♪ >> which presidents rank best to worst? join us sunday on washington journal for a conversation about c-span's 2021 historians survey of residential leadership, with our survey advisors giving insight on the newest rankings. we will discuss who is up, who is down and more. join us in the discussion with historians. watch washington journal live sunday july 4, and before the

program, go to c-span.org to see the full results of the 2020 one survey. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is michael mccann who serves as the sports journalist and a sports reporter . guest: it is a sport industry and business publication backed by penske media. host: i want to talk about the ncaa and the recent supreme court ruling and the opinion by justice brett kavanaugh in the majority saying, "nowhere else in america can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that the product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate and under ordinary principles and antitrust law, it is not evident

why college sports should be any different. the ncaa is not above the law." to this ruling and to the issue of college sports in the ncaa, what does all of this mean? guest: it means that the aa is being treated like other businesses -- the ncaa is being treated like other businesses. the ncaa has argued for years that they are owed deferential preference. the ncaa used language in the opinions to say that we are owed deference to how we relate to student athletes. that is over. that deference ended with this ruling. what it means going forward is that one, in terms of education related benefits come which could include things like laptops, study abroad programs,

computer fees, technology fees, the ncaa members can no longer cap what any of them can individually pay college athletes. for years, competing schools join hands through the ncaa to limit expenses. now schools can decide what they want right it is not the same as paying college athletes. one we of them being paid, that is a separate topic. the ncaa can continue to cap those but not in terms of education. it also means we will see other lawsuits. we will see for instance maybe high school players or college athletes challenge other aspects of ncaa rules or they will say, look, the ruling makes clear your rules have to be fair, reasonable. if they are not, they will be held illegal and in a 9-0 ruling from the supreme court, that sends a message that the

justices have a number of ideology perspectives, what you are doing in the ncaa is illegal. that sends a powerful message. host: this is a headline following the ruling. explain what this means as the ncaa clears students to get name, image, and likeness deals. guest: name, image, and likeness comes up as the same time as the case. it was about antitrust scrutiny, specifically ncaa rules to education related benefits. name, image, and likeness is a related topic but under a different area of law, intellectual property law or the right of publicity. it is basically come as americans, we all have the right to profit from our identity, what makes us who we are. college athlete at that right, but the right has been suppressed by ncaa amateur rules

which say that if you are an athlete, you can't be paid for the use of your identity, because that would convert you, the ncaa has argued, into a professional status. the ncaa has long argued that they don't want to mishmash college sports and pros because they want to be interested in the college sports if they think they are pros. this is about treating college athletes like other college students. if you are a musician, actor, cheerleader, artist, you have long been able to make money through your identity. why is it that college athletes are segregated from that benefit? 12 years ago in former ucla basketball player brought an historic lawsuit against the ncaa, arguing that the use of players in video without their consent or compensation was

illegal under antitrust law. it was antitrust because it was all of the schools getting together saying, let's not pay them. he won that case. the last few years, a number of states, beginning in california with the fair pay to play act, began passing name, image and listing rules that says colleges can no longer punish players from using their name, image, and like. had that right as americans but ncaa rules has suppressed them. these statues say you cannot punish players even if the ncaa membership rules say they have to. so last month, congress -- i testified before the hearing before the senate in which the senate looked at whether or not federal law should help. there would be a federal and il athlete where every player -- federal nil athlete where every

player would be treated the same. between states statutes where athletes in states could make money from their name, image, and likeness. the ncaa said we don't want to have a system where athletes in some states have different rates than others, so they adopted an interim policy that basically lets schools decide what to do. right now, college athletes across the country can sign endorsement deals, sponsorship contracts, they can be paid to influence on social media. they can be paid for their autograph. they can go to a music concert and use their identity as an athlete to benefit them. they can monetize their youtube channel. all of that started july 1. host: this is a tweet from a viewer saying the players need the same set up as the pros. they need strong legal representation. i read that because the headline

from the associated press, the supreme court a win for college athletes in the compensation kate. this was a unanimous -- compensation case. this was unanimous. does that surprise you? guest: i thought it might be 7-2. i remember that justice breyer seem reticent at changing the way things are. he adopted a traditional argument that if the court starts poking holes at ncaa rules, it could collapse. chief justice roberts used the analogy of the game jungle. he said once we start hitting different parts of it, the whole thing could collapse are those two justices seemed reticent. justice sotomayor i thought might rule in favor of the ncaa, but i thought it was clear that certainly justice kavanaugh leading the charge with justice

alito, thomas, kagan, beyer, i thought the ncaa would lose. it is important to know it is a consigned victory. if the case had been about ncaa rules and what people think about ncaa rules that players can't be paid, that is not with the supreme court was ruling on. they were ruling on a piece of that, specifically benefits that schools provide athletes for education, so having a high gpa, doing a study abroad program, getting a laptop inverse meant, things like that, things about the education of student athletes. the supreme court justices all agreed the ncaa can't cap that. but had the case been about whether or not colleges can pay athletes for their athleticism, i don't know what the decision would have been. clearly justice kavanaugh would

have gone along to say this whole thing is illegal. this whole thing -- i don't know where the other justices were on that. host: let's go to loretta joining us from cleveland, ohio. good morning. we will try one more time for beretta -- loretta. we seem to have lost her. what is the next issue that will follow the supreme court ruling? guest: figuring out how name image and likeness will work. the ncaa would like congress to revisit this topic and pass a federal law for president biden to sign into law that would create a uniform statute that would give the ncaa some control

over name and image likeness over sponsorships and endorsement deals and create pretty debility. right now is a tough time for a compliance staff by universities because in theory they should be consulted by student athletes in regards to endorsement dealings, but some of them were announced within seconds of midnight, when it became possible under state law. it does not seem like that consulting is going on. i think what the ncaa most once is a federal statute, and there could be benefits for all if everyone plays by the rules and if it is more predictable. there could be benefits for everyone. it takes congress to act, and with summer coming, it doesn't seem like anything is going to happen. the other big thing coming soon is another federal lawsuit, house versus ncaa. this case is brought in part by sedona prince, who took photos

during the match martin's tournament, where the women's gym was way worse than the men's jim, -- gym and there was a controversy over that. deservedly so. they should not be so different. she has brought a case that could be major because it argues this, for the last five years, college athletes have not been able to sign endorsement deals and sponsorships. what about those athletes that were denied? this case argues they should be compensated for that, for those lost earnings. it is great that as of july 1, college athletes have endorsement deals, but that does not help athletes from years past. it is not just the star quarterback where the player who goes to college for a year or the nba draft, there are many women athletes who stand to benefit from name image and likeness, including men and women who have significant social media following.

this case is about the ncaa as a member school denying name image and likeness. if they win that case, we are talking astronomical damages that would be paid to past players. host: essays -- one of our viewers says it is time for them to run as the moneymaking entities they are, and their athletes are state employees. we are dividing our phone lines two separate ways. if you support student compensation for athletes,

(202)-748-8000. if you oppose, (202)-748-8001. i think we have re-corrected with loretta in cleveland. still with us? caller: yes, i am. good morning. host: go ahead please. caller: i do agree with the ruling, but i think it should have went a lot further. this is nothing but modern-day slavery, you know, saying that you can play for this amount, and then if you would like, you can work for other plantations, but you still a slave. those little bits and pieces with image likeness and all of that, that does not touch the 106 billion dollars they made last year during the covid-19

pandemic. host: loretta, things for the call. we will get a response from michael mccann. guest: thank you for the question, the retta. -- loretta. clearly, there are some who support what you said, just as justice kavanaugh's echoing your sentiments that this is unfair to labor, frankly. i would say a couple of things. one is that change, especially with college sports, takes time. there have been cases from 12 years ago and experts over the years to change some of these rules, but they are not going to happen instantaneously. i think what we will see our opportunities for athletes that did not yet exist, and your comment is to say, a, this is way too late, and b, this is not

enough. i would say to be patient because we will see more changes ahead. it just does take time. part of it is the ncaa is a membership organization. every school has a certain amount of economy. there is a bit of a bureaucracy to it that makes it somewhat slow, and that i think creates inertia and it makes it difficult to make change, but what we saw over the last few years and prior to that with litigation and states getting involved is forcing the ncaa to act. maybe we will see more of that, but they do take time to play out, and your comments about the wealth certainly is fair to ask, why does a college coach make $10 million a year when the athletes, until now, they cannot even assign an endorsement deal or get paid for autographs? there are real questions. host: quick follow-up, and i realize this is a tweet that is a broad question with different sports and divisions, but what

percentage of college athletes are on athletic scholarships? do you have an answer? guest: i have seen different stats. i would say this, most are not getting full scholarships. what is typically the case is that an athlete that's a partial scholarship, -- gets a partial scholarship. the interesting with college sports is there are two sports that tend to make or generate the vast majority of revenue. it depends on the stats you use, so i am hesitant to give a number, but men's basketball and football are the two big moneymaking sports, and other sports do not in general generate the kind of revenue. in some of those exports, there are not the same opportunities for full scholarships. host: michael mccann joining in us from nasa to stash joining us from massachusetts, part of the university of new hampshire and rights for sportico.com.

joel is on the phone from california. caller: it is riverdale, georgia. host: georgia, sorry. caller: not a problem. i just want to make a point, and i may have missed it earlier because i have not been washing the show all the time, but you are dealing with basketball and football. mostly with lack athletes generating all that money. shouldn't athletes get a percentage of all the moneys that the ncaa schools bring in? as opposed to just being able to use their likenesses to make money? host: thank you. guest: thank you, joel, for the question. there is a federal bill sponsored by senator cory booker and several other senators, the college athlete bill of rights, that would essentially provide what you suggested, which is revenue-sharing, and also

medical trust funds, and the idea is that schools would have to share about half -- the revenue is defined in a certain way, but half goes to the players, and there are some who say that is great, and your comment bears out the reasoning for it, and others are more reticent. they say that would hurt schools in ways that have profound effects on athletes who are not in those two sports, that schools would be inclined to cut sports do not fall within the two money revenue money generating sports, and that federal nine, which demands gender equity, would protect some of the women sports but not all. there are also arguments that fans might become less interested. i am so persuaded by that, if revenue is shared with them, there are economic consequences that would be borne out. i do not know we would see that anytime soon. it is hard to see if there is

enough political support for that, but that is where that stands now. host: david joins us from longview, texas, good morning. caller: good morning. what is to keep the big schools with the big boosters, say you are a rich guy who owns a car dealership saying to the high school player, i will give you $20,000 to come to oklahoma each month to represent the school? i mean, it is just going to be professional athletes now. they might as well depart the nfl as a minor league team. guest: david, that is still against the rules, what you described, or at least it should be. we will see how vigorously it is an forced, but that remains against the rules. the scenario of the booster saying, here's $20,000 to come to my school, if an athlete does that, he or she would be deemed ineligible to play, and the school could be punished. that is part of the set of rules that accompany name image and

likeness, it cannot be used for recruitment, so that remains against the rules, although i will concede, let's see how it conforms. they're going to be scenarios where there is a gray zone, where an athlete gets compensated at a much higher level than he or she might in the marketplace, and it will -- say it is couched as an endorsement deal, right, but it is at a level that is way higher than what we might think it ought to be. that will lead to hard questions for all involved. host: we will go to doug in california. good morning. caller: i have two questions. first of all, i would like to follow up and read about the sedona prince lawsuit, it is the first i have heard of it. i followed her a while, i think she is a great athlete and she has the charisma that will help her on being successful. and if you could drop a citation

or someplace where we could follow that up, and the second thing is, i know congressman anthony gonzalez and emanuel cleaver have been doing work on this in the house. could you recommend some bills or policies that are going through congress that you think are more attractive, that are not loaded with a bunch of poison bills that would make this kind of a plan effective? host: thank you, doug. guest: thank you, doug. i would say couple of things, in terms of the sedona prince lawsuit, i recently wrote about it for sportico and did a legal analysis. if you go to sportico and google house v. prince sportico, it should come up. the complaint is in the northern district of california. it is before the same judge as the ed o'bannon and austin case, george lopez. in terms of federal bills

introduced, you are right, a number of members of congress have been involved. you referenced two, another congresswoman from massachusetts introduced legislation, along with senator chris murphy. there are a number of republican bills targeted towards name image and likeness, and i would highlight senator roger wicker has a bill that is focused on name and likeness. if you are talking about let's get name image and likeness resolved, senator roger wicker of mississippi proposed a bill that does just that. and there is an argument, and i will admit, in my testimony, i argued this would be a good idea, passed one of the targeted bills, addressed name image and likeness, get a federal statute so every athlete and state plays by the same set of rules so it is a more cohesive, organized approach to the topic.

others say, no, we should go further and have revenue-sharing. we should have health care benefits. we should have other aspects of reform that may be very important, that may be essential, but i think the challenges it is hard to get a bill passed if legislation includes those other things you are referring to. it may be best to take them one by one. i understand the argument against that, but if you are looking for a bill focused on an il, senator roger wicker. host: nil, his name image and likeness. well over half the country signed into law or laws on governor's desk that would deal with name, image and likeness issues. this is a tweet from francisco lopez who says, "i agree with the rolling because the ncaa and colleges make a lot of money in revenue. it is good for the college student athletes make a little money, especially in today's economy." we will go to portland, oregon, sisi, thank you for waiting.

caller: thank you for c-span. my comment is that having students take advantage of name, image and likeness still does not address the fact that the ncaa, sports, athletics, makes their money off of the labor of the athletes, so telling them they can go outside of the system in which the money that they generate for the university comes out of, to me, that does not make sense. and going back to the slavery analogy, it is effectively like hiring yourself out, and you get to keep that money, but the money you generate from for me in your labor, you cannot keep, ok, that is not make sense to me. if my body and my labor makes money for the ncaa, why can't i get paid from them as opposed to me getting money from somebody else outside of the system in which i generate the money?

host: thank you. this is from linda in georgia who says, "right now there is no parity in college sports, unlike the nfl. look at alabama and clemson always winning national football championships and athletes getting paid will not alter that." michael mccann, a couple of comments from our viewers. guest: thanks, steve, and thanks, cc, for those comments. a couple of things. let me play devil's advocate. it is hard to argue against the principle of what you're are saying, and i won't do that, but what i will say is the counterargument -- and you may not find it persuasive -- is athletes are able to get, in some cases, a full ride to college, they may be able to be accepted into schools that they otherwise would not be able to attend, and many play sports i not generate money that are actually money losers, so there is an argument that for some, it is actually a good service, and that may not be true for the

very elite, but there is an argument that this system benefits many of those who participate, and moreover, if we change that and start paying them, then some of those sports go away, and that will mean fewer opportunities for students who would otherwise be able to attend a particular college, and for some, it is by playing a sport that it is sort of part of their learning process. i teach at a law school, but every year i teach an undergraduate course at the university of new hampshire and i have student athletes who are not going pro or playing sports that make money, but for them, the sport itself is a form of education, and there is a value to that. that doesn't address what you are saying, you are right, there is theft of labor, especially in sports that generate a lot of money. the complexity is if we change

the formula, there will be unwanted consequences, including the cutting of sports. host: in let's go to wayne lake charles, louisiana, saying college sports goes pro, and there will come the same problems. guest: yeah, so the same problems, could you see that question again? host: if college sports goes pro, leaving small schools and lesser-known athletes basically out. guest: i guess i disagree that college sports are going pro. i don't think this is what this is about. the ncaa argued that once you go down this path, it will convert college sports into pro sports, and it will be an inferior form because the athletes are not as good at nba, wnba, and players. name image and likeness isn't that. it is about treating college

students, college athletes like other college students. we all have the right of publicity. if you are a cheerleader, actor, e-sports player, you can make money. to teach acting, it wasn't by leading roles. when john mayer went to the berkeley school of music and signed a recording deal, you did not lose scholarship if you had one. it is only athletes who have been treated differently by virtue of their sport. i disagree with the premise of the question. if we are talking about playing -- paying players as athletes, yet, that gets into the realm of pro sports, and i think that is a more complicated topic and it intersects with federal and state law. generally speaking, college athletes at private universities are governed by federal law, whereas college athletes at public universities, just like others who work at public universities, are governed by state law.

that creates a level of complexity where we do not want students at private universities treated differently than public universities. that is more complicated topic. host: our last caller, about one minute left from virginia, go ahead, joe. caller: mr. mccann, thank you for coming to the program. a couple of items, number one, the athletes today are somewhat compensated because of athletic scholarships, which allows them to attend school tuition free. some take advantage of getting a degree, some do not. second, as you mentioned, if the school takes the revenue that comes in, they should be able to allocate the costs for the programs that do not generate revenue, lacrosse, women's exports, etc., and then maybe it will be distributed to the athletes. and then, third, the ncaa, nc

1 schools make a little money, and and nc 3 schools not get any money, so there is far more complexity per thank you. host: we have about one minute left. guest: thank you, joe. you are hitting at a lot of key things. to your last point, there are different ncaa divisions, and within them, there are huge differences. there are some schools where sports are not making the money. many help with fundraising, tuitions, and getting alumni to give back to schools, so the math gets fuzzy, but you are right, there is a wide range and maybe it is too wide. maybe they should not all play by the same set of rules. maybe alabama and notre dame football should have a separate set of rules than most other programs that are not the same money revenue generating activities. in terms of scholarships, you

are right, like i mentioned to the previous caller, there are opportunities athletes get through scholarships. in many cases they are not full scholarships but partial help. you are bringing up good points that it isn't just about huge moneymaking things. host: michael mccann, an expert on sports and entertainment law, also a writer for sportico >> c-span's washington journal. everyday we take our calls live on air and impact policy issues. coming up sunday morning, historians discuss the results of c-span's survey of presidential leadership. watch washington journal live 7:00 eastern sunday morning, be sure to join with phone calls, facebook comments, tax and

tweets -- texts and tweets. monday night on the communicators. >> when i talk about digital oppression, i'm referring to the way technologies are being used to further autocratic political genders. basically, the way technology is being used via coercion in other means to accomplish political goals, particularly for those leaders who have antidemocratic aspirations. >> watch the communicators with a senior fellow at the carnegie endowment and author, monday night, 8:00 eastern, on c-span two. >> a conversation now from a sedona forum at the mccain institute with senator rob portman and theresa may. they discuss human trafficking and forced labor.