Bill was introduced today in the House which at this stage is very general, that tries to encapsulate a lot of what is in the House settlement. Thanks for 6956 Bear for finding out about this.

Apparently the bill is now being pushed by Trump. It is opposed by some Democrats, and being pushed by some Democrats. So it quite possible that some bill we passed in the House. It would need 60 votes in the Senate tp proceed, which I'm not sure is available on any legislation of note.

At a minimum, this could be a way of achieving more order in the player marketplace. For those that don't want to read the bill or the press release:

Key provisions of the College SPORTS Act include:

• NIL Rights: Codifies the right of college athletes to receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness. Prohibits the NCAA and schools from penalizing student-athletes for NIL activity.
• Extended Academic Access: Allows student-athletes to use their scholarships to complete a degree within 10 years, even if they leave school early.
• Health & Life Skills Education: Requires Division I, II, and III schools participating in a Division I sport to provide training on mental health, sexual violence prevention, nutrition, career preparation, NIL education, and more.
• Medical Protections: Requires schools to cover the medical costs of sports-related injuries for at least four years after the athlete leaves the institution.
• Scholarship Security: Prohibits schools from canceling or reducing scholarships based on athletic performance, injury, or roster management.
• Agent Oversight: Establishes agent registration and disclosure requirements to protect athletes from exploitation.
• Employment Status: Prohibits student-athletes from being classified as employees of their university, preserving the collegiate nonprofessional model.
• Federal Preemption: Creates a single national standard, overriding inconsistent state laws to ensure clarity for athletes, schools, and sponsors.

I'm not sure what the Democratic objections are at this point, just that Ross Dillinger said there was some. The form of the bill I read actually says a lot of stuff doesn't apply to avoid issues like ADA, Pell Grants, etc. I don't see anything on Title 9. It seems to take the NCAA out of the equation and put conferences in charge of things. The critical aspect is that if schools comply with the Act, they are not violating any laws like antitrust laws, and provides for federal preemption. It is very general wording at the moment, and more meat would have to be put on the bill's bones (sorry about the metaphor).


https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/news-what-score-act-all-know-amended-college-sports-bill-set-introduce-new-transfer-rule-standards?utm_source=www.sportskeeda.com&utm_medium=native&utm_campaign=ShareArticle

Appreciate the new separate thread on this -

Two things I think need clarification before we'd know the true benefit of the act:

- would there be something to address the title ix concerns on revenue sharing that some athletic administrators have? ie who gets revenue share when some sports make revenue and other don't.

- would a cap on player revenue share and/or NIL be legal and readily enforceable, or would this just legalized the wild west to continue in perpetuity?

ColoradoBear said:

---

Appreciate the new separate thread on this -

Two things I think need clarification before we'd know the true benefit of the act:

- would there be something to address the title ix concerns on revenue sharing that some athletic administrators have? ie who gets revenue share when some sports make revenue and other don't.

- would a cap on player revenue share and/or NIL be legal and readily enforceable, or would this just legalized the wild west to continue in perpetuity?

---

You can read the bill off the link - it is pretty bear bones. But nothing on Title 9. Seems to just authorize players (and agents) to negotiate with colleges or conferences Nil contracts generally without any cap. I don't know if conferences could set terms such as caps, but compliance with whatever the final bill looks like would presumably be legal as there is complete preemption over state rules or other federal laws. The one thing that is clear is the NCAA has no roles, the power appears to be all at the conference level.

McClain, Bynum Introduce Bipartisan, Landmark NIL Legislation to ...

Just to complicate things more, apparently there are some Republican senators that now say they have problems with the bill, as they have philosophical issues with pay for play. Congressional dysfuncton at its best.

Yeah, there should be no limits on NIL. But if the bill provides for that, then senators of either party from states that don't have SEC or Big Ten teams might want to restrict NIL in the hope that doing so would curb the recruiting power of the programs with very generous boosters. Conversely, senators from SEC states (or Ohio or Michigan) would not want a bill that attempts to "level the playing field" on NIL.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Just to complicate things more, apparently there are some Republican senators that now say they have problems with the bill, as they have philosophical issues with pay for play. Congressional dysfuncton at its best.

---

How rich is that. Politicians having a problem with pay for play. They want that setup to only exist in politics.

Seems like this bill does little to clear the cesspool that is current collegiate athletics.

Seems like pretty much the status quo but with a few added protections for student athlete welfare.

Maybe this is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on and end at least some of the Us vs Them mentality and work together for once.

SonomanA1 said:

---

Maybe this is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on and end at least some of the Us vs Them mentality and work together for once.

---

I do think there will be Democrats and Republicans on both sides of any bill that comes forward. Remember that the Supreme Court decision that set all this in motion was unanimous, with the liberals, conservatives and moderates all agreeing the previous model was illegal and wrong.

calumnus said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Maybe this is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on and end at least some of the Us vs Them mentality and work together for once.

---

I do think there will be Democrats and Republicans on both sides of any bill that comes forward. Remember that the Supreme Court decision that set all this in motion was unanimous, with the liberals, conservatives and moderates all agreeing the previous model was illegal and wrong.

---

To the extent bipartisanship is possible, what you say seems to be the most likely scenario.

Legally the legislation does a lot of stuff. It takes the states and NCAA out of the equation which is huge, it clears-up the tax problems I think (CPAs, comments?) (also huge), cleans-up the whole employee mess which has all sorts of implications besides taxes, it gives anti-trust cover, and I could go on.

I'm not sure where this leaves title 9, unionization other than State laws forbidding public employee unions probably are overruled, whether conferences can impose salary caps, and numerous other issues. I suspect the idea is that by avoiding the tough issues, Congress can pass legal cover for colleges and conferences, and avoid all the bad consequences of players be labelled employees for tax and other purposes, and also give some basic protections to players. My guess is that the bill will gather more specifics through the legislative process (assuming the bill proceeds) and a lot of substance likely will turn on executive branch regulations. My two cents as an outsider looking in

At the end of this - every major state has a university which is going to see funding cut from the feds or their states as the reality of the Big Beautiful bill trickles down and they have to find ways to take care of medical care, financial aid, research at universities, etc. Having a way to cap revenue spent on athletics (House settlement) while allowing players to get their own outside the university is going to be a good thing most politicians can get behind.

From the NIL perspective - schools want donations - not NIL dollars going to an outside collective. Bringing NIL in house and capping that at 20 million is great for those who are raising more than 20 million now. Ii just helps in all the other ways. So the big football states will love this - at least most of them. I think it helps the other states realize that if they do not all play together on this - some of the teams will be off in their own world without regard for the lesser teams. And that is a problem even in states with one dominant team - generally there are one or two others who have issues raising funds. Texas has all sorts of football teams - same with California, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. Making outside funds have to be legit means that those donations with no strings attached will now once again go back to the Universities. That is how the power folks like it.

I think something gets passed. It has to.

The thorny issue IMO is Title IX. Democrats are not going to vote for something that's perceived as hurting women's sports in favor of football. It wouldn't surprise if the legislation ends up mandating a split, if not 50/50, then something greater than what the House settlement provides. Assuming the legislation also includes an antitrust exemption, that forestalls litigation by men's football and basketball players on that basis. That means the legislation will also have to have some strong enforcement body established. Otherwise, we'll just return to under-the-table payments by schools that have the money.

I'll be honest, I believe the question needs to be asked. Should Universities have athletic programs anymore? Should athletics fall to private business or city run development associations? Major university sports to me feel like they are just business interests now anyway and these schools are laughably inadequate for monitoring any kind of standards. You have some schools who treat title IX like a road bump and something to skirt. Other schools treat title IX as something to hinder their other programs. The only schools that really have a handle on it are ones that are incredibly rich with private donors (cough stanford cough) that can keep the sports that earn no money afloat.

Even at Cal, let's be honest, there are discussions about how to skirt giving donations to the University because they know it will be mis-spent.

Well i am relieved , if congress gets involved all problems will be over

There are so many examples of congress fixing problems. Lol

I expect the sec and bio fans to storm the capitol wearing mascot heads.

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Maybe this is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on and end at least some of the Us vs Them mentality and work together for once.

---

I do think there will be Democrats and Republicans on both sides of any bill that comes forward. Remember that the Supreme Court decision that set all this in motion was unanimous, with the liberals, conservatives and moderates all agreeing the previous model was illegal and wrong.

---

To the extent bipartisanship is possible, what you say seems to be the most likely scenario.

Legally the legislation does a lot of stuff. It takes the states and NCAA out of the equation which is huge, it clears-up the tax problems I think (CPAs, comments?) (also huge), cleans-up the whole employee mess which has all sorts of implications besides taxes, it gives anti-trust cover, and I could go on.

I'm not sure where this leaves title 9, unionization other than State laws forbidding public employee unions probably are overruled, whether conferences can impose salary caps, and numerous other issues. I suspect the idea is that by avoiding the tough issues, Congress can pass legal cover for colleges and conferences, and avoid all the bad consequences of players be labelled employees for tax and other purposes, and also give some basic protections to players. My guess is that the bill will gather more specifics through the legislative process (assuming the bill proceeds) and a lot of substance likely will turn on executive branch regulations. My two cents as an outsider looking in

---

I would think that a simpler the bill is, with details left out, the more likely it will garner the votes needed. The more details that are added the more things people will object to.

IMO, it should be something simple like: "Collegiate athletics are a great American tradition. In order to regulate collegiate sports and set a level playing field for competition, the NCAA is hereby exempt from the antitrust laws of the United States."

Then let the NCAA and courts do the messy and unpopular job of determining the actual rules.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Maybe this is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on and end at least some of the Us vs Them mentality and work together for once.

---

I do think there will be Democrats and Republicans on both sides of any bill that comes forward. Remember that the Supreme Court decision that set all this in motion was unanimous, with the liberals, conservatives and moderates all agreeing the previous model was illegal and wrong.

---

To the extent bipartisanship is possible, what you say seems to be the most likely scenario.

Legally the legislation does a lot of stuff. It takes the states and NCAA out of the equation which is huge, it clears-up the tax problems I think (CPAs, comments?) (also huge), cleans-up the whole employee mess which has all sorts of implications besides taxes, it gives anti-trust cover, and I could go on.

I'm not sure where this leaves title 9, unionization other than State laws forbidding public employee unions probably are overruled, whether conferences can impose salary caps, and numerous other issues. I suspect the idea is that by avoiding the tough issues, Congress can pass legal cover for colleges and conferences, and avoid all the bad consequences of players be labelled employees for tax and other purposes, and also give some basic protections to players. My guess is that the bill will gather more specifics through the legislative process (assuming the bill proceeds) and a lot of substance likely will turn on executive branch regulations. My two cents as an outsider looking in

---

I would think that a simpler the bill is, with details left out, the more likely it will garner the votes needed. The more details that are added the more things people will object to.

IMO, it should be something simple like: "Collegiate athletics are a great American tradition. In order to regulate collegiate sports and set a level playing field for competition, the NCAA is hereby exempt from the antitrust laws of the United States."

Then let the NCAA and courts do the messy and unpopular job of determining the actual rules.

---

What a great idea! The courts are such a well oiled machine and are incredibly popular at making rules on all sorts of issues that impact every corner of the country. (HT to Oakbear)

CALiforniALUM said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Maybe this is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on and end at least some of the Us vs Them mentality and work together for once.

---

I do think there will be Democrats and Republicans on both sides of any bill that comes forward. Remember that the Supreme Court decision that set all this in motion was unanimous, with the liberals, conservatives and moderates all agreeing the previous model was illegal and wrong.

---

To the extent bipartisanship is possible, what you say seems to be the most likely scenario.

Legally the legislation does a lot of stuff. It takes the states and NCAA out of the equation which is huge, it clears-up the tax problems I think (CPAs, comments?) (also huge), cleans-up the whole employee mess which has all sorts of implications besides taxes, it gives anti-trust cover, and I could go on.

I'm not sure where this leaves title 9, unionization other than State laws forbidding public employee unions probably are overruled, whether conferences can impose salary caps, and numerous other issues. I suspect the idea is that by avoiding the tough issues, Congress can pass legal cover for colleges and conferences, and avoid all the bad consequences of players be labelled employees for tax and other purposes, and also give some basic protections to players. My guess is that the bill will gather more specifics through the legislative process (assuming the bill proceeds) and a lot of substance likely will turn on executive branch regulations. My two cents as an outsider looking in

---

I would think that a simpler the bill is, with details left out, the more likely it will garner the votes needed. The more details that are added the more things people will object to.

IMO, it should be something simple like: "Collegiate athletics are a great American tradition. In order to regulate collegiate sports and set a level playing field for competition, the NCAA is hereby exempt from the antitrust laws of the United States."

Then let the NCAA and courts do the messy and unpopular job of determining the actual rules.

---

What a great idea! The courts are such a well oiled machine and are incredibly popular at making rules on all sorts of issues that impact every corner of the country. (HT to Oakbear)

---

The key is the NCAA. You need one central rule making authority to set the rules and then modify them to make corrections but they cannot do that without an antitrust exemption. I only included the courts because anything the NCAA does will inevitably be challenged in court by someone. You are right about the courts, the House Settlement is the type of piecemeal ruling that appeases the parties to the case but cannot hold up. That is why the NCAA, a body that represents ALL the schools, needs to be empowered to set the rules. And you can't give antitrust immunity to the conferences or you will just see the B1G and SEC completely eliminate their competition.

I just don't see Congress being able to create the framework that makes sense for college athletics as a whole and then getting majority support for it. Then getting majority support every year for any needed rule changes.

calumnus said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Maybe this is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on and end at least some of the Us vs Them mentality and work together for once.

---

I do think there will be Democrats and Republicans on both sides of any bill that comes forward. Remember that the Supreme Court decision that set all this in motion was unanimous, with the liberals, conservatives and moderates all agreeing the previous model was illegal and wrong.

---

To the extent bipartisanship is possible, what you say seems to be the most likely scenario.

Legally the legislation does a lot of stuff. It takes the states and NCAA out of the equation which is huge, it clears-up the tax problems I think (CPAs, comments?) (also huge), cleans-up the whole employee mess which has all sorts of implications besides taxes, it gives anti-trust cover, and I could go on.

I'm not sure where this leaves title 9, unionization other than State laws forbidding public employee unions probably are overruled, whether conferences can impose salary caps, and numerous other issues. I suspect the idea is that by avoiding the tough issues, Congress can pass legal cover for colleges and conferences, and avoid all the bad consequences of players be labelled employees for tax and other purposes, and also give some basic protections to players. My guess is that the bill will gather more specifics through the legislative process (assuming the bill proceeds) and a lot of substance likely will turn on executive branch regulations. My two cents as an outsider looking in

---

I would think that a simpler the bill is, with details left out, the more likely it will garner the votes needed. The more details that are added the more things people will object to.

IMO, it should be something simple like: "Collegiate athletics are a great American tradition. In order to regulate collegiate sports and set a level playing field for competition, the NCAA is hereby exempt from the antitrust laws of the United States."

Then let the NCAA and courts do the messy and unpopular job of determining the actual rules.

---

What a great idea! The courts are such a well oiled machine and are incredibly popular at making rules on all sorts of issues that impact every corner of the country. (HT to Oakbear)

---

The key is the NCAA. You need one central rule making authority to set the rules and then modify them to make corrections but they cannot do that without an antitrust exemption. I only included the courts because anything the NCAA does will inevitably be challenged in court by someone. You are right about the courts, the House Settlement is the type of piecemeal ruling that appeases the parties to the case but cannot hold up. That is why the NCAA, a body that represents ALL the schools, needs to be empowered to set the rules. And you can't give antitrust immunity to the conferences or you will just see the B1G and SEC completely eliminate their competition.

I just don't see Congress being able to create the framework that makes sense for college athletics as a whole and then getting majority support for it. Then getting majority support every year for any needed rule changes.

---

Hard to have a rule making authority when one offended athlete can take it to court and strip its authority.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calumnus said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Maybe this is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on and end at least some of the Us vs Them mentality and work together for once.

---

I do think there will be Democrats and Republicans on both sides of any bill that comes forward. Remember that the Supreme Court decision that set all this in motion was unanimous, with the liberals, conservatives and moderates all agreeing the previous model was illegal and wrong.

---

To the extent bipartisanship is possible, what you say seems to be the most likely scenario.

Legally the legislation does a lot of stuff. It takes the states and NCAA out of the equation which is huge, it clears-up the tax problems I think (CPAs, comments?) (also huge), cleans-up the whole employee mess which has all sorts of implications besides taxes, it gives anti-trust cover, and I could go on.

I'm not sure where this leaves title 9, unionization other than State laws forbidding public employee unions probably are overruled, whether conferences can impose salary caps, and numerous other issues. I suspect the idea is that by avoiding the tough issues, Congress can pass legal cover for colleges and conferences, and avoid all the bad consequences of players be labelled employees for tax and other purposes, and also give some basic protections to players. My guess is that the bill will gather more specifics through the legislative process (assuming the bill proceeds) and a lot of substance likely will turn on executive branch regulations. My two cents as an outsider looking in

---

I would think that a simpler the bill is, with details left out, the more likely it will garner the votes needed. The more details that are added the more things people will object to.

IMO, it should be something simple like: "Collegiate athletics are a great American tradition. In order to regulate collegiate sports and set a level playing field for competition, the NCAA is hereby exempt from the antitrust laws of the United States."

Then let the NCAA and courts do the messy and unpopular job of determining the actual rules.

---

What a great idea! The courts are such a well oiled machine and are incredibly popular at making rules on all sorts of issues that impact every corner of the country. (HT to Oakbear)

---

The key is the NCAA. You need one central rule making authority to set the rules and then modify them to make corrections but they cannot do that without an antitrust exemption. I only included the courts because anything the NCAA does will inevitably be challenged in court by someone. You are right about the courts, the House Settlement is the type of piecemeal ruling that appeases the parties to the case but cannot hold up. That is why the NCAA, a body that represents ALL the schools, needs to be empowered to set the rules. And you can't give antitrust immunity to the conferences or you will just see the B1G and SEC completely eliminate their competition.

I just don't see Congress being able to create the framework that makes sense for college athletics as a whole and then getting majority support for it. Then getting majority support every year for any needed rule changes.

---

Hard to have a rule making authority when one offended athlete can take it to court and strip its authority.

---

Which is why Congress needs to give the NCAA rulemaking authority, especially an antitrust exemption. The current law is clear. The Supreme Court decision based on current law was unanimous. That is unprecedented with this court. That is why athletes keep winning. They have the law on their side. The only way is to change the law and only Congress can change laws (at least according to the Constitution).

All of American football should follow the English Football organizational system. Professionalize all of it. NFL is Premier, sec and bi0 are AFL Championship, acc and big12 are AFL One, and anyone else is interested is in AFL Two.

Quit pretending this isn't just professional sports.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Maybe this is something Democrats and Republicans can agree on and end at least some of the Us vs Them mentality and work together for once.

---

I do think there will be Democrats and Republicans on both sides of any bill that comes forward. Remember that the Supreme Court decision that set all this in motion was unanimous, with the liberals, conservatives and moderates all agreeing the previous model was illegal and wrong.

---

To the extent bipartisanship is possible, what you say seems to be the most likely scenario.

Legally the legislation does a lot of stuff. It takes the states and NCAA out of the equation which is huge, it clears-up the tax problems I think (CPAs, comments?) (also huge), cleans-up the whole employee mess which has all sorts of implications besides taxes, it gives anti-trust cover, and I could go on.

I'm not sure where this leaves title 9, unionization other than State laws forbidding public employee unions probably are overruled, whether conferences can impose salary caps, and numerous other issues. I suspect the idea is that by avoiding the tough issues, Congress can pass legal cover for colleges and conferences, and avoid all the bad consequences of players be labelled employees for tax and other purposes, and also give some basic protections to players. My guess is that the bill will gather more specifics through the legislative process (assuming the bill proceeds) and a lot of substance likely will turn on executive branch regulations. My two cents as an outsider looking in

---

I would think that a simpler the bill is, with details left out, the more likely it will garner the votes needed. The more details that are added the more things people will object to.

IMO, it should be something simple like: "Collegiate athletics are a great American tradition. In order to regulate collegiate sports and set a level playing field for competition, the NCAA is hereby exempt from the antitrust laws of the United States."

Then let the NCAA and courts do the messy and unpopular job of determining the actual rules.

---

An antitrust exemption that broad might also permit colleges to put a hard cap on the salaries of coaches, athletic directors, and entire athletic departments if they want to. Or it could permit colleges to collude with each other to hard-cap total expenditures on football, or agree that they will only fund certain "non-revenue" sports and not any others.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'll be honest, I believe the question needs to be asked. Should Universities have athletic programs anymore? Should athletics fall to private business or city run development associations? Major university sports to me feel like they are just business interests now anyway and these schools are laughably inadequate for monitoring any kind of standards. You have some schools who treat title IX like a road bump and something to skirt. Other schools treat title IX as something to hinder their other programs. The only schools that really have a handle on it are ones that are incredibly rich with private donors (cough stanford cough) that can keep the sports that earn no money afloat.

Even at Cal, let's be honest, there are discussions about how to skirt giving donations to the University because they know it will be mis-spent.

---

I've raised that question often over that last couple of years and the answer I've come up with is a resounding NO.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Bill was introduced today in the House which at this stage is very general, that tries to encapsulate a lot of what is in the House settlement. Thanks for 6956 Bear for finding out about this.

Apparently the bill is now being pushed by Trump. It is opposed by some Democrats, and being pushed by some Democrats. So it quite possible that some bill we passed in the House. It would need 60 votes in the Senate tp proceed, which I'm not sure is available on any legislation of note.

At a minimum, this could be a way of achieving more order in the player marketplace. For those that don't want to read the bill or the press release:

Key provisions of the College SPORTS Act include:

• NIL Rights: Codifies the right of college athletes to receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness. Prohibits the NCAA and schools from penalizing student-athletes for NIL activity.
• Extended Academic Access: Allows student-athletes to use their scholarships to complete a degree within 10 years, even if they leave school early.
• Health & Life Skills Education: Requires Division I, II, and III schools participating in a Division I sport to provide training on mental health, sexual violence prevention, nutrition, career preparation, NIL education, and more.
• Medical Protections: Requires schools to cover the medical costs of sports-related injuries for at least four years after the athlete leaves the institution.
• Scholarship Security: Prohibits schools from canceling or reducing scholarships based on athletic performance, injury, or roster management.
• Agent Oversight: Establishes agent registration and disclosure requirements to protect athletes from exploitation.
• Employment Status: Prohibits student-athletes from being classified as employees of their university, preserving the collegiate nonprofessional model.
• Federal Preemption: Creates a single national standard, overriding inconsistent state laws to ensure clarity for athletes, schools, and sponsors.

I'm not sure what the Democratic objections are at this point, just that Ross Dillinger said there was some. The form of the bill I read actually says a lot of stuff doesn't apply to avoid issues like ADA, Pell Grants, etc. I don't see anything on Title 9. It seems to take the NCAA out of the equation and put conferences in charge of things. The critical aspect is that if schools comply with the Act, they are not violating any laws like antitrust laws, and provides for federal preemption. It is very general wording at the moment, and more meat would have to be put on the bill's bones (sorry about the metaphor).


https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/news-what-score-act-all-know-amended-college-sports-bill-set-introduce-new-transfer-rule-standards?utm_source=www.sportskeeda.com&utm_medium=native&utm_campaign=ShareArticle

---

This bill made it out of committee yesterday with a 12-11 vote along party lines. So it now goes to the House for discussion and a possible vote. The Senate would need to pass anything with 60 votes. Seems doubtful to me that this bill as written has any shot at 60 votes.

But at least something has come forward. And just maybe these politicians can cull together something that brings stability to college athletics with protections for both the athletes and schools.