II. Key Takeaways

1. The federal agency regulatory landscape of college sports is characterized by a complex interplay between various federal agencies, each with its own mandate, perspective, and level of engagement. This complexity reflects the multifaceted nature of college sports, encompassing labor issues, civil rights, business regulations, antitrust concerns, and tax implications.

2. For stakeholders in college sports – including athletes, administrators, and policymakers – a comprehensive understanding of how different federal agencies interact with and impact the sports landscape is crucial for informed decision-making and advocacy.

3. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been notably active in asserting its jurisdiction in college sports, particularly concerning labor issues and the status of student-athletes as employees. Cases like Northwestern University's football team unionization attempt and the more recent USC/Pac-12 and Dartmouth basketball cases highlight this active stance.

4. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been utilized primarily to protect the business interests of the NCAA and Power 5 conferences. This includes leveraging the FTC’s consumer protection mandate to federalize regulations that align with NCAA amateurism values, as evidenced in the discussions around the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA) and NIL market regulation proposals.

5. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the Department of Education and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division have significant but underutilized roles in enforcing anti-discrimination laws on sex and race in college sports.

6. The role of Congress and the influence of NCAA/Power 5 advocacy in shaping agency action and inaction are prominent. This is particularly evident in the NCAA’s efforts to prevent athletes from being recognized as employees, thus limiting the jurisdiction of labor-related federal agencies such as the NLRB, EEOC, OSHA, and the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division.

7. The tax implications of the NCAA/Power 5 business model in the nonprofit context have been largely ignored by the IRS; yet the IRS recently asserted its regulatory authority to promote NCAA/Power 5 interests with respect to nonprofit NIL collectives.

8. Through eleven congressional hearings and over fifty-eight witness slots since February 2020, not a single representative from any of the federal agencies with jurisdiction over college sports has testified.