President Donald Trump has ordered the members of his cabinet to develop a plan in the next 30 days destined to preserve university sports opportunities and prevent university athletes from becoming professionals, according to an executive order signed on Thursday.
The Trump order establishes specific guidelines to preserve sports scholarships based on the annual income of an athletics department. He also declares that schools should not allow athletes to accept “payment payments for third parties.” The order establishes that the Secretary of Education Linda McMahon must use future federal financing decisions among other tools to force schools to comply with the administration policy.
NCAA has always banned payment for third -party game. In recent years, university sports leaders have struggled to find ways to prevent reinforcements in the richest schools in the industry paying athletes through contracts that are paper backup agreements, but they actually work as de facto wages.
“A national solution is urgently needed to prevent this situation from deteriorating outside repair and protecting sports that are not revenue, including many women's sports, which comprise the backbone of intercollegial athletics,” Trump said in the order.
The Executive Order establishes that third -party approval agreements must continue to be allowed whenever they reflect a “fair market value.”
The Power 4 conferences launched a new execution agency this month, the University Sports Commission, in an effort to examine all third -party agreements, the athletes sign to ensure that they are reasonable payments for the endorser instead of a payment agreement for veiled game. It is not yet clear if the new administration policy could help strengthen those efforts.
The prohibition of NCAA in the NCAA's payment athletes has collapsed in the last decade under pressure from a litany of legal challenges and state laws. The association and its power conferences formally agreed an antitrust agreement in June that will allow schools to pay up to $ 20.5 million directly to their athletes in the next academic year. These payments are also designated as paper approval contracts, but they will probably serve as de facto salaries.
Steve Berman, one of the lawyers of the plaintiff co-leader in the antimonopoly settlement, criticized Trump for trying to intervene.
“Simple and simple, university athletes do not need Trump's help, and should not help NCAA at the expense of athletes,” Berman said last week. “… As a result of our case, university athletes are now free to make their own deals. So that Trump wants to set foot in his abilities to make agreements is unjustified and floats his own philosophy about the alleged 'art of the agreement'”.
The president of the NCAA, Charlie Baker, said that the association will still need the help of federal legislators to create a competitive balance in university sports. Specifically, Baker and other university sports leaders have asked Congress to provide them with an antitrust exemption so that they can enforce the rules, many of which would limit the power of athletes income.
“The Association appreciates the Trump administration approach in the opportunities that change their lives, university, provides millions of young people and we hope to work with athlete students, a bipartisan coalition in Congress and Trump administration to improve university sports in the coming years,” Baker said in a statement on Trump's executive order Thursday.
A presidential executive order cannot provide antitrust protection for the NCAA. However, a bill that would give it to the margin of broad antitrust margin of the NCAA was approved by two committees of the House of Representatives this week. A complete vote could be requested in the House of Representatives as soon as September. The bill, which has received very little support from the Democrats, would still need to pass through the Senate.
Thursday's executive order requires that the athletics departments that brought more than $ 125 million during the last academic year must increase the amount of scholarships that provide athletes in sports that are not income. Athletics departments that brought at least $ 50 million cannot reduce the amount of scholarships they offer in these sports.
The overwhelming majority of schools in the four can be able to reach the threshold of $ 50 million, while approximately 30 to 40 schools have exceeded the $ 125 million brand in recent years. Many of those schools with more profits have already publicly announced plans to increase their total scholarship.
The Order also asks the Secretary of Labor and the National Board of Labor Relations to clarify the work state of university athletes in a way that “maximize the educational benefits and opportunities” for all athletes. It does not provide any specific timeline for these agencies to act.
As schools begin to pay their athletes, university sports leaders are flatly oppose to treat them as employees. These leaders say that many schools could not afford the luxury of presenting the same number of equipment if all athletes are declared employees. They also say that most university athletes do not want to be employees.
Two separate athletes have asked the NLRB to recognize them as employees in the last two years. Both cases were removed shortly after Trump was chosen. If the NLRB declares that university athletes are not employees, future athletes will not be able to form a union and negotiate more money or better working conditions.
Several soccer coaches have recently said that they would make more sense, and provide more stability, if their players were considered employees and could bargain collectively.
“The best way to do it is to do it where players are employed and you have a salary limit,” said Louisville coach Jeff Brohm, ESPN earlier this month. “If players are paid, why don't we do it in the right way? Amateurism is no longer there. We do not intend to be.”
There is an ongoing federal case (Johnson v. NCAA) that argues that athletes must be considered employees under the Law of Fair Labor Standards. The lawyer's lawyer in that case, Paul McDonald, has previously argued that any action that prevents university athletes from being employed would be unconstitutional because he would treat work athletes so different from the work of other students who have work of the campus.
