Good morning, and thanks for spending part of your day with Extra Points.

I understand that many of you are absolutely sick of thinking about elections this week. If you have the misfortune of living in a swing state, I know that political ads have completely saturated your TV, Radio and web browsers. You don’t need me to tell you the election is important.

Because the college sports industry exists as part of society, all sorts of political and economic developments can impact the industry. If inflation or unemployment jump up by another 10%, consumers will assuredly spend less money on attending sporting events. If large tariffs are imposed on goods manufactured in Asia, consumers and athletic departments will likely see substantially increased costs on athletic apparel and equipment. Extreme weather events could further impact athletic schedules and participation, etc.

But this year, there are also a handful of college sports issues that line up directly with the responsibilities and interests of the federal government. Beyond the big picture stuff like the economy, health care, and uh, basic Democratic norms, there are ways this election explicitly impacts the college sports industry.

Before the jump, because I respect you, dear reader, I want to be clear about a few things.

This particular newsletter is not meant to be an endorsement of any particular political candidate. Nor is it meant to be completely objective and unbiased. That’s impossible. Like everything that appears on this website, this was written by a human, and humans are not perfectly objective. Or at least, this human certainly isn’t.

I don’t think this is a secret or anything, but I’m a Democrat. I worked in Democratic politics briefly before becoming a reporter (for guys like Joe Donnelly, not Bernie Sanders, if that matters), and continue to mostly vote for Democratic politicians. If that means that you can no longer trust the editorial judgment of Extra Points, well, I’m sorry to lose your readership, but better you find out now.

That being said, again, I’m not sitting down to write 2,000 words about why I think you should vote one way or another. There’s enough of that on the internet, and if I can’t restrain myself from making a political quip, I’ll do it on Twitter, not here.

This is, in my best professional judgment, how I believe the potential outcomes of the election will impact college athletics. If that influences how you want to vote, well, that’s between you and your ballot box.

First, there’s the obvious. The path to legal peace appears to run through Congress

For the past several years, officials from the NCAA and major athletic conferences have asked for Congress to craft some sort of comprehensive college sports legislation package. Specifically, the NCAA would like enough of an antitrust exemption to enforce regulations on athlete NIL activity, a federal NIL standard that would preempt various state laws, and a law to clarify that college athletes are not, and cannot become, employees.

That ask has shifted slightly after the settlement of the House lawsuit, as the NCAA would now like the courts to codify the terms of that settlement, which would likely mean another sort of antitrust exemption.

Without any sort of congressional action, even if the House settlement is completely approved, college sports will continue to face litigation threats on everything from roster limits to NIL reporting to transfer limits. The status quo that has frustrated many coaches, administrators and fans, with near constant roster turnover and virtually no payment regulations, will almost assuredly continue without congressional action.

In my professional opinion, this is true even if the NCAA and major conferences decided to completely capitulate on any concept of amateurism and push for athlete employee status, amid a push towards a collective bargaining agreement. Figuring out which athletes would be employees, who would employ them, how they would organize, and when…in a manner that would be protected from outside litigation, is so complicated and runs into so many contradictory state laws that I believe (as do many experts), that some law changes would be required. Other potential massive college sports reforms, like various Super Leagues under the auspices of private capital, also are likely to require legal revisions (like the Sports Broadcasting Act). 

Broadly speaking, Senate Republicans, like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Tommy Turberville, have signaled more support for the NCAA’s position, while Senate Democrats have resisted calls for an NCAA antitrust exemption, signaling that they believe any college athletics regulation should be more expansive (such as targeting health care access). With legislative control split among the two major parties, and with college sports not being a major legislative priority, the NCAA hasn’t gotten what it wants.

I’ve written about this a few times, but if Donald Trump wins the presidential election, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where Republicans don’t also capture unified control of the House and Senate. In that world, even if the Republicans don’t control 60 votes in the Senate (and they won’t), I believe it is substantially more likely that the NCAA will be able to secure federal legislation limiting the employment status and bargaining potential of college athletes.

It’s difficult, although I guess not impossible, to imagine a scenario where Democrats control the House, Senate, and White House. A Kamala Harris victory probably means a divided government, which will make comprehensive college athletics legislation, in any direction, more difficult.

More than a few left-leaning ADs and administrator types have told me over the last few months that while they very much do not want Republicans to control the White House, House and Senate…they acknowledge the outcome would be better for their short-term business interests. 

You know what else wouild be better for your business interests?

Immigration

As an industry, college athletics deeply relies on international talent and labor. International students make up significant chunks of the rosters for many D-I sports, like basketball, tennis, soccer, golf and swimming, and many coaching and support roles are held by workers who are not US citizens. 

These athletes are already caught in a legal squeeze, as current regulations in student visa status, broadly, do not permit international athletes to take advantage of many of the NIL opportunities that their US citizen counterparts may enjoy. There have been no changes to this policy, despite pleas from athlete advocates and immigration lawyers. 

If Congress does not make any proactive clarifications on the employment status of college athletes, it is entirely possible that future court cases or athlete organization attempts (like at Dartmouth) could rule that at least some groups of athletes are employees. If that’s true, it could be very bad news for any athlete currently on a student visa. Immigration experts have told me many college athletes would be unlikely to qualify for the corresponding H1B or P-1 visa program. 

Activists have told me over the last few months that there’s little political interest to address these problems in Congress at the moment, since immigration is such a politically charged topic, and nobody wanted to do anything to help college athletes that might invite a primary or could be taken out of context in a future political ad. 

I’ve also heard a few industry practitioners express concern to me that if Trump wins and Republicans sweep both chambers, hard-line immigration sweeps and mass deportations could also include legal immigrants, student visa-holders, or potential athletic department workers. One coach told me her staff lost an important assistant coach during the last Trump administration over a visa issue, and staffers at smaller schools that depend on international enrollment have expressed concerns that large-scale crackdowns could make it harder for their schools to attract students, which would in turn impact the athletic department. 

Who enforces other regulations?

One of the ways that college athletes could potentially be deemed employees would be via the National Labor Relations Board, an administrative law body. Athletes and Athlete advocates have already brought cases to the NLRB regional offices around UCLA, USC and Dartmouth. The NLRB’s general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, has strongly signaled that she believes many college athletes should be classified as employees, and has invited athletes to make that claim.

If Trump wins, there’s going to be a shakeup with the NLRB, with voices substantially less sympathetic to organized labor likely taking control. 

But beyond that, there’s a possibility that eventually, there won’t even be an NLRB. Multiple companies, including Amazon and Trader Joe’s, have argued that the NLRB itself is unconstitutional. It is difficult to imagine a Trump administration and Republican lawmakers jumping to the defense of organized labor and the administrative state. 

There’s also the question of Title IX. Right now, the federal government has not issued guidance on how House settlement payments need to specifically comply with Title IX. Ross Dellinger at Yahoo Sports published a story on Monday quoting experts who believe that a Harris White House would be more likely to push for additional gender equity in how that money would be distributed among athletes.

The Trump White House is considering getting rid of the entire Department of Education, the entity that currently enforces Title IX. Some Republican proposals call for parts of the current DOE purview to pass to other federal agencies, others, outside the scope of the federal government altogether. Could the law itself be at risk under unified GOP Control? If not, it seems reasonable to believe it will be interpreted very differently. 

Many of the pressing questions in college athletics, from Title IX to athlete employment, gender equity to funding mechanisms, all pass under the purview of various federal agencies and regulatory boards. If there are massive changes in the scope of those agencies, all sorts of unintended consequences for college athletics and higher education could be on the board. 

All of this, of course, is the risk college sports leaders took when they kicked various regulatory cans down the road for the last 20 years. But what’s done is done. Congress and the White House are fundamentally in charge of driving many of the biggest decisions in college sports history.

Which means who actually controls those offices…is going to matter an awful lot.