Texas universities would be able to pay athletes as part of the realignment that has upended college sports
Texas House Bill 126 (HB 126) is meant to allow Texas universities to become compliant with updated terms of rights for both the university and student athletes following the looming decision of the NCAA court case.
“We will be killing college football in Texas if we do not pass this bill,” said Rep. Carl Tepper, R-Lubbock, who sponsored the bill. “…Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Michigan will be able to recruit our student athletes, student athletes from around the country, and give them a certain deal to play for their colleges.”
The NCAA’s landmark $2.78 billion settlement, known as the House v. NCAA case, has received preliminary approval from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilkin (Oakland, Calif.) and is poised to transform college athletics by allowing schools to directly compensate athletes. The agreement includes approximately $2.78 billion in back pay for athletes who competed before NIL rules were implemented, covering those who played between 2016 and 2021. The new rules proposed by the NCAA would also allow universities to offer scholarships for all members of a collegiate team. However, they would be enforcing roster caps with this change to allow for this.
HB 126 represents a shift in collegiate athletics by permitting universities to directly compensate student-athletes for the use of their name, image, and likeness. The bill is a departure from previous restrictions that limited such compensation to only third-party arrangements.
Rep. Tepper said the bill would not allow the student athletes to be paid before enrolling in their institution, and colleges would be capped at a $24.5 million spending budget. However, they are allowed to present probable offers in recruiting. If the prospective athlete receives NIL compensation in high school, they will be ineligible for anything further.
When asked where the money would be coming from by Rep. Jolanda Jones, Tepper responded that no money would be out of taxpayer dollars, but from television contracts, tickets, suites and concessions – primarily through the universities’ football programs.
“Mostly, these athletic departments are paid for through the football program. Football is king. Some basketball, a little from baseball, but mostly football,” Tepper said.
HB 126 also promises that the language of the NIL laws outlined will be updated every two years to keep up with any changes to ensure the Bill does not become outdated.
Speaker of the Texas House, Dustin Burrows, took to X on April 14 when it passed the first time, saying he was “Proud of the Texas House for passing major achievements that will support our veterans and military students and preserve Texas universities’ competitive edge in recruiting student athletes.”
He further congratulated Rep. Tepper, posting that HB 126 “keeps Texas institutions competitive in recruitment by letting colleges and universities offer NIL deals directly with prospective student athletes, in anticipation of the NCAA lifting its nationwide prohibition on the practice.”
In opposition to the Bill, Rep. Mitch Little (R-Denton) said to the House: “ …What we have done as a country is began to deconstruct and cheepen that experience [attending a university] to the point where the people who are competing on your television on saturday afternoon in college football are just a series of subcontractors there for our entertainment.” he said. “The state of Texas takes a backseat to no one in collegiate athletics…we do not need to follow other states.”
The Lone Star State is no stranger to NIL-leading athletes, even without the universities being involved. According to On3.com’s NIL player rankings, Arch Manning, quarterback for the University of Texas, leads the NCAA with an NIL valuation of $6.6 million. His predecessor, Quinn Ewers, is valued at $4.5 million. Texas Tech Basketball’s Power Fielder JT Toppins follows ranked No. 13 with a valuation of $2.8 million. TCU Football’s quarterback Josh Hoover ranks in the top 20, coming in at No. 18, also with a valuation of $2.8 million.
There is no mention in the bill of its effect on student athlete scholarships. Rep. Tepper said that, as designed by HB 126 and previous legislation that “They [student athletes] are specifically not employees of the university,” in response to Rep. Little’s question to him on such.
