Elijah Higgins, a former college football player turned rookie tight end for the Arizona Cardinals, testified in a National Labor Relations Board hearing about the similarities and differences between playing football at Stanford University and in the NFL. At both levels, he dedicated five to six days a week to football activities, but in the NFL, there are no classes to attend, and he now earns a paycheck. He noted that at Stanford, academics took a back seat to football and began to question whether college football players were treated as employees.
The NLRB hearing, which lasted five months and consisted of over two dozen witnesses, addresses the question of whether football and basketball players at the University of Southern California should be classified as employees. The case could have wide-ranging consequences and is expected to end up in an appeals court due to the complex legal issues involved. The testimony focused on control and compensation, with the general counsel of the NCPA arguing that college athletes should be recognized as employees.
One of the major challenges the case faces is the sheer volume of evidence and testimony presented, with over 3,000 pages of transcripts and more than 150 exhibits. The presiding judge granted lawyers extra time to file their closing arguments due to the complexity of the case and the need to thoroughly review the evidence. The case raises questions about the amateur model of college athletics and the rights and compensation of student-athletes.
The arguments presented in the hearing paint contrasting pictures of what college sports could look like if athletes were classified as employees. Some witnesses warned of dire consequences, such as the potential loss of Olympic and women’s sports or the closing of historically Black colleges and universities due to financial strain. Others were more optimistic, suggesting that universities would adapt to changes in the system and that paying college athletes as employees could lead to positive outcomes.
The testimony of witnesses like Liam Anderson, a Stanford distance runner, provided insight into the control and restrictions faced by college athletes, such as security guards monitoring players during tournaments or fingerprint scans and attendance checks required for U.S.C. football players. The hearing also highlighted the complexities of the legal process, with witnesses called to testify unexpectedly and challenged on their statements and opinions during cross-examination. The case represents a significant challenge to the current NCAA model and could have far-reaching implications for college athletics.
