December 8, 2025 • 21 mins
Congressman Adam Smith of Washington’s 9th Congressional District, joins Dick Fain and Hugh Millen to discuss the Score Act, regarding name, image, and likeness rights of student athletes, to promote fair competition with respect to intercollegiate athletics.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Very important guest waiting on hold for us and our
next guests, Hugh. Yesterday he appeared on ABC Television on
their Sunday morning show, and today he's with us. So
I congratulate Representative Adam Smith from moving up in the
world from Sunday to Monday, going from ABCTV now to
Sports Radio ninety three point K ninety three boy three
(00:20):
kJ Aaron Seattle.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Representative Smith, thanks for joining us. How are you.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
I'm doing great and thanks for having me. You guys
are top of the list. They've been a sports fan
for gosh, I know fifty years now. I've been listening
to you for a long time and obsessed overall things Seahawks, Mariners,
and Huskies. So I am honored, much more honored to
be on this show than on this week with George
Stefan AFFL. Thank you for having me well.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
We appreciate that and the reason we have you on.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
The members of the House of Representatives pulled the Score Act,
the College Football Score Act, the bill just hours before
his schedule for a final vote this past week that
would have had allowed the NCAA and the College Sports
Commision to create and enforce national rules. So can you
give us for those that are unfamiliar, kind of a
cursory look at what the score Act is and what
(01:09):
it hopes to accomplish.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Absolutely, I mean, there's a lot of stuff in it,
but the bottom line is what the NCAA and the
colleges and the universities are trying to do is to
bring some stability to the system. They're sort of sick
of being sued. Individual athletes and various different groups have
brought lawsuits, which obviously led to the nil that led
to the House settlement. You also have individual states across
(01:32):
the country that are passing different laws to try to
protect their teams interests, and Tennessee did that, and so
the score Act was meant to give the NCAA an
anti trust exemption and also protect them against lawsuits from
individual athletes and bring that stability. It was pulled by
and large because there's a lot of us who are
concerned that it's giving the NCAA too much power and
(01:55):
limiting what athletes can do. And we know in the
past the NCAA has not exercise that power in a
very positive way. And then the other part of this
that is different than stability is I personally am still
very upset about the concentration of power and the SEC
and the Big ten. ESPN, Fox News basically worked with
(02:16):
the Big ten and the SEC to help destroy the
PAC twelve. We're trying to concentrate. That's the best way
to make money. So what I and others want is
a bill that protects those smaller schools so that the
money doesn't wind up all in the hands of a
few people. And really the result of that is fewer
athletes across the country would get opportunities to participate as
schools which struggle to compete with that model. And so
(02:40):
you know, we're sort of going back to the drawing board,
because the Score Act was really just all about giving
that power back to the colleges and universities in the
NCAA in the name of stability, and really we want
greater fairness for all of the athletes and not have
what we had happen now. I have a particular amount
of animosity towards the University of Alabama right now. So
(03:02):
the CFP process was how do you lose a game
and move up in the polls? But I guess that's
because that the SEC says we want that extra four
million dollars, you better give it to us. That's the
kind of power they have right now, and I don't
think that's good for college athletics and college athletes.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
Congressman Smith, thank you for for those thoughts. I'm curious,
can you just explain to to me and our audience
what the jurisdiction that you have as a congressman in
this matter? What what what purview do you have to interject?
And and particularly in light of the Alston case where
(03:41):
the the NCAA not Allston. The NCAA brought that to
and ultimately to the Supreme Court that that is not
a liberal court, and yet they struck down. Uh, they
ruled rather nine to nothing against the NCAA. So here
the Supreme Court is looking at the compensation structure and
(04:03):
elements where they don't coincide and adhere to anti trust law.
But now we hear Congress has the capacity to maybe
intercede in the rulings of the Supreme Court. Just kind
of explain your role as a congressman in Congress's role
in that process.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Well, one argument is that we should just butt out.
I mean, one argument is, you know, we've got laws,
we've got protections you know, that enable individual states and
others to file lawsuits in accordance with the law and
their rights. But the jurisdiction that we do have is
if we want to pass a law, we pass the
law that supersedes all of that. The court was interpreting
(04:44):
the law as it currently exists. If we change that law,
that changes the interpretation. And that's what the universities want.
That's really interesting. I mean, the Big ten and sec
are really driving us. I've met with the Big Tank Commissioner,
various other athletic directors, even some of the smaller schools. Ironically,
my daughter works in another office and she works on
(05:05):
this issue out of the City of Houston and both
smaller schools like Rice. We're advocating for this in the
University of Houston, and I think for them, they just
want the stability, you know. Yeah, it's a little tilted
against them, but they never know when the lawsuits are
come and how the rules are going to change. They
thought is give the NCAA that power. They can set
the rules and they'll be greater stability. I mean, the
(05:28):
worry is that in the past the NCAA has simply
been led around by the more powerful rituer schools at
the expense of a lot of people. But Congress's jurisdiction
is we can change the anti trust laws, we can
change the individual employment laws. We can do any of that.
And know whether or not that's the wise thing to
do in the right policy for the country is a
(05:48):
different question, and that's what we all are debating internally
right now. We also got a couple other things that
we're worried about obviously going out in the country, But
this is something that has interested a lot of our
constituents across the country.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
Represent Adam Smith from the ninth District joining us on
ninety three point three KJRFM Representative Smith. When a bill
is pulled like it was last week, what are the
next steps to making it viable to be vote upon again?
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Yeah, it's funny and the very thought a sports analogy,
but this looks like it's hustle back to the huddle. Basically, Sam, yelp,
this didn't work. What's next? So basically what you do
is you go back and you try to figure out
how you can put something together it'll get you the votes.
Because that was the problem you know there, You know,
most Democrats were against it. Some Republicans broke off against it.
Ashley Michael Baumgardner, who represents Pullman in eastern Washington, is
(06:42):
very focused on this issue. He was not a supporter
of the Score Act because he felt it was unfair
to small of our schools. And you've seen what's happened
to Washington State and Oregon State as the day ten
came in and cruston, Washington State lost another coach. I mean,
it's just ridiculous. So you know what we're going to
try to do is come back and come up with
a bill that that or reflects fairness for everybody involved.
(07:03):
Whether or not we can get there highly debatable, because
you know, if you move it one way, then maybe
you lose people who are looking for something stronger the
other way. So we have to try to come up
with a bill that can get majority support in the
House and the Senate to move it. And that's the
conversations that the main committee's jurisdiction other members are having
(07:23):
right now to try to get to a bill that
has enough consensus to pass.
Speaker 4 (07:27):
When you think, you mentioned you're a big sports fan,
if you kind of have a vision of what is
fair across all of the parties. You know, certainly the
players have acquired a lot more freedom and rights in
recent years. There have been institutions that have been affected
(07:49):
by that adversely, and then those that have benefited. If
you just kind of say, okay, this is my vision
of what seems right, Maybe give us a picture of
that not not, and and then maybe you can talk
about how you might try and influence your colleagues. But
what's your vision of college athletics as it pertains to
(08:10):
these elements.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Well, there's two big things. One is, you know, we
have to better share the money and what I'm a capitalist.
My name's Adam Smith. As always like to show the
political but but I also one of the problems with
capitalism that my name Sake wrote about was, you know,
too much power gets concentrated in the hands of few,
too few, and you don't have a fair market. So
(08:34):
I think you run that risk. I mean, that's why
the PAC twelve got smashed. That's why you know, the
big tim the sec are moving forward. I think it's
perfectly appropriate to have a system that redirects that money.
You know, I don't know how many you know, colleges
and universities there are, but there's a lot they all
should be allowed to, you know, provide athletics to their students.
(08:54):
So I think you're going to have to go in
and say, no, we're not going to let a small
group of people make all the decisions and control all
the money. It ought to be more fairly distributed. And
then the second big part about it is in the
college athletics. You know, we pay we pay attention to football, basketball,
you know, a few sports. But what's really about is
there are so many sports that my son was a
soccer player, you could have played Division three soccer. Shows
(09:17):
not to but you know, those opportunities that are given
to young people to play a wide variety of sports,
not just football and basketball. And as you concentrate the
power in those revenue generating sports and the very few
people you're seeing it already, you're seeing a lot of
programs being cut and canceled at universities across the country
(09:37):
because of where this money has gone. So I want
to see a system that distributes the money more fairly,
so more people can compete and there is more opportunity
to play sports and more places. And you know, the
whole conference thing I mean with you know, having Stanford
and Calum the ACC. I mean, you got enough money
for the football and the basketball care I'm fine, But
you're a tennis player and you're a student, and you
(10:00):
going to spend a week going to Tallahassee, Florida from Stanford.
How does that work? I mean it gets expensive and
it gets it very difficult to be a student. So
I would like to see greater fairness across the board
on those two points.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
No, that hits home, no question. I mean, Hugh had
two sons that played revenue sports. I have a son
that wants to play a non revenue sport in college,
and I, as a dad, are worried about it when
he goes to college and in a couple of years,
and you know somebody that you work with. Chip Roy
from Texas Congressman Chip Roy said the score Act is
well intended, but falls short and is not ready for
(10:35):
prime time. I will vote know And he had a long,
long tweet that he put out a couple of days ago,
and one of the things that he was worried about.
He was concerned that the bill infringed on athletes' rights.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Do you think it does?
Speaker 3 (10:50):
See I'm going a more balanced place on that. I
think it certainly does. I mean, it's not even debatable
that it does. It limits their ability file law suits.
It prevents them from you know, being positioning to be
treated as employees. Look, I don't think that student athletes
should be employees of all the fair labor standards, after
all the rules in there, but you have to have
(11:11):
some mechanism for them to protect their rights. And there
I do agree with chip Roy. And that was one
of the concerns. And we thought, you know, before all
this nil stuff came along, you had the NCAA. You know,
you transferred and you had to sit out a year.
You know, your coach bought your ham sandwich and you
lost your eligibility. You know, the athletes really they were
(11:34):
treated very poorly. And I don't know what the stipend was.
Hugh would know far better than I, but the stipend
was pretty close to enoughing for a bunch of athletes
who didn't have time to work and make money elsewhere.
And the NCAA didn't care because they had all the power.
So I don't want to see the balance shift in
that direction either. And I think, you know, chip Roy's right,
(11:56):
this bill was not properly balanced. It took too many
rights away from the athlete and less than too vulnerable
to the type of exploitations that they had experienced before.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
When you mentioned that you'd like to see the money
redirected more fairly, of course that's always, uh, you know,
a subject for interpretation. One man's fair is another man's
unfair right or women's pusey. So so in a in
a in a general sense, we can all agree that
the revenues that are are accrewed by the NCAA member
(12:29):
institutions is primarily driven by football, secondarily by men's basketball,
maybe a little bit by women's basketball, and then and
then to my knowledge, for the most part, none of
the others are are revenue generating right, so as yes,
so so now the football players, how do you see?
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Okay?
Speaker 4 (12:51):
Are they entitled to more than because they're bringing in
the revenue? Are they entitled to exactly the same as
the swimmers? What obviously Title nine would be a factor
in all of this when you talk about the vision
of redistributing the money more fairly, What is your vision
(13:12):
of more fairly? And what do you think your colleagues
in Congress view as more fairly.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Yeah, and I think that's right. I mean, I think,
you know, for the high profile sports to generate more revenue,
they probably are entitled to something more. Now, a lot
of this is going to come from nil, which they
have the independent ability now to go generate. But there's
one point that I've not heard in all these conversations
about this. The athletes generate all this money. Well, the
(13:38):
athletes in part generate that money because of people's connection
to the school. There's one of the I never agree with.
If the best you know, I don't know, eighteen to
twenty two year old football players out there weren't playing
for the University of Washington or Michigan or even Northwestern,
they wouldn't have anywhere near the number of people interested
in them. They would be minor league football players. They'd
(14:00):
be more like the you know, the Tacomerinears. God blessed
the cumber Ynaeers love them. They don't. They don't get
that type of turnout. But it's because so many of
us feel a connection to the university that they're able
to generate that revenue. So saying that, well, they're the
ones who generated they should get it. No, they are
not the ones, the only ones who generated the connection
(14:21):
City University and all that. So the volleyball team or
whatever other team, they're part of that university too, and
they couldn't the individual athletes in football and basketball couldn't
get that money without that university. So I think they don't.
They don't deserve as much as just Okay, football makes
all the money. Therefore they get all the money. We
have to figure out a fairer way to distribute it.
And given the interest right now, by the way, there's
(14:43):
plenty to go around. Okay, I mean we're not We're
not talking about, you know, people struggling to feed themselves. Here.
There's a lot of money to go around. The big
guys and the big sports like college football and basketball,
the big conferences like the Big Ten and the SEC,
they're going to have a lot, going to have more
than everybody else. They just can't be completely crushing everybody else,
(15:05):
is sort of my vision.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Representative Adam Smith final a couple of minutes with him,
so glad he could join us today talking about the
Score Act that so far has been shot down, but
it was going to set a cap on how much
schools can spend on nil and then also parameters for transferring.
What would that cap have been and what would the
transfer legislation have been had this bill passed?
Speaker 2 (15:27):
And were you a proponent of what was in the
bill in those two elements.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Yeah, Now the details really really complicated on that, because
you know, the House Settlements set a cap on nil
as well. But then there's the question of what sort
of nil are you talking about. You're talking about legitimate
endorsement deals, or are you're talking about, Hey, we're going
to pay you four million to come play quarterback in Texas.
You know, we'll find the money somewhere. So part of
it was sort of drawing a distinction between those two points.
(15:53):
I forget what the numbers were. I don't remember having
a huge problem with those numbers. And also I know
the transfer portals kind of a pain, but I'm not
as worried about that. I think individual students should have
the ability to transfer. I mean, you're not an indentured servant. Certainly,
coaches leave, things change, you should be able to transfer
(16:14):
and sort of up to the program to build a
program that you want to stay with. Now, we could
get the calendar a lot better. I mean, the different
places they transfer. Part of the problem is that, you know,
athletics schedules do not match academic schedules. I don't know
if there's any way to fix that. If there was
some way to fix that, I mean, so that kids
weren't having to make a decision to transfer right when
(16:35):
the playoffs started in their chosen sport, then I would
be in favor of that. But I'm less personally worried
about the transfer aspect of it than I am about
the other things we talked about.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
The announcement yesterday of JMU and of Tulane in the
tournament get some fans and maybe unless gets them a
little sideways with the place of the group of five schools,
which brings my question. When you're talking about redistributing the
(17:11):
money more fairly, how much should the power four schools
be concerned about including the group of five with respect
to anti trust law or any anti trust exemption and
part of the legislation that deals with that component, And
then what is your vision of how would the powerful
(17:32):
power force schools would they be in the engaged in
the process of subsidizing group of five schools in your idea.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Of this bill? Yeah, I mean I think The thing
that strikes me as the most fair here is Look,
I don't think that equity and fairness means that you know,
you get to play no matter what. Now, I think
you should put the best twelve teams in the playoffs.
The part of the reason there's such a huge fight
over this is because of the money. I mean, I
guess if I was you know, the Vanderbilt the Texas
(18:03):
of the world screaming about how they should be there,
not James Addison and Tulane, share the money more fairly
and they won't. You know, maybe just give them a
more fair cut of the overall revenue package and then
you don't have to put them in the game if
they're not really qualified. I mean, that's the way I
would approach it. But the thing is to so much
money involved in getting those spots that the ones who
(18:25):
aren't part of the power for are like, if we
don't get in, you know, we're we're going to be
hurting financially. So you could fix that and then have
a better competitive situation. Now, look, I mean, if you
were if you can't get into the top ten the
college football teams at the end of the year, you know,
maybe go out and win more games. Okay, you know,
(18:45):
so you know I'm not I'm not buying all these
people who are complaining about, oh, it's not fair, because
that's the other thing. I mean. They all played twelve
thirteen games, they all had their records, they all had chance,
you know, and ten is certainly more than back when
they only that two teams and even four teams. But
in terms of the fairness issue, I think the focus
should be on the revenue, not on you know, Okay,
(19:07):
we're going to game it. So teams that aren't really
as good get into a playoff that they should be in.
That competition should be based purely on football. The best
team should be in the playoff. But the reason has
become a problem is because the money has become so
concentrated in the hands of the people who do make
those playoffs of those ball games.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
Robert vs. Smith, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Before I let you go, I do want to let
you do you want to ask you about the World
Cup that's coming to Seattle. What do you hope an
event does like this for the city and for the county,
And what do you hope the new leadership that we
have in both Seattle and King County.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
What do you hope they will do in the lead
up to the event. Yeah, they got their work cut
out for him, to be sure. And I've been a
fairly outspoken critic of the last ten years of some
of the governance decisions that have been made around housing
and homelessness and crime and drugs. I think we want
to clean that up. I mean, the World Cup gives
us an opp to know a whole series of levels.
Number one, it can be a showcase of the Pacific
(20:03):
Northwest if we do it right, if we have the
services set up, if running the place well, it can
really show people that, you know, what they've seen about
Seattle last for our five years. Now we heard you,
we got it, we fixed that. We're better and by
the way, I think we are getting better. So I
think we can build on that and really can be
a showcase for the puge Down region. Also, you know,
I played soccer when I was a kid. My son
(20:24):
played soccer. It's a sport I've always had an affinity for, so,
you know, bringing more attention to that sport, getting more
people interested. And I've also I've worked with the Sounders
and a couple other organizations and trying to make soccer
more available to a wider group of people. It's another
big problem topic for another long conversation. But you sports,
I mean you sports, I mean being involved. You know,
you have to have money these days to play at
(20:46):
any sort of level, whether it's soccer, basketball or whatever.
You know, just sort of opening up more opportunities for
more youth to participate in soccer. In particular, I think
the World Cup can be a great showcase. So that's
certainly in the puge sound but also hopefully across the country.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Very enlightening. Thanks for joining us today, Representative Smith.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Yeah, it was a pleasure. I appreciate the chance. Great
to talking. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
You've met Adam Smith here on ninety three point three
k j R f M. We'll get into the CFP
discussion with you coming up next
Very important guest waiting on hold for us and our
next guests, Hugh. Yesterday he appeared on ABC Television on
their Sunday morning show, and today he's with us. So
I congratulate Representative Adam Smith from moving up in the
world from Sunday to Monday, going from ABCTV now to
Sports Radio ninety three point K ninety three boy three
(00:20):
kJ Aaron Seattle.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Representative Smith, thanks for joining us. How are you.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
I'm doing great and thanks for having me. You guys
are top of the list. They've been a sports fan
for gosh, I know fifty years now. I've been listening
to you for a long time and obsessed overall things Seahawks, Mariners,
and Huskies. So I am honored, much more honored to
be on this show than on this week with George
Stefan AFFL. Thank you for having me well.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
We appreciate that and the reason we have you on.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
The members of the House of Representatives pulled the Score Act,
the College Football Score Act, the bill just hours before
his schedule for a final vote this past week that
would have had allowed the NCAA and the College Sports
Commision to create and enforce national rules. So can you
give us for those that are unfamiliar, kind of a
cursory look at what the score Act is and what
(01:09):
it hopes to accomplish.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Absolutely, I mean, there's a lot of stuff in it,
but the bottom line is what the NCAA and the
colleges and the universities are trying to do is to
bring some stability to the system. They're sort of sick
of being sued. Individual athletes and various different groups have
brought lawsuits, which obviously led to the nil that led
to the House settlement. You also have individual states across
(01:32):
the country that are passing different laws to try to
protect their teams interests, and Tennessee did that, and so
the score Act was meant to give the NCAA an
anti trust exemption and also protect them against lawsuits from
individual athletes and bring that stability. It was pulled by
and large because there's a lot of us who are
concerned that it's giving the NCAA too much power and
(01:55):
limiting what athletes can do. And we know in the
past the NCAA has not exercise that power in a
very positive way. And then the other part of this
that is different than stability is I personally am still
very upset about the concentration of power and the SEC
and the Big ten. ESPN, Fox News basically worked with
(02:16):
the Big ten and the SEC to help destroy the
PAC twelve. We're trying to concentrate. That's the best way
to make money. So what I and others want is
a bill that protects those smaller schools so that the
money doesn't wind up all in the hands of a
few people. And really the result of that is fewer
athletes across the country would get opportunities to participate as
schools which struggle to compete with that model. And so
(02:40):
you know, we're sort of going back to the drawing board,
because the Score Act was really just all about giving
that power back to the colleges and universities in the
NCAA in the name of stability, and really we want
greater fairness for all of the athletes and not have
what we had happen now. I have a particular amount
of animosity towards the University of Alabama right now. So
(03:02):
the CFP process was how do you lose a game
and move up in the polls? But I guess that's
because that the SEC says we want that extra four
million dollars, you better give it to us. That's the
kind of power they have right now, and I don't
think that's good for college athletics and college athletes.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
Congressman Smith, thank you for for those thoughts. I'm curious,
can you just explain to to me and our audience
what the jurisdiction that you have as a congressman in
this matter? What what what purview do you have to interject?
And and particularly in light of the Alston case where
(03:41):
the the NCAA not Allston. The NCAA brought that to
and ultimately to the Supreme Court that that is not
a liberal court, and yet they struck down. Uh, they
ruled rather nine to nothing against the NCAA. So here
the Supreme Court is looking at the compensation structure and
(04:03):
elements where they don't coincide and adhere to anti trust law.
But now we hear Congress has the capacity to maybe
intercede in the rulings of the Supreme Court. Just kind
of explain your role as a congressman in Congress's role
in that process.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Well, one argument is that we should just butt out.
I mean, one argument is, you know, we've got laws,
we've got protections you know, that enable individual states and
others to file lawsuits in accordance with the law and
their rights. But the jurisdiction that we do have is
if we want to pass a law, we pass the
law that supersedes all of that. The court was interpreting
(04:44):
the law as it currently exists. If we change that law,
that changes the interpretation. And that's what the universities want.
That's really interesting. I mean, the Big ten and sec
are really driving us. I've met with the Big Tank Commissioner,
various other athletic directors, even some of the smaller schools. Ironically,
my daughter works in another office and she works on
(05:05):
this issue out of the City of Houston and both
smaller schools like Rice. We're advocating for this in the
University of Houston, and I think for them, they just
want the stability, you know. Yeah, it's a little tilted
against them, but they never know when the lawsuits are
come and how the rules are going to change. They
thought is give the NCAA that power. They can set
the rules and they'll be greater stability. I mean, the
(05:28):
worry is that in the past the NCAA has simply
been led around by the more powerful rituer schools at
the expense of a lot of people. But Congress's jurisdiction
is we can change the anti trust laws, we can
change the individual employment laws. We can do any of that.
And know whether or not that's the wise thing to
do in the right policy for the country is a
(05:48):
different question, and that's what we all are debating internally
right now. We also got a couple other things that
we're worried about obviously going out in the country, But
this is something that has interested a lot of our
constituents across the country.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
Represent Adam Smith from the ninth District joining us on
ninety three point three KJRFM Representative Smith. When a bill
is pulled like it was last week, what are the
next steps to making it viable to be vote upon again?
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Yeah, it's funny and the very thought a sports analogy,
but this looks like it's hustle back to the huddle. Basically, Sam, yelp,
this didn't work. What's next? So basically what you do
is you go back and you try to figure out
how you can put something together it'll get you the votes.
Because that was the problem you know there, You know,
most Democrats were against it. Some Republicans broke off against it.
Ashley Michael Baumgardner, who represents Pullman in eastern Washington, is
(06:42):
very focused on this issue. He was not a supporter
of the Score Act because he felt it was unfair
to small of our schools. And you've seen what's happened
to Washington State and Oregon State as the day ten
came in and cruston, Washington State lost another coach. I mean,
it's just ridiculous. So you know what we're going to
try to do is come back and come up with
a bill that that or reflects fairness for everybody involved.
(07:03):
Whether or not we can get there highly debatable, because
you know, if you move it one way, then maybe
you lose people who are looking for something stronger the
other way. So we have to try to come up
with a bill that can get majority support in the
House and the Senate to move it. And that's the
conversations that the main committee's jurisdiction other members are having
(07:23):
right now to try to get to a bill that
has enough consensus to pass.
Speaker 4 (07:27):
When you think, you mentioned you're a big sports fan,
if you kind of have a vision of what is
fair across all of the parties. You know, certainly the
players have acquired a lot more freedom and rights in
recent years. There have been institutions that have been affected
(07:49):
by that adversely, and then those that have benefited. If
you just kind of say, okay, this is my vision
of what seems right, Maybe give us a picture of
that not not, and and then maybe you can talk
about how you might try and influence your colleagues. But
what's your vision of college athletics as it pertains to
(08:10):
these elements.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Well, there's two big things. One is, you know, we
have to better share the money and what I'm a capitalist.
My name's Adam Smith. As always like to show the
political but but I also one of the problems with
capitalism that my name Sake wrote about was, you know,
too much power gets concentrated in the hands of few,
too few, and you don't have a fair market. So
(08:34):
I think you run that risk. I mean, that's why
the PAC twelve got smashed. That's why you know, the
big tim the sec are moving forward. I think it's
perfectly appropriate to have a system that redirects that money.
You know, I don't know how many you know, colleges
and universities there are, but there's a lot they all
should be allowed to, you know, provide athletics to their students.
(08:54):
So I think you're going to have to go in
and say, no, we're not going to let a small
group of people make all the decisions and control all
the money. It ought to be more fairly distributed. And
then the second big part about it is in the
college athletics. You know, we pay we pay attention to football, basketball,
you know, a few sports. But what's really about is
there are so many sports that my son was a
soccer player, you could have played Division three soccer. Shows
(09:17):
not to but you know, those opportunities that are given
to young people to play a wide variety of sports,
not just football and basketball. And as you concentrate the
power in those revenue generating sports and the very few
people you're seeing it already, you're seeing a lot of
programs being cut and canceled at universities across the country
(09:37):
because of where this money has gone. So I want
to see a system that distributes the money more fairly,
so more people can compete and there is more opportunity
to play sports and more places. And you know, the
whole conference thing I mean with you know, having Stanford
and Calum the ACC. I mean, you got enough money
for the football and the basketball care I'm fine, But
you're a tennis player and you're a student, and you
(10:00):
going to spend a week going to Tallahassee, Florida from Stanford.
How does that work? I mean it gets expensive and
it gets it very difficult to be a student. So
I would like to see greater fairness across the board
on those two points.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
No, that hits home, no question. I mean, Hugh had
two sons that played revenue sports. I have a son
that wants to play a non revenue sport in college,
and I, as a dad, are worried about it when
he goes to college and in a couple of years,
and you know somebody that you work with. Chip Roy
from Texas Congressman Chip Roy said the score Act is
well intended, but falls short and is not ready for
(10:35):
prime time. I will vote know And he had a long,
long tweet that he put out a couple of days ago,
and one of the things that he was worried about.
He was concerned that the bill infringed on athletes' rights.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Do you think it does?
Speaker 3 (10:50):
See I'm going a more balanced place on that. I
think it certainly does. I mean, it's not even debatable
that it does. It limits their ability file law suits.
It prevents them from you know, being positioning to be
treated as employees. Look, I don't think that student athletes
should be employees of all the fair labor standards, after
all the rules in there, but you have to have
(11:11):
some mechanism for them to protect their rights. And there
I do agree with chip Roy. And that was one
of the concerns. And we thought, you know, before all
this nil stuff came along, you had the NCAA. You know,
you transferred and you had to sit out a year.
You know, your coach bought your ham sandwich and you
lost your eligibility. You know, the athletes really they were
(11:34):
treated very poorly. And I don't know what the stipend was.
Hugh would know far better than I, but the stipend
was pretty close to enoughing for a bunch of athletes
who didn't have time to work and make money elsewhere.
And the NCAA didn't care because they had all the power.
So I don't want to see the balance shift in
that direction either. And I think, you know, chip Roy's right,
(11:56):
this bill was not properly balanced. It took too many
rights away from the athlete and less than too vulnerable
to the type of exploitations that they had experienced before.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
When you mentioned that you'd like to see the money
redirected more fairly, of course that's always, uh, you know,
a subject for interpretation. One man's fair is another man's
unfair right or women's pusey. So so in a in
a in a general sense, we can all agree that
the revenues that are are accrewed by the NCAA member
(12:29):
institutions is primarily driven by football, secondarily by men's basketball,
maybe a little bit by women's basketball, and then and
then to my knowledge, for the most part, none of
the others are are revenue generating right, so as yes,
so so now the football players, how do you see?
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Okay?
Speaker 4 (12:51):
Are they entitled to more than because they're bringing in
the revenue? Are they entitled to exactly the same as
the swimmers? What obviously Title nine would be a factor
in all of this when you talk about the vision
of redistributing the money more fairly, What is your vision
(13:12):
of more fairly? And what do you think your colleagues
in Congress view as more fairly.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Yeah, and I think that's right. I mean, I think,
you know, for the high profile sports to generate more revenue,
they probably are entitled to something more. Now, a lot
of this is going to come from nil, which they
have the independent ability now to go generate. But there's
one point that I've not heard in all these conversations
about this. The athletes generate all this money. Well, the
(13:38):
athletes in part generate that money because of people's connection
to the school. There's one of the I never agree with.
If the best you know, I don't know, eighteen to
twenty two year old football players out there weren't playing
for the University of Washington or Michigan or even Northwestern,
they wouldn't have anywhere near the number of people interested
in them. They would be minor league football players. They'd
(14:00):
be more like the you know, the Tacomerinears. God blessed
the cumber Ynaeers love them. They don't. They don't get
that type of turnout. But it's because so many of
us feel a connection to the university that they're able
to generate that revenue. So saying that, well, they're the
ones who generated they should get it. No, they are
not the ones, the only ones who generated the connection
(14:21):
City University and all that. So the volleyball team or
whatever other team, they're part of that university too, and
they couldn't the individual athletes in football and basketball couldn't
get that money without that university. So I think they don't.
They don't deserve as much as just Okay, football makes
all the money. Therefore they get all the money. We
have to figure out a fairer way to distribute it.
And given the interest right now, by the way, there's
(14:43):
plenty to go around. Okay, I mean we're not We're
not talking about, you know, people struggling to feed themselves. Here.
There's a lot of money to go around. The big
guys and the big sports like college football and basketball,
the big conferences like the Big Ten and the SEC,
they're going to have a lot, going to have more
than everybody else. They just can't be completely crushing everybody else,
(15:05):
is sort of my vision.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Representative Adam Smith final a couple of minutes with him,
so glad he could join us today talking about the
Score Act that so far has been shot down, but
it was going to set a cap on how much
schools can spend on nil and then also parameters for transferring.
What would that cap have been and what would the
transfer legislation have been had this bill passed?
Speaker 2 (15:27):
And were you a proponent of what was in the
bill in those two elements.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Yeah, Now the details really really complicated on that, because
you know, the House Settlements set a cap on nil
as well. But then there's the question of what sort
of nil are you talking about. You're talking about legitimate
endorsement deals, or are you're talking about, Hey, we're going
to pay you four million to come play quarterback in Texas.
You know, we'll find the money somewhere. So part of
it was sort of drawing a distinction between those two points.
(15:53):
I forget what the numbers were. I don't remember having
a huge problem with those numbers. And also I know
the transfer portals kind of a pain, but I'm not
as worried about that. I think individual students should have
the ability to transfer. I mean, you're not an indentured servant. Certainly,
coaches leave, things change, you should be able to transfer
(16:14):
and sort of up to the program to build a
program that you want to stay with. Now, we could
get the calendar a lot better. I mean, the different
places they transfer. Part of the problem is that, you know,
athletics schedules do not match academic schedules. I don't know
if there's any way to fix that. If there was
some way to fix that, I mean, so that kids
weren't having to make a decision to transfer right when
(16:35):
the playoffs started in their chosen sport, then I would
be in favor of that. But I'm less personally worried
about the transfer aspect of it than I am about
the other things we talked about.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
The announcement yesterday of JMU and of Tulane in the
tournament get some fans and maybe unless gets them a
little sideways with the place of the group of five schools,
which brings my question. When you're talking about redistributing the
(17:11):
money more fairly, how much should the power four schools
be concerned about including the group of five with respect
to anti trust law or any anti trust exemption and
part of the legislation that deals with that component, And
then what is your vision of how would the powerful
(17:32):
power force schools would they be in the engaged in
the process of subsidizing group of five schools in your idea.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Of this bill? Yeah, I mean I think The thing
that strikes me as the most fair here is Look,
I don't think that equity and fairness means that you know,
you get to play no matter what. Now, I think
you should put the best twelve teams in the playoffs.
The part of the reason there's such a huge fight
over this is because of the money. I mean, I
guess if I was you know, the Vanderbilt the Texas
(18:03):
of the world screaming about how they should be there,
not James Addison and Tulane, share the money more fairly
and they won't. You know, maybe just give them a
more fair cut of the overall revenue package and then
you don't have to put them in the game if
they're not really qualified. I mean, that's the way I
would approach it. But the thing is to so much
money involved in getting those spots that the ones who
(18:25):
aren't part of the power for are like, if we
don't get in, you know, we're we're going to be
hurting financially. So you could fix that and then have
a better competitive situation. Now, look, I mean, if you
were if you can't get into the top ten the
college football teams at the end of the year, you know,
maybe go out and win more games. Okay, you know,
(18:45):
so you know I'm not I'm not buying all these
people who are complaining about, oh, it's not fair, because
that's the other thing. I mean. They all played twelve
thirteen games, they all had their records, they all had chance,
you know, and ten is certainly more than back when
they only that two teams and even four teams. But
in terms of the fairness issue, I think the focus
should be on the revenue, not on you know, Okay,
(19:07):
we're going to game it. So teams that aren't really
as good get into a playoff that they should be in.
That competition should be based purely on football. The best
team should be in the playoff. But the reason has
become a problem is because the money has become so
concentrated in the hands of the people who do make
those playoffs of those ball games.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
Robert vs. Smith, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Before I let you go, I do want to let
you do you want to ask you about the World
Cup that's coming to Seattle. What do you hope an
event does like this for the city and for the county,
And what do you hope the new leadership that we
have in both Seattle and King County.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
What do you hope they will do in the lead
up to the event. Yeah, they got their work cut
out for him, to be sure. And I've been a
fairly outspoken critic of the last ten years of some
of the governance decisions that have been made around housing
and homelessness and crime and drugs. I think we want
to clean that up. I mean, the World Cup gives
us an opp to know a whole series of levels.
Number one, it can be a showcase of the Pacific
(20:03):
Northwest if we do it right, if we have the
services set up, if running the place well, it can
really show people that, you know, what they've seen about
Seattle last for our five years. Now we heard you,
we got it, we fixed that. We're better and by
the way, I think we are getting better. So I
think we can build on that and really can be
a showcase for the puge Down region. Also, you know,
I played soccer when I was a kid. My son
(20:24):
played soccer. It's a sport I've always had an affinity for, so,
you know, bringing more attention to that sport, getting more
people interested. And I've also I've worked with the Sounders
and a couple other organizations and trying to make soccer
more available to a wider group of people. It's another
big problem topic for another long conversation. But you sports,
I mean you sports, I mean being involved. You know,
you have to have money these days to play at
(20:46):
any sort of level, whether it's soccer, basketball or whatever.
You know, just sort of opening up more opportunities for
more youth to participate in soccer. In particular, I think
the World Cup can be a great showcase. So that's
certainly in the puge sound but also hopefully across the country.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Very enlightening. Thanks for joining us today, Representative Smith.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Yeah, it was a pleasure. I appreciate the chance. Great
to talking. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
You've met Adam Smith here on ninety three point three
k j R f M. We'll get into the CFP
discussion with you coming up next
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com