Stick to sports or not, student-athletes need a voice in the room

I had a single question as I watched last week’s White House roundtable on college sports, which was organized by President Donald Trump: Whatever happened to the narrative that separated sports and politics? The narrative that told athletes to “stick to sports”?

With last week’s roundtable including only politicians and college stakeholders (and notably didn’t include any student-athletes), it carried an air of “rules for thee, not for me” from the political and sports establishment. Still, it’s important to note that in this room where the hypocrisy of “stick to sports” was made crystal clear, there was room for other dangerous narratives to be reinforced.

The summation of those narratives? Trump declaring he will attempt to use the power of the pen to force a return to pre-NIL conditions.

“I will have an executive order within one week, and it will be very all-encompassing,” Trump said. “And we’re going to put it forward, and we’re going to get sued, and we’re going to see how it plays, OK, but I’ll have an executive order, which will solve every problem in this room, every conceivable problem, within one week, and we’ll put it forward. We will get sued. That’s the only thing I know for sure.”

With respect to former Alabama football coach Nick Saban, in addition to other Power Four conference executives and representatives who were at the White House, I think it’s important that someone speaks up for the athletes at this moment. For the sake of argument, I’ll be that person.

It’s unconscionable that student-athletes, who are overwhelmingly responsible for the labor that fuels this billion-dollar industry of college athletics, might be blamed for all of it going to pieces just because they are being paid. Further, the idea that name, image and likeness payments might doom the country’s higher education landscape as a whole conveniently skips over more urgent variables affecting our colleges and universities.

For starters, college enrollment nationwide is on a decade-long decline. From the National Center for Education Statistics: “Overall, undergraduate enrollment was 15 percent lower in fall 2021 than in fall 2010, with 42 percent of this decline occurring during the pandemic.”

More recent statistics offer a harrowing projection, accompanied by a perilous phrase. The “enrollment cliff” or “demographic cliff” suggests the number of high school graduates peaked in 2025, and a decline of nearly 15 years is set to follow, limiting the number of eligible enrollees to college.

What also doesn’t help the collegiate landscape is dramatic cuts in federal funding. Dueling narratives about “woke” campuses and rampant xenophobia, among other commentaries, have led to the dismantling of the Department of Education, the revocation of student visas, and political threats and policies that have either halted or outright cut funding to schools. Combined with the rising costs of attending college, it creates an atmosphere that discourages students from seeking higher education.

Back to the athletes, who represent one of the highest forms of meritocracy on a college campus. Though they face expectations to be diligent on the field of play and in the classroom, there are few protections for the athletes who make up the college sports labor force, and NIL doesn’t come close to being a salve for that reality. According to a report from Opendorse, which brands itself as an “athlete marketplace and NIL technology company,” two-thirds of college football players make less than $10,000 in NIL deals.

A model that truly cared about the college athlete, regardless of gender, would allow for two fundamental processes — unionizing the players and creating a system in which both the schools and the NCAA paid the players. In addition, that system would allow for third-party groups to profit off of an athlete’s name, image and likeness.

It would be a reversal 75 years in the making — a rebuke of the term “student-athlete,” which was crafted to avoid treating athletes as employees and paying workers’ comp for injuries.

This is where the hypocrisy of “stick to sports” also rears its ugly head, because so much of the narrative-building around college and professional athletes disregards the reality that sports and politics are irrevocably linked. How else could a business model get away with not paying its workforce? Is it too soon to ask that question of America?

Unionizing athletes should not be an issue dependent on which political party is in office. In 2021, when Jennifer Abruzzo was serving as general counsel the National Labor Relations Board, she wrote in a memo that she supported the “conclusion that certain Players at Academic Institutions are statutory employees, who have the right to act collectively to improve their terms and conditions of employment.”

“My intent in issuing this memo is to help educate the public, especially Players at Academic Institutions, colleges and universities, athletic conferences, and the NCAA, about the legal position that I will be taking regarding employee status and misclassification in appropriate cases,” she continued.

It was a position she honored throughout her tenure, evidenced in cases at Dartmouth and the University of Southern California that were advanced. However, Trump’s NLRB leader, William Cowen, has rescinded a number of Abruzzo’s memos since being appointed 13 months ago, including the one about players being employees.

It’s an uncomfortable reminder that what might be “best for college sports” and best for college athletes are not in alignment.

What will that mean for the future? Could it inspire player boycotts, such as the famed Missouri football protest in 2015? Or might it further highlight the discrepancy between complaints about player mobility via the transfer portal compared to coaches who change schools with virtually no consequence?

The short and sad answer is likely no. This week in South Carolina, Gov. Henry McMaster vetoed a bill that would have kept NIL revenue-sharing payments secret from the public. Those legislators spoke about wanting to preserve a “competitive advantage,” but for whom?

The answer isn’t just baked into the policy poised to come from Trump’s roundtable or states’ rights advocates. It’s evidenced by the fact that even though none of the touchdowns and celebrations could happen without the athletes, they weren’t even allowed in the room at one of the biggest events melding sports and politics.

The post Stick to sports or not, student-athletes need a voice in the room appeared first on Andscape.