources actually to do the research and make a presentation on behalf of the athletes? 

Mr. EILERS. Yes. Mr. Scott, as I said in my testimony, I don’t 

have a solution. To me, it should be the NCAA and the member 

institutions. And it is clear—and I think, some, just to clarify what 

I think are some misconceptions—schools operate differently. At 

Notre Dame, there is a specific instance of a scholarship athlete, 

played football, decided after his sophomore year not to play football anymore. We honored his scholarship, he graduated with a degree, in four years, from the University of Notre Dame. 

There may be other schools that operate differently. And our 

walk-ons were treated just like the scholarship athletes. Maybe at 

the University of Ohio—at Ohio State they weren’t. So there needs 

to be an elevation across all, I think, collegiate sports to make sure 

that we are delivering for the student. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mrs. Brooks? 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. And thank you all for your testimony 

today. It is so very important. I am the daughter of a high school 

football coach, and the mother of a D1 soccer graduate from Javier 

University who suffered a serious concussion in high school in the 

last game of her high school career. And after wonderful medical 

treatment and proper healing, she went on to play four years of D1 

soccer. 

Now, many parents, and people who are helping these athletes 

get scholarships—which they all work so very hard in their lives 

to achieve those scholarships—parents advocate for these young 

people, the students advocate. The student athlete advisory committee of the NCAA advocates. I would assume the president of the 

universities and the representatives of each of the conferences that 

represent the NCAA on their board are advocates for these athletes. 

And I would submit that there are many avenues to rectify the 

problems. And there are continued problems for college athletes. 

But these athletes make these choices as to which schools to attend. 

One thing we haven’t talked about enough is the role of the 

coaches in all of this process. And the coaches, who are employees 

of the university who report to the athletic directors who report to 

the college presidents who report to the board of trustees, what 

mechanisms are there in your universities for the students to voice 

their concerns with the coaches and the coaches to voice their concerns to the administration? 

I will start with you, Judge Starr. 

Judge STARR. Yes, we do have at Baylor, and it is frequently the 

case at most institutions, that there is a student athletic council. 

So these are student athletes themselves who come together. They 

are elected by their fellow student athletes. And so they have direct 

access, not simply to their coaches but to the athletic director. They 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

99 

can also communicate with someone who we haven’t talked about 

this morning. That is the faculty athletic representative, who is to, 

in fact, bring an academic perspective to bear in terms of the entire 

athletic program, including reviewing specific cases. 

So there are—you are absolutely right. There are numerous avenues for voices to be heard. The NCAA—the final thing I would say 

is, the NCAA itself, however, believes that in its governance historically it has not done well in terms of assuring the student athlete voice. And so there are reforms underway that I think will be 

adopted that will, in fact, better ensure that student athletes are 

there in the inner councils of the NCAA. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Mr. Muir? 

Mr. MUIR. Yes, we have a number of opportunities to hear from 

our student athletes and from our coaches. The student athlete 

council at Stanford, the cardinal council I just met with at my 

home two weeks ago. And it is a chance for me to check in and 

hear various user concerns and how are we doing. And it is really 

important. 

Also, we survey all of our student athletes after every season and 

we provide feedback. They can do it anonymously, and we get information on just how their experience is going. Also, the coaches 

have an open door policy. We look for that when we select our 

coaches, and the proper leadership. 

We think we have one of the largest leadership development programs on our campus. And so that is another opportunity for student athletes to engage. We have administrators, we have counselors, we have tutors, all on a united front to make sure that their 

experience is the best it possibly can be, and an avenue for our student athletes to engage. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Is it fair to say that your coaches, in part, are 

judged, and their successes judged in part, on the graduation rates 

of their athletes? 

Mr. MUIR. Yes, we look at number of things. And we are obviously looking at the graduation rates and what they are doing in 

the classroom. And what they are doing to make sure that they are 

solid citizens and a part of the university fabric, which is what we 

have talked about earlier. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And I know there is always a tension when student athletes have to leave and may miss classes or test or labs 

and so forth. But as Judge Starr indicated, there are faculty representatives. And there has to be that relationship with the faculty 

and the athletic department does there not, in order to ensure that 

those students take the tests, that they get the proper reinforcement. And, in addition, the study halls. I know my daughter, there 

were numerous study tables that were required of all student athletes in order to achieve certain GPAs. And those were absolute requirements that they must achieve a certain GPA to get out of 

those study halls. 

Are you familiar with that, Mr. Eilers, at Notre Dame? 

Mr. EILERS. I am. It wasn’t proactive like it is today when I was 

there. If you started and you didn’t perform well, you got sent to 

study hall. Today, they default to everybody starts in study hall. 

And the only thing else that I would comment, Mrs. Brooks, is that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

100 

I am aware of institutions that aren’t at this table but take academics and athletics seriously. And their coaches do have provisions in their contract that if they don’t graduate their student athletes there are negative implications to their salary and to their career. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

My time has expired. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Tierney? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank the 

witnesses today. 

Mr. Eilers, I am impressed that, with the concern and the way 

that you sort of agree with the concerns, the goals, of CAPA, but 

you have a concern about unionization. But I want to point out 

here, these concerns have existed for decades. So I wish that you 

had an idea that you could put forward what you would do if you 

did unionize. Because it seems totally frustrating. 

Mr. Schwarz, let me ask you. I mean, these are not new problems, are they? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. No, not at all. As I said, the issue of cost of attendance stipends has been around since 1973 when, by collective 

vote, the NCAA took them away. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And so I agree with my colleagues, that there are 

lots of advocates out there, different people. But apparently it 

hasn’t been very effective, right? I mean, how is that going for you? 

They have been advocating all this time, and the problem still exists. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. Well, it is a one-sided discussion. 

Mr. TIERNEY. On that. So there was also a comment made that 

the student—the college athlete has choices. What would you say 

to that? 

Mr. SCHWARZ. You know, I am advocating for a much more free 

market opportunity. I think choice would be great. Congresswoman 

Brooks mentioned that schools—students have choice. But what 

they don’t have a choice about is the full package that they receive. 

Because the schools fix the price of what they offer. Everyone offers 

the same thing, so it limits choice. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So, the NCAA, you know, seems to have about $3.2 

billion in revenues. They can make all kinds of decisions to make 

sure that number goes up, but they can’t address even five really 

basic issues except to say that it is coming soon— 

Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes, if I could just—could I add just one thing? 

The idea that this is a money-losing industry, you know, is incredible. If you look at a money-losing industry, you wouldn’t see rising 

pay for employees, you wouldn’t see firms flocking to enter the industry. Nineteen new schools have entered FBS since 1996. None 

have left. You wouldn’t see bonuses that are like 10-to-one for 

sports results instead of academic results. The money is in the system. It is just that it is being denied to the primary generators. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, you made another point when we talked 

about ability. You said that money is being funneled to football 

coaches instead of to the male athlete, and cited some coaches get 

paid $7 million on that. And when the money is going to coaches 

in lieu of increased financial aid to the male athletes, it sort of efCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

101 

fectively puts a cap on that, and then deprives female athletes of 

Title IX matching funds. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. See, that—thanks right. Title IX doesn’t apply to 

coaching pay. That is why male coaches can make so much more 

than female coaches. It applies to financial aid provided to students. And so if that aid is capped, which it is now—and even the 

NCAA says they wish it were higher—a lifting of that cap on male 

athletes would result in effectively matching funds to female athletes. So the cap on men also results in a cap on women. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Starr, I want to just go to some part of your 

testimony. I am going to quote it, if you allow me. ‘‘Under current 

principles of Title IX, the amount of financial aid awards for student athletes must be in the same proportion as the intercollegiate 

sports participation rate of male and females.’’ 

Judge STARR. Yes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. But when I look at the data from the Department 

of Education Web site, it shows that Baylor spends 56 cents on 

male scholarships out of every dollar, but only 44 cents on women’s 

scholarships. But the participation rate suggests that under Title 

IX they should be giving something like 42 cents to men and 58 

cents to women. The Department of Education tells us that there 

is a disparity of just one percentage point. You got some serious explaining to do. 

I want to give you the opportunity to sort of explain to us the 

disparity between the scholarship dollars that go to men versus 

women at Baylor, and the participation rates of men and women. 

Judge STARR. Well, that is a very dynamic and fluid process. So 

it may change from year to year. But if there is, in fact, a disparity—and I accept what you have said, it has to be addressed. 

So we have to come forward with explanations as to why there may 

be a temporary disparity. We recently created two new women’s 

sports, with scholarships, in order to address the disparity. So we 

have, for example, created equestrian, with a number of scholarships for women. We have created acrobatics and tumbling. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Are you saying you believe this is a temporary 

issue? You are saying this isn’t a year-to-year thing? Are you saying that with some knowledge of the fact, or are you just guessing 

that is the case? 

Judge STARR. Well, I don’t know the specifics of those—that specific disparity. So that is information to me. What I do know is that 

the academic department—the athletic department does have to 

focus on this with our Title IX compliance officer. We have a Title 

IX compliance officer who reviews all these kinds of issues to determine whether they are— 

Mr. TIERNEY. I am just disturbed that, you know, the NCAA’s 

answer to all of these issues, which most people agree ought to be 

addressed, is wait for the next decade or two and we might get 

around to it. And even on the Title IX questions, is yeah, we are 

working on it. I think we all ought to be concerned on that. 

And Mr. Eilers, sure, what— 

Mr. EILERS. Could I just share a comment? I agree with your— 

and I have the same frustration. That is that is why I am here 

today. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, I— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

102 

Mr. EILERS. I would like to see this implemented. And the one 

thing that I didn’t want to throw on the table, when we were— 

when I was a student athlete at Notre Dame, we are trying to prepare to play. We used to open up against Michigan, trying to prepare for class. I just couldn’t conceive, when this came up, of trying 

to think about threatening to strike or getting to the Friday night 

or Saturday morning of the football game and not leaving the locker room because demands weren’t being met. I don’t think the student athlete needs that incremental burden, but we have got to get 

there on these issues— 

Mr. TIERNEY. So apparently, they needed to take some drastic action just to get the conversation started here with some sincerity. 

So— 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time— 

Mr. TIERNEY. It is a good idea, I think we ought to at least acknowledge that. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Walberg? 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the 

panel for being here. 

I didn’t participate in a revenue sport. I was in an Olympic sport, 

but wrestling in high school and college, university, for the time 

that I did that was probably the best training for life that I ever 

had. And I did it out of the joy of the sport. I made it by choice. 

Suffered four shoulder surgeries as a result of that in later years 

of my life, but I look back, and I would do it all over again. 

I appreciate also the aspect that there has to be care taken for 

our athletes. And I respect what you have said about your concerns, already, on that. Mr. Muir, in your testimony you state Stanford has taken steps to cover medical costs for injuries, promote 

player safety, and researched prevention and effects of concussions. 

Could you elaborate a little bit more on those steps? And are these 

consistent with NCAA rules? 

Mr. MUIR. They are consistent with NCAA rules. We have a— 

our Stanford medical team is right now doing a concussion study 

on our football student athletes, our lacrosse student athletes, our 

soccer student athletes. What they have told me is this research is 

going to be lengthy in time. We can’t today say, well, here is how 

we prevent that from happening. But certainly they are observing 

that. And they have a medical mouthpiece that they put in each 

of the student athletes that track where blows come from. And certainly that is going to be an ongoing study for us, and they are 

leading in that regard. 

Across the board in terms of the overall student welfare of our 

student athletes, that is something that we hold close and dear to 

us. And it is important that we try to enhance those things as we 

move forward with our student athletes competing at this level. 

Mr. WALBERG. Do the student athletes understand this? Are they 

made aware of opportunities, considerations, programs? 

Mr. MUIR. They are testing. They are the ones who are wearing 

those mouthpieces, they are the ones who are getting educated on 

the risks that are involved and, certainly, what the research that 

we are trying to do. And there is obviously great discussion about 

what does the future hold. And so that is something that they enCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

103 

gage in, and I think it has been worthwhile to have this leadership 

role. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, along that line, you state that Stanford has 

taken steps to protect scholarship support for students who are 

medically disqualified from playing. What are those steps? 

Mr. MUIR. So, for example, we have three incoming football student athletes who have been awarded scholarships. They were not 

able to finish their senior year in competition. We still honored 

those scholarships. We are looking forward to them contributing 

once they are healthy. And we have had other student athletes who 

have gotten injured during the course of play while at Stanford 

that we still honor their scholarships at the end of the day. First 

and foremost, we are here to make sure that they get their degree. 

And we will do everything in our power to make sure that happens, 

regardless of whether they continue to play or not. 

Mr. WALBERG. What about Baylor, Mr. Starr? 

Judge STARR. It is the same policy in place. We do, in fact, care 

for our student athletes and for our football players. If they are, in 

fact, injured the scholarship continues. And we also believe we 

have the moral obligation to them with respect to an injury sustained in football, even post graduation. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. 

Notre Dame, as far as you know, Mr. Eilers? 

Mr. EILERS. Pardon me. As far as I know, Notre Dame is consistent with the other testimony. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. Mr. Muir and Mr. Eilers, I would like you 

to comment, as well. This year, it appears the NCAA will revisit 

the stipend issue. We have talked a bit about that. What is the 

major concern with the stipend issue, from your perspective as an 

athletic director at a major private university? 

Mr. MUIR. So the major issue, I think, is that each institution is 

trying to pay up to the cost of attendance. That is the issue that 

is out there. For each institution, that cost of attendance for personal costs are different. And trying to figure out their exact number, where we can at least try to be equitable. The other thing that 

Mr. Schwarz had mentioned, as well, is the resources that would 

be necessary to provide that. Not all schools are able to meet that 

cost of attendance, and it is a concern for them. Or they will have 

to make other decisions and so that is a difficult one. 

And that is why we spent so many years trying to figure that 

out. I do feel, because of the discussion and the dialogue, that we 

are closer. We realize we need to enhance that overall experience 

for the student athletes, but it is difficult from school to school 

since there are so few that are truly making revenue that they are 

able to far exceed their expenses with revenue. It makes it hard, 

makes it difficult. So I do think we are making progress, but it is 

going to take a little more time. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Eilers? 

Mr. EILERS. Yes. And anecdotally, I would just tell you I was— 

my parents, I was fortunate, were able to give me out of pocket expense money to—when I was on scholarship at Notre Dame. My little brother was there, two years younger than me. Chris Zorich became a college All-American and I played with my last year at the 

Chicago Bears. He didn’t have—he came from a single-parent famCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

104 

ily, went to Chicago VoTech High School. Had no out of pocket 

money. His mom couldn’t afford it, you know. 

So it came down to people—his teammates, you know, his mentors to make sure that he could go out to dinner with us, you know, 

do laundry, et cetera off campus if need be. And I just think that 

is wrong. 

Mr. WALBERG. Yes, yes. Had my first wrestling win at Chicago 

VoTech. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. Byrne? 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, gentlemen. I am the former chancellor of 

post secondary education for the state of Alabama. I am sorry, Mr. 

Eilers. Don’t hold that against me. 

[Laughter.] 

I am also— 

Mr. EILERS. Congratulations. 

Mr. BYRNE.—a former labor lawyer who represented numerous 

clients in front of the National Labor Relations Board, dealt with 

the National Labor Relations Act on a number of occasions. So this 

issue fascinates me because I have dealt with it both ways. Our 

two-year colleges, which is what the post secondary education department in Alabama deals with, does have athletic programs. In 

fact, we had a golfer at Faulkner State Community College that is 

in my district, named Bubba Watson. Bubba went on to the University of Georgia, but he started at an Alabama two-year college. 

And we are very proud of him. 

But we are also proud of all of those student athletes. And the 

vast majority of them will never do what Bubba does, but we hope 

that they come to us and get a good education. Now, Mr. Muir, 

Judge Starr, you know when we are dealing with students in that 

environment they bring their life issues with them. They may be 

students, they may be athletes, but they are also young people and 

they have life issues. And we have coaches and counselors that 

deal with them on stuff that happens on the field and stuff that 

happens off the field. You can’t take them apart. They just come 

together like that. 

And I guess what bothers me about this whole issue—and I want 

to share the concerns I have heard about the NCAA, by the way. 

I see that as a separate issue, frankly, and I think we are trying 

to use the wrong tool to get at some of those NCAA issues. What 

concerns me is, is that if students organize, and we have to deal 

with a union representative instead of the student, what does that 

do to the obligation, the responsibility—I know you all feel it from 

your institutions—to deal with these student athletes with their 

life issues and the stuff that is not directly involved with whatever 

they are doing on the field. What does that do to that? 

Judge STARR. I think it would be very disruptive. You are absolutely right, Congressman, that the relationship is a very individual relationship. And it is not just the coach and the coaching 

staff. It is that entire battery of support services, it is that tutor. 

But it is also the faculty member, it is also the representative to 

the student athletic council. At Baylor we have a very vibrant 

chaplaincy program. So there is the spiritual dimension, as well. So 

trying to channel everything into, at the age of 18 to 22, a set of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

105 

labor law issues of wages and terms and conditions and so forth, 

seems to be very artificial and arbitrary and not serving the ultimate interests of the individual student athlete. 

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Muir, do you have a vantage point on that? 

Mr. MUIR. Yes, I do. I just think about the relationships that we 

build with young people. And it starts, obviously, prior to coming 

to college. We start early now. It is becoming sophomore year, junior year of high school; obviously, when they get to be seniors. And 

that carries through. Not only the four years or five years that they 

are on campus, but we want them to have a relationship with us, 

actually, once they graduate and have the degree. That relationship is so important to us. 

And yes, we do have students who have other issues that are— 

that need to be dealt with, and how do they cope and manage. But 

that is—they feel open and for the most of—the majority of them, 

that they are able to come to someone here in the university setting—whether it be a faculty member or a coach, an administrator. 

And that is the beauty of the college environment. And I think that 

is really important for us to keep in mind as we move forward. 

And certainly there are, as we noted, there are many issues that 

need to be addressed. And I think we are going to work our way 

to getting those done. It is always evolving. 

Mr. BYRNE. Well, I would ask this question to legal counsel here. 

I mean, you heard the vantage point of people who are dealing with 

these student athletes on things that go far beyond what happens 

in their actual athletic work, if you want to call it work, in this environment. Is the NLRA the right tool to deal the issues that people seem to have with the NCAA? Sir, let me just say this. NCAA 

doesn’t have anything to do with two-year colleges. So some of— 

we start creating a bigger definition of employee, it is going to affect a whole lot of people, not just people who are governed by the 

NCAA. 

So is the NLRA the right tool to do this? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Well, Mr. Byrne, that is a great question, and 

one of the reasons why I don’t think it applies. Under the NLRA, 

all employees have certain rights. And the policies that Judge Starr 

and others have talked about, based on recent NLRB decisions they 

would clearly violate them. A coach is—requires his players to be 

a Facebook friend. The schools monitor Facebook postings. They 

prohibit media interviews. 

Recent board cases have made it clear that violates the rights of 

any employee, whether they are in a union or not. And so at all 

17 schools the framework that we are talking about likely already 

violates the NLRA. It is just not the appropriate tool. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

On my agenda here it says we are to close the remarks, so I am 

going to yield to the senior Democratic member, Mr. Miller, for his 

closing remarks. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think this 

is a very important hearing. You know, America is in the throes 

of celebrating, on a daily basis, socially and economically, every 

way possible, entrepreneurs and those who take risks. The list of 

grievances that these players presented is a list of grievances that 

players could have presented five years ago and 10 years ago, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

106 

across the college community. But they haven’t been addressed. 

These players are put in the position of being on the edge all of 

the time; scholarship, no scholarship, play, don’t play, classes, no 

classes all of the time. 

That is a very interesting place to keep your employees that you 

care so much about. I think these players might play better if they 

had some more certainty in their life. But the NCAA doesn’t let you 

do that as a university. We have some remarkable examples of universities here and programs. You know you are not typical across 

the board of high-stakes football in this country. And we know the 

athletes are not typical. And the fact is, you are graduating people, 

but we also have clusters of athletes that go to certain classes for 

certain reasons that may not have—may not apply toward their 

graduation so they are short but they stay eligible by taking the 

classes. 

I am not holding you responsible, but that we know this landscape. That is why the Knight Commission was set up, to look at 

the landscape. No easy critics out of the industry. But the fact of 

the matter is that this landscape has changed dramatically. I have 

been in Congress long enough to know that when I have seen really 

tough issues on academic sides, where they thought that Congress 

might get involved in accreditation or what have you, very often 

you don’t meet the college president. You meet the college coach. 

And we know that the education journals, sports journal shows— 

are constantly debating this question who is the most powerful person on campus, the president or the coach? We know all hell can 

be paid for the mishandling of the hiring or the firing of a coach. 

These concerns that these young men were willing to take a risk 

on exist on every campus whether or not you have the security of 

a scholarship, for how long; whether or not you are going to have 

health insurance; whether or not you are going to—what is going 

to happen with your injuries if you lose your scholarship. 

Stipends, transfers—we have been over this. We have been over 

this and over this and over this. I think I held the first concussion 

hearings. No—this is not proper for public discussion. This is a 

sport, this is volunteers. People play. Until they started to see the 

extent of the damage done. I worked with many NFL coaches and 

many NFL players. We couldn’t get to first base. I had coaches 

come and tell me the documents are here, we know what has taken 

place here. Well, finally the Players Association went to court, and 

we know the rest is history. 

And that is just the beginning. But the fact of the matter is, the 

determination was made that it was better to run the organization 

in the manner in which the owners wanted to run it than to deal 

with these issues. And I grant you, it could change the game. It 

has already changed the viewership. It has changed the way TV 

portrays it. They don’t rerun those big hits because the audience 

has a different reaction today when they see that hit. They know 

that is a damaging hit. They know there are consequences to that. 

But before, that was highlights. But highlights now are a liability. So we can have all the parade of horribles here about what 

could happen if there is unionization. Why don’t we think about 

what could happen if you took care of the problems of these student 

athletes. And if the universities got back in control of this program 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

107 

and not the NCAA, not the conference. I understand there has got 

to be rules and regulations. But, you know, we see arbitrary decisions made all the time by the NCAA. Mr. Courtney raised the 

issue. 

I remember talking to sports journalists about the issue: why are 

students who had nothing to do with the infraction losing their 

rights to playoff games? You know what that means if you think 

you are going to the NBA or you are going to the NFL and you 

can’t get in the playoffs, where everybody is focused on your performance? That is a huge punishment. To what? That they are upholding some morality of their vision of football, and they are going 

to show that they are really tough on this school? No, they were 

tough on a bunch of students who weren’t there when the infraction took place. 

So I think there is a lot to think about on the campuses. We 

spend a lot of time in this committee about higher ed and the approaches we take. And I think that you, you are here because you 

are leaders in this field. You are not immune from this. This is the 

Stanford Daily that I asked to be put in. The list of easy classes 

that nobody knew exist. Everybody said didn’t happen. And yet 

professors said, well, it upped my attendance. I am glad it was on 

there. And they said no, they come here to—they major in eligibility. 

I guess the Senate is going to hear from Ms. Willingham on 

North Carolina. I think—I don’t know if she is here or not. I think 

she was going to—there you are. I think the Senate—Senator 

Rockefeller and others are going to hear from this. And you all 

know we have been through these scandals before. So you can rail 

against the unionization. Like the NFL, like the NBA you better 

address the problem. This is college sports. Not NCAA, it is college 

sports. 

And I appreciate—I stood on the sidelines. I was so proud 

there—happened to be with a big donor—of USC–Notre Dame in 

Los Angeles, and then in South Bend. Most exciting moment of my 

life. I never knew it could be that noisy. And I played a lot of football, but I didn’t play at that level. So we know the influences here. 

We know the influences here. They are student athletes. I don’t 

think you would treat the other students like this on campus. 

You know, I think somebody better get and take control of this 

situation again. And in most of the journals I read the president 

is losing in this war against the coaches for the say and the standards on campus. Mr. Schwarz is right. This is like that cab in 

Compton, California. It is always coming, but it never arrives. The 

NCAA just can’t make these decisions, and yet—so we get these arbitrary actions against institutions and against the students and, 

in some cases, against the coach now and then. 

There is a lot to think about here. I have been here 40 years. I 

have watched a lot of people deny the problems and blame—and 

go after the symptom which, in this case, is the decision to join the 

union. A rational decision by these young people. There was no 

other outlet for them. No other outlet as there wasn’t for the people 

who proceeded them. So I wouldn’t be so concerned about whether 

or not they are going to vote they are not going to go out on the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

108 

field on Saturday. That is not the makeup of these young men, you 

know. 

But I remember talking to Bobby Knight when we decided— 

when the networks decided they needed a mid-week game. And 

now we have it, you know, for different—depends on what conference you are in, what day we—how many days of school you 

miss. You can keep defending it. I would work on changing it. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

I am going to thank the witnesses. A lot of expertise, real knowledge. I appreciate everything that you had to offer. Quite a diversity in experiences and positions here. Somebody who was a toplevel college athlete, and then went on to play in the NFL. Has 

very strong feelings and opinions about these issues, and has pointed out very eloquently, Mr. Eilers, that we have got problems out 

there, as Mr. Miller, again very passionately, pointed out that need 

to be addressed. 

What brought this hearing together was the actions of a regional 

director of the National Labor Relations Board, who suggested that 

these athletes are employees and therefore could, if they chose, 

vote to join a union. And so we explored some of the possible 

downsides of that issue, and we heard from witnesses here that 

talked about how would this deal with class attendance and practice times, attending games, how many games. What about walkon players, what about universities who are public and don’t fall 

under the National Labor Relations Act. And a host, frankly, of potential problems. 

And we wanted to get out that, and I very much appreciate the 

testimony of the witnesses today as we start to explore that. I don’t 

think there is a person on this committee that doesn’t agree that 

we need to address some of those very issues that we talked about 

and, again, that Mr. Eilers’ talked about so eloquently. The question is, is unionization of some sports, some players, and some 

schools the appropriate tool to get to that end. I think I have been 

very clear to say that I don’t think that it is. 

And we need to then focus on, I think, all of us—perhaps in Congress and certainly those of you in the field, as it were, as athletic 

directors and college presidents and those concerned—to do the 

sorts of things that Mr. Miller was talking about; that we address 

these issues. I just don’t believe that the sporadic unionization, and 

no, I am not arguing for a bigger bargaining unit there, Mr. Miller. 

I just think that the law is the wrong law, it is the wrong tool to 

use here. 

Okay. There being no further business, the committee is adjourned. 

[Additional Submissions by Mr. Miller follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 87709.059
110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 87709.060
111 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 87709.061
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 87709.062
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 87709.063
114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 87709.064
115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 87709.065
116 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 87709.066
117 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 87709.067
118 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 87709.068
119 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 87709.069
120 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 87709.070
121 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 87709.071
122 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 87709.072
123 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 87709.073
124 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 87709.074
125 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 87709.075
126 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 87709.076
127 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 87709.077
128 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 87709.078
129 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 87709.079
130 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 80 here 87709.080
131 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 81 here 87709.081
132 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 82 here 87709.082
133 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 87709.058
134 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 83 here 87709.083
135 

[Additional Submissions by Mr. Muir follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

136 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 84 here 87709.084
137 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 85 here 87709.085
138 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 86 here 87709.086
139 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 87 here 87709.087
140 

[Additional Submissions by Mr. Starr follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

141 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 88 here 87709.088
142 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

143 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 89 here 87709.089
144 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 90 here 87709.090
145 

[Mr. Schwarz’s response to questions submitted for the record follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

146 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 91 here 87709.091
147 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 92 here 87709.092
148 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 93 here 87709.093
149 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 94 here 87709.094
150 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 95 here 87709.095
151 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 96 here 87709.096
152 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 97 here 87709.097
153 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 98 here 87709.098
154 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 99 here 87709.099
155 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 100 here 87709.100
156 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 101 here 87709.101
157 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 102 here 87709.102
158 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 103 here 87709.103
159 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 104 here 87709.104
160 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 105 here 87709.105
161 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 106 here 87709.106
162 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 107 here 87709.107
163 

[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER