Ep 12: The Politics of Athlete Empowerment - Featuring Paul McDonald

This week, Jemele’s opening filibuster focuses on the origin story on how the NCAA came to be one of the most powerful and lucrative organizations in sports. Jemele is joined by attorney Paul McDonald, co-lead counsel for college athletes plaintiffs in the Johnson vs NCAA lawsuit, which, if successful, would force college and universities to classify college players as employees. McDonald explains the core thesis behind the athletes’ case, and shares how the NCAA is using the controversial, so-called “slavery loophole” in the 13th Amendment of the Constitution as a defense. Jemele also closes out the episode with thoughts on the devastating fires in Los Angeles.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, what's up, everybody.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
I'm Jamel Hill and welcome to politics and iHeart podcast
and unbothered network production.

Speaker 1 (00:07):
Time to get spolitical?

Speaker 2 (00:17):
What if I told you that before the NCAA really
became the NCAA as most of us have known it,
college athletes actually were paid. The oldest intercollegiate sports event
was literally paid for play. On August third, eighteen fifty two,
Harvard and Yale competed in a two mile rowing race
on Lake Winnipesaukee. According to Harvard's website, Harvard won the
race by four lengths and their prize was a pair

(00:39):
of black walnut wars. But that wasn't the only prize
for competing in the event. What Harvard doesn't mention on
his website when it explains the history of the story
to Harvard Yale rivalry is that all the rowers received
lavish gifts and unlimited alcohol just to participate, because that
was how the event, sponsored.

Speaker 1 (00:57):
Montreal Railroad, bribed them into competing.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
Now, the story was shared by Andrew Zimbolists in his
book Unpaid Professionals, Commercialism and Conflict, and Big Time College Sports.
But man, does that sound like a familiar blueprint The
obsession with college sports is centuries old. Despite their reputation
as being elite institutions that are above the fray, the
Ivy League schools indulged in a lot of the early

(01:21):
college sports capitalist fuckery, setting the tone for what would
become the blueprint for the hypocrisy corruption and create a
path for the NCAA to become one of the most
powerful organizations in sports. The early days of college football
was a banana republic. When football began to gain popularity
in the late eighteen hundreds, Yale created and one hundred

(01:42):
thousand dollars slush fund just to support his football program.
Back then, at schools like Yale, Brown, Harvard, and Princeton
pay ringers and use graduate students on their football teams
because they wanted to win so badly. In Zimbalist's book,
he tells the story of how Yale got tackled James
Hogan to commit by offering him free tuition, his own
suite at one of the dorms, a trip to Cuba,

(02:03):
and a job as a cigarette agent for the American
tobacco company pre Market Baby. So what happened to all
this natural capitalism entered President Theodore Roosevelt, the country's twenty
sixth president, A Harvard graduate and a very big football fan.
As much as President Roosevelt loved football, he couldn't ignore
the obvious football had become extremely dangerous. A lot of people,

(02:25):
in fact, actually wanted football to be banned, and understandably so.
From eighteen ninety to nineteen oh five, three hundred and
thirty college football players died. Many were killed during the game,
some died after suffering catastrophic injuries, and others who played
suffered disfigurement, were crippled or dealt with other gruesome injuries.
Sick of the shit, Roosevelt invited the head coaches and

(02:46):
representatives from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton to the White House,
since they were the most powerful figures in football. Now,
not only did Roosevelt want to save the game he loved,
he also wanted to protect his son, who had begun
playing football at Harvard and already had his no broken.
He wanted him to be safe. President Roosevelt issued a
threat to the powerbrokers either clean up the sport or
he would banish it permanently.

Speaker 1 (03:08):
Now.

Speaker 2 (03:08):
Soon after the gathering at the White House, the NCUBA
was formed. On the NCAA's website, it says the nc
DOUBLEA was founded in nineteen o six to quote regulate
the rules of college sport and protect young athletes. I'm
sure it had nothing to do with the fact that
Princeton and Yale were generating twenty five thousand dollars in
revenue from their football games, an absurd figure back in

(03:30):
the late eighteen hundreds. But the popular historical narrative always
has been that the NCUBA wasn't created to continue to
generate money, when history.

Speaker 1 (03:39):
Shows us that's exactly why it was created.

Speaker 2 (03:42):
While other sports began to form under the ncuba's umbrella,
it was clear from the beginning that college football would
be a major cash cow. The problem was that the
American public had mixed feelings about the role of football
or sports in general on college campuses. Some people thought
the strong presence of athletics undermined the true purpose of education.
Professors hated that some college football coaches were being paid

(04:04):
more than them and in some cases considered more critical
to the university's success. Meanwhile, as the NCAA was trying
to change public perception, the players were still getting paid
scholarships wouldn't exist until the nineteen fifties. But in its infancy,
the NCAA didn't have any real authority or power. Literally,
none of the member schools listened to them or their

(04:26):
made up rules. In nineteen twenty nine, the Carnegie Foundation
issued a report that revealed of the one hundred and
twelve schools they surveyed, eighty one of them had open
pay roles for players, and many of their boosters were
paying athletes for jobs they never had to show up.
For this current alleged wild wild West period involving nil
and the transfer portal, it ain't new. In fact, let

(04:46):
me tell you one of my favorite stories from that era,
which involves the University of Pittsburgh.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
Now most people.

Speaker 2 (04:52):
Don't know this, but between nineteen fifteen and nineteen thirty seven,
Pittsburgh was one of the most dominant college football programs
of that era. During that span, the Panthers won eight
national championships. In nineteen thirty seven, they were the defending
national champions and they appeared headed for a repeat. But
the player said, hold up, we're doing all the heavy lifting.
They got us working janitorial jobs for forty eight dollars

(05:15):
a month. They told the administration, ain't nobody come to
see u otis. They issued a set of demands before
they were supposed to play in the Rose Bowl for
a national championship. The players demanded three things to play
in the Rose Bowl. They wanted each player to get
paid between one hundred and two hundred dollars. They wanted
all sixty members of the team to travel to the

(05:35):
Rose Bowl. And they wanted a two week vacation because
playing in the Rose Bowl meant they had to work
on Christmas.

Speaker 1 (05:42):
Aha, work smarter, not harder.

Speaker 2 (05:47):
As for how Pittsburgh's administration responded, oh, they gave them
the quickest of hell Knawle's. The player said, well, looks
like Christmas break is going to start early for us.
They voted sixteen to fifteen not to play. You would
think a lesson would have been learned here. As a
result of their stubbornness, Pittsburgh forfeited a ten thousand dollars prize.
They also wouldn't go back to a bowl game for

(06:08):
almost twenty years. And you know how many national championships
if they've won since the players opted not to play
in that Rose Bowl one and that was in nineteen
seventy six.

Speaker 1 (06:20):
Damn shame what they did to that dog.

Speaker 2 (06:22):
The NCAA was so embarrassed by Pittsburgh's refusal to play
that they instituted something called the Sanity Code, which isn't
very catchy. The Code was supposed to stop the rampant
abuse and scandals that were prevalent in college sports at
the time. The Code stated that athletes could only receive
financial assistance if they were in need, they had to

(06:42):
meet certain academic requirements, and they could not receive scholarships. Now,
if you violated the rules, you would be expelled from competition.
The universities responded by not giving a shit. They refused
to sanction one another, and within a few years they
had to walk the Sanity cold back. But in the
early nineteen fifties, the NCAA finally got some teeth. They

(07:04):
hired a man named Walter Byers to be executive director.
He was their first full time employee. Now, Buyers came
along when public trust in the NCAA was pretty low
and the organization was dealing with two very significant scandals.
William and Mary had engaged in grade fixing to keep
their players eligible. There also was a massive point shaming
scandal in college basketball involving the University of Kentucky, who

(07:26):
were the reigning national champions. Somehow Buyers convinced Kentucky, which
was coached by Adolph Rupp, then to accept the season
long suspension.

Speaker 1 (07:34):
And then he further solidified his power on some.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
Old game of throne shit by taking control of the
NCAA's television negotiations. But the biggest break the NCUBLEA could
have ever gotten in its early history came in nineteen
sixty one when Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act, which
banned the NFL from broadcasting games on Saturdays during the
fall and much of the winner, and with Buyers negotiating

(07:56):
a TV deal for college football worth a little over
three million percent season, which was more than the NFL's
TV deal at the time, the NCUBA went straight on
the path to becoming a powerhouse.

Speaker 1 (08:07):
They owned Saturdays.

Speaker 2 (08:08):
With the money rolling in, the schools stopped resisting Buyers
and the NCUBLEA ways entirely. In fact, the way Buyers
ruled the NCUBA, you just know he was the kid
who always got the pizza party canceled. He expanded the
NCAA rule book to four hundred and twenty seven pages.
It was Buyers who created the term student athlete, not
because he cared about students educating themselves, but because he

(08:30):
was trying to avoid paying out a lawsuit to the
widow of a football player named Ray Denison, who shattered
the base of his skull in a game and died
thirty hours later. Now, Dennison's Wouldowbilly, sued her husband's university,
Fort Lewis A and M College for workers' compensation benefits. Buyers, however,
couldn't afford players to be seen as employees because that

(08:51):
meant the nc DOUBLEA would have to start sharing the money.
Buyers instructed schools to use the term student athlete to
describe players, told them to stop referring to their teams
as clubs and instead call them college teams. Now, as
you see from this history, the NCUBA has been hypocritical, conniving,
and anti player empowerment.

Speaker 1 (09:11):
For a very long time.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
With billions of dollars and TV deals, including the one
behind the upcoming College Football National Championship, the NCUABA has
become a powerful conglomerate. The NCUBA does not pay taxes
because they are classified as a five h one C three,
which is a designation the government gives to religious, charitable
or educational organizations. According to the most recent data, the

(09:35):
NCUABA generated a little over one billion in revenue, with
much of that coming from March Madness. Now, this figure
does not include the College Football Playoff because that is
not technically run by the NCUBA, or rather a group
of university presidents and managers, which kind of sounds just
like the NCUBLEA, which is made up of member institutions.

Speaker 1 (09:55):
But fyi.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
Beginning in twenty twenty six, ESPN will began paying the
college football player off about one point three billion through
twenty thirty one. Either way, the NCAA and college football
as we know it is crumbling that Walter Byer's NCAA
model is on the verge of extinction. The NCAA is
battling multiple court cases that will reshape college sports forever.

(10:16):
This April, there will be a hearing to finally approve
a two point seven billion dollar settlement agreement that will
compensate athletes for past, future and commercial use of their names, images,
and likeness. As part of the settlement, major conferences have
agreed to develop a revenue sharing plan where each school
will be able to direct about twenty one million a

(10:37):
year for use of their athlete's name, image, and likeness.
Now I've seen in her some fans complain that this
will ruin college sports. Ruin is a strong word. It's
not going to ruin anything. This is financial justice and
the penance the NCAA deserves to pay for its greed,
which has been apparent since athletes were getting paid in
alcohol and ores.

Speaker 1 (10:58):
I'm Jamel Hill, and I approve this message.

Speaker 2 (11:01):
Now, coming up next on politics, I'm going to keep
this conversation going with a lawyer who is co consul
and another important case against the nc double A and
a throwback to the days of Walter Bayer's College athletes
are also currently suing for the right to be classified
as employees. If that happens, colleges and universities would be
on the hook for a whole lot.

Speaker 1 (11:19):
More than name, image and likeness.

Speaker 2 (11:21):
Not only would my guests explain what this case is about,
but he'll also share the demeaning, racist argument the NCUBLEA
is trying to use to prevent players from being classified
as employees.

Speaker 1 (11:33):
I'll give you a hint. Calvin Candy would be proud.

Speaker 2 (11:36):
Coming up next on politics, Attorney Paul McDonald. Well, Paul,
I want to thank you so much for joining me
to explain something that the NC DOUBLEA is doing that
I don't think a lot of people are very aware of.

(11:58):
But we're gonna get to that in a moment. But first,
I want to ask you a question that I ask
every guest that appears on politics, and that is tell
me about an athlete or a moment that made you
love sports.

Speaker 3 (12:12):
My dad and I back in nineteen eighty one, we
were living in the Los Angeles area and we got
a chance to go to the last time the Doctors
played the Yankees in the World Series. And I still
have that program from back then, so and of course
that's a World Series. I had a bunch of Hall
of Famers in it, right, obviously Reggie Jackson, and so

(12:33):
that's kind of I guess it's kind of a memory
that is really in my mind right now because of
what's currently going on.

Speaker 2 (12:41):
Now, let's get to this very landmark case that you
have going on now with the NC DOUBLEA, which is
Johnson versus the ncuble A. Now you're representing a former
Villanova football player, Trey Johnson, who's suing the double A
basically for the right or college athletes to be turned
as employers and not just student athletes, which is this

(13:02):
nebulous term that we all know is a little bit
fake in the sense that they are far beyond just
the normal students. So can you just, in you know,
sort of Layman's terms, tell us what is sort of
the essential argument that you're trying to make against the NCAA.

Speaker 3 (13:19):
So our case is really quite simple. Basically, our case says,
when you look at work study students. You know, students
who are in offices, filing papers, libraries, checking IDs, washing dishes,
even people who are taking tickets and selling you popcorn
and SAA games, those are all student employees. And so

(13:40):
our case basically says, if you take the criteria that
makes all of those students employees of the university and
you apply it to athletes, athletes clearly meet the bar
for being student employees. And the reason why it's interesting
is because one of the things the NCAAA always says
during this whole kind of argument, this debate, especially when
they go to Congress, they always make the statement, well,

(14:02):
we pose them with them being athletes, we oppose them
being employees because we have to quote unquote keep them students.
Notre Dame is particularly bad about this in terms of
making that kind of statement. But there's been student employment
on college campuses a fixture on college campus for more
than fifty years in workstay style programs. And when you
look at the fact that NCAA athletes have timesheets, for instance,

(14:24):
literally all you'd have to do is fold them into
the system that already exists that no one complains about.
And for instance, some of the things NCAA mentions, oh
what about tax considerations, Well, student employment in workstay stall
programs is except for VIKA, would be the same thing
with athletes if they were folded into the system. The
only thing that is materially different between if an athlete

(14:45):
were in a work stay style program versus say, someone
who sells popcorn at the games, is that you would
want to include into the employment contract for athletes a
provision that says you can't be fired for dropping a past,
missing a shot. But the good news, and for those
folks who seem to make a big deal about that,
is that you already have language in the NCAA bylaws
around the provisions that say you can't revoke or rescind

(15:07):
a scholarship or reduce a scholarship for athletic performance. So
you just take that same language and put it into
the employment contract, you know, in terms of in terms
of employment terms. So it really is quite simple. It's
just work study. And so every time they go around
talking about it, and they never talk, they never acknowledge
works that even exist. Again, they go around telling Congress
in the public, oh, we have to keep them students,

(15:28):
as if being a student and employee is somehow mutually.

Speaker 4 (15:31):
Exclusive, and it's not, and they know better. So our
case is simple.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
So you said something interesting in your answer. You said,
athletes have timesheets, they do this. This was something I
was unaware of.

Speaker 3 (15:43):
So you know, you have that thing they call accountable,
have legally related activities, Kara, And so basically what it means,
it's a bit of a fiction. It's twenty hours a
week that you have supervised activity, supervised by coaches, trainers,
so on and so forth. We all know from different studies.
The NCAA inducts of athletes that athletes in all the
sports can probably commit around thirty two up to forty

(16:05):
hours a week to their sport. But the twenty hours
is supposed to be the time that you're limited to
supervise activities. Other things are put on putting courage.

Speaker 2 (16:14):
Okay, oh that's how you get the involuntary workouts.

Speaker 1 (16:17):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (16:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (16:18):
So you read culture's deposition from or it's testimony from
the Northwestern case and he's like, well, yeah, if I
don't go to this voluntary workout, I'm not going to play.
So yeah, they have they have time sheets, and the
thing is funny about it, you know, and this will
be interesting in terms of discovery in this case, it's
to me, it's pretty clear that they've modeled some of
these regulations for the athletes after work study, because you

(16:41):
have the time sheets, because you have the so called
twenty hour a week limitation, which is consistent with what
work study requires. So they think they pretty well know,
they've known for some time that it's just work study.
They just, for whatever reason and they haven't really explained themselves,
want to deny the athletes the same status and rights
that the students all on popcorn House.

Speaker 2 (17:02):
So how did you go from being how did you
go from working in Philadelphia's district Attorney's office to now
litigating against the NCAA.

Speaker 3 (17:12):
So so I took a few steps in between. I
worked at a couple of big firms in DC, worked
at a big corporation in Chicago, and decided I wanted
to do things I cared about. You know, I was
kind of in a position where I was, at least
at the time, I was financially in position where I
could easily do that. Not so much now it's a
little since it's been ten years going on, you have
to make a few sacrifices to do what you care about.

(17:33):
But it just was, it was an you know, this
was one of the issues I cared about. Is something
that my dad and I talked about. In fact, he's
really the way how I got the idea about work
study because we're having a conversation around Johnny Manziel back
in the day, which was interesting because my dad went
to University of Texas, so, you know, kind of paying
us to have that conversation. We're talking about Johnny Manzel
and everyone talking about how athletes maybe should be paid.

(17:54):
I mean, dads like well, you know, I was, I
was working in the dining hall, and I was you know,
I was employed as a as a student, So why
can't they just do that with the athletes.

Speaker 4 (18:04):
So that's where this idea kind of came about.

Speaker 3 (18:06):
And you know the other things I've done I think
have provided me a background to do this, because, especially
working at a big firm, I had to kind of
teach myself labor and employment law on the run, but
I worked. I was fortunate for the work at Kirkland
Ellis in DC and the litigation training they gave me
there was instrumental in being able to kind of take

(18:27):
that and put it into this arena.

Speaker 2 (18:29):
Now we see that the NC double A through litigation,
they're going to.

Speaker 1 (18:34):
Have to figure out a different system. I mean, I
think they know that the iceberg.

Speaker 2 (18:39):
They're on the Titanic, and the iceberg's right in front
of them, and it feels like if they don't understand
this now, then they never will. There's other lawsuits also
that the NC double A is currently you know involved in,
one of which the big one is House versus the
NC DOUBLEA, where the temporary settlement of nearly three billion
dollars has been approved, which basically clears the way for

(19:02):
colleges to begin directly paying players. So how does the
lawsuit that you're a league counsel on sort of intertwine
or intersect with that one.

Speaker 4 (19:11):
By the way, I want to say, I'm co counsel
in this case, and I want.

Speaker 3 (19:14):
Toy I want to live my co counsel at Wigdor
LLP their due respect. They represent Brian Flores, also represent
Jim Trotter in his case, so they do great work
in the overall space of sports in other areas as well.
They're labor and employment specialist, So I want to make
sure that people understand I've been doing it longer, but
they are my co counsel in this case. So House

(19:35):
is actually interesting and really kind of I think a
great thing. First of all, it's a great thing for
athletes in general. Let me just say that, because I
know some people have misgivings about it.

Speaker 4 (19:46):
I don't.

Speaker 3 (19:46):
I think it's it's actually I think it's a step
in the right direction. Obviously, there's two components to it.
There's the backwards looking part, which I think is pretty
clear to me, is going to go forward in some
form or fashion. I know people have some concerns about
whether there's equity on gender issues. Those things need to
be worked out is the forward looking part, which I
think is really interesting when you look at our case,

(20:09):
because the twenty two million dollar cap essentially that would
come into play for revenue sharing, at least as I
understand it is a per se antitrust violation from day
one in the absence of having an anti trust exemption,
which you know, to be honest, I don't think they're
going to get from Congress because if those were were
given out easily, then you'd have one for big tech

(20:30):
and big pharma, right they get you know, the DOJ
bothers them enough that they would be bothering Congress for that.
The other way you get around the anti trust violation
aspect of having a cap is effective Barnay Agreement. So
the point is that at some point, whether the NCAA
wants to admit it or not, the easiest way for
them to both have revenue sharing that cannot be challenged

(20:53):
by other law firms, and they're not going to get
sued by Kessler Burman again, but they think very well
get sued, for instance, by Housefeld, who's an opposition to
the settlement, in order to have instantly meimunized from further
challenges to the revenue sharing, or for that matter, any
of their rules going forward in antitrust or other ways.
The best way to do that is through elective Barney agreement.

(21:14):
It also gives you certainty about whether you're talking about
nil transfer rules. It sets the rules of the road,
just like it does in pro sports. And during the
time period that CBA is in place. You know this,
I'm telling you what you already down and a lot
of your listeners and viewers already know it too. But
it sets the rules for the road and you have certainty,
and a lot of you hear a lot of coaches
nowadays in college ranks talking about how.

Speaker 4 (21:35):
They would love to have that certainty.

Speaker 3 (21:37):
So the house, to me, kind of creates a circumstance
where if the NCA is serious about trying to be
relevant and have a role in going forward in being
a governing partner, if you will, with the labor force,
then it's almost inevitable to me that they have to
recognize the athletes or employees in order to have the
protections that come with elective Barney agreement. So I think

(21:58):
it works well.

Speaker 2 (21:59):
Yeah, I mean, I think is pretty easy to see
that that would be and it's kind of been their
achilles heell this entire time, Like the whole reason they
even got to this point is because they refuse to
face the obvious.

Speaker 1 (22:10):
I don't even think it was a matter of them
facing the obvious.

Speaker 2 (22:12):
I think they just frankly were greedy and never thought
that the day would come where the RECOGNI would be
upon them. Now, what's very interesting about your case is
the argument the nc double A is trying to make
to prevent classifying student athletes as employees. I know, to
a lot of people listening, what I'm about to say

(22:34):
next is going to make them stop in their tracks
a little bit. But the NC double a part of
my understanding based off reading your work and hearing you
talk about other things, And I want you to really
take us through this explanation. They're making an argument that
is pro slavery. I guess that would be the best
swag up with it, But they are literally making a

(22:54):
slavery argument in order to justify why NCUBA as leads
should not be considered employee.

Speaker 1 (23:02):
So Paul, take us through this out.

Speaker 4 (23:06):
So there's a case called Van Skykee v. Peters. Van
Skykee is v. A N S k I k E V.

Speaker 3 (23:12):
Peters that they've been citing for the last decade for
the proposition essentially, and the Third Circuit. We had a
ruling in the Third Circuit this past summer that really
kind of fleshed it out and actually in one sentence
they broke it all down. What the NCAA had been
saying for the last ten years is that their amateurism rules,
which people need to recognize, have never been law. I

(23:34):
think people sometimes hear about amateurism and people getting investigated
for breaking NCAA rule, and people think of it as
being breaking the law, and it's not. They're just private
organizational rules. And you know, the Supreme Court and NCAA
B also really kind of clarified this when saying, you know,
essentially you have to buy by the same rule as
any other industry does. So the NCAA had been saying

(23:55):
that amateurism should be given essentially the same legal effect
deference as the thirteenth of Himent slavery exception, which is
what's discussed in Van skyciv.

Speaker 4 (24:05):
Peters.

Speaker 3 (24:05):
In that case, a prisoner sued under the same law.
We're suing Fair Libristanders Act for employee status to have
the rights and hourly wages, so on and so forth,
and the court rule that you may very well meet
the standard if you were to go through the test,
and you could probably meet the criteria. But because the
thirteenth Amendment provides that in voluntary servitude and slavery are

(24:25):
abolished except if you're convicted of crime, you know the
thing that we all saw and Enable Dournay's Netflix documentary Thirteenth.
Because of that, it doesn't matter what the test might say,
you cannot be an employee under federal law. So the
NCAA was saying, well, our amateurism rules should have the
same legal effect and deference as that. So the Third

(24:47):
Circuit this summer comes through and says, and this is
the reason why it's important because I think when people
first hear it, they think, oh, you're just saying that.
That's you know, you're being hyperbolic. Now, the Third Circuit
said clearly in their opinion, they said, we disagree with
the comparison of college athletes to prisoners, and we refuse
to equate a prisoners. In Voluntary servitude is authorized by

(25:07):
the Thirteenth Amendment. With a tradition of amateurism in college athletics.
Let me repeat that again. The Third Circuit set this,
we refused, we disagree with the comparison of college athletes
to prisoners, and refuse to equate a prisoners in voluntary
servitude is authorized under the Thirteenth Amendment to a tradition

(25:30):
of amateurism in college athletics. So they're recognized, they're recognized.
That's what they say is trying to do.

Speaker 2 (25:36):
Now, as a lawyer, how surprising it is it that
the NCAA would lean into this kind of strategy, particularly then, like,
let's just call it what it is, the elephant. It's
not necessarily elephant room. People can see it. You know,
particularly with the revenue sports that are dominated by black athletes.

(25:56):
You're making an argument in court that they need to
be compared to prison listeners and slaves, and that should
be the reason that you are able to not pay them.
You know, as a lawyer, how surprised are I surprised
to you that this is the basis that they're standing on.

Speaker 3 (26:14):
Well, keep in mind, I was there in the first
case Burger v. NCAA when they first made this argument,
and I remember distinctly being in the Seventh Circuit prepared
to give my argument against this and being cut off
by that panel in the Seventh Circuit. They wouldn't even
let me talk about Van Scott, k B.

Speaker 4 (26:28):
Peters.

Speaker 3 (26:28):
So I've been living with this for ten years, fighting
the NCAAA, with them getting away with it, you know,
and it's funny because well it's not funny, but it's ironic,
perhaps because people may remember that that South Park satire
with Cartman a student athlete where he plays, you know,
plantation owner going to University of Colorado, you know, to

(26:50):
the to their athletic director, their president and talking about
you know, trading you know, athletes, you know in a
way that you know resembles a slave trade. And so
it's you know, that's satire. But then you go and say,
but in this case, truth is actually stranger than fiction.
They're making an argument based on this case Van Skykiv
Peters and what they did for all these years. They

(27:12):
tried to say, oh, it's not about that, it's not
about this. But if you read the case, it's crystal
clear what the case is about. And the Third Circuit
actually is not the first court to say that this
is about the Thirteenth Amendment slavery exception. We had a
case prior to Johnson Livers v. NCAA, which with withdrawal
with withdrawn because of satural limitation issues. But we were

(27:32):
able to get some discovery in a little bit far
along on that case. And in that case the judge
made the comment that van skykiv Peters is about the
thirteent Demendment slavery exception.

Speaker 4 (27:42):
So they know about this, they've known about it.

Speaker 3 (27:45):
The Court the Third Circuit in our in our case,
they ruled this summer, but we had the hearing in
February of last year, and in that when Maanskyki was
mentioned in the hearing, the judge McKee said ridiculous, and
jeers Repper also time to saying ridiculous. Yeah, it's ridiculous.
So NCAA has known that this is not only an
offensive argument, they've also known as not one that was

(28:07):
going to work. And of course you also had this
statement from Reverend sharfton an NFLPA that came out last
May as well.

Speaker 4 (28:14):
So you know, it's it's you'd have to ask them.

Speaker 3 (28:17):
As to why they thought that was an appropriate thing
to do. The thing that gets me more than anything
else is that everyone, let's say everyone sports folks, know
they made this argument. That's kind of the subject of
the op ed I wrote for Sportico last month.

Speaker 4 (28:33):
I have receipts, I have emails.

Speaker 3 (28:35):
Sports folks know that they made this argument, and they
simply have given them a pass on it. And one
of the things I talk about in my op ed
is by comparison, when you look at what happened with
the women's soccer team US women's national team, US Soccer Federation,
they make a sexist offensive argument saying that women don't
work as hard as men, against equal pay right and

(28:56):
immediately and rightfully so, sports media and other folks call
them to task. There's accountability. Carlos Cadero, the president of
the soccer Federation, has to resign in shame, although apparently
he's trying to make a comeback. But you know, which
is maybe maybe similar to what we're seeing in politics
right now, right but you know, there's accountability there, and

(29:18):
so far the NCAA has avoided any accountability for making
this argument, which I will tell you in my twenty
five years of practicing law, it's kind of your point
about being surprising is the most blatantly racist thing I've
seen in an industry you know, corporation or industry fact
that most people probably wouldn't touch it. With the Tim
Foot poll, most people would say, well, if that's the
argument you think you can make, then you just don't

(29:40):
make that argument, and especially when all you're trying to
do is again at the end of this is say
that you don't want the athletes to have the same
rights and status as the student selling popcorn. Really, you're
going to go to the slavery exception, You're going to
go to this case of vents guide to v. Peters
because you don't want the athletes to have those rights
that the kids on. It's it's outrageous a lot.

Speaker 2 (30:04):
Of from a fans perspective. I'm sure you've heard all
the pushback from them over the years about why college
athletes shouldn't be paid and.

Speaker 1 (30:14):
A scholarship is enough. But as you're.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Making this argument about them being considered employees, some will say, well, wait,
isn't there a big difference in workload and expectation.

Speaker 1 (30:26):
And even revenue output.

Speaker 2 (30:28):
Not that that has anything to do with you being
an employee, but I'm just going to throw what some
fans might say, there's a difference between a football player
and a tennis player in terms of revenue generated and
other nuances of their sport. So why should they all
be classified the same as employees regardless of revenue that
is generated.

Speaker 3 (30:48):
Well, so, sir, first point about revenue is very very
important because I think people need to remember there are
all kinds of folks who don't generate revenue, whatever the
heck that means.

Speaker 4 (30:57):
Right, cost centers, you know.

Speaker 3 (31:00):
Lawyers, I say is all the time, if you're an
in house lawyer to corporation, the in house lawyers working
for the universities, they don't generate any revenue, right, people
in HR, people in it janitors don't generate revenue, but
they are, as you've kind of kind of recognized, they're
all employees. So that's not really the issue, right, And
the other thing people have to remember in terms of

(31:21):
the sports, So our case deals really with the idea
of basic rights and then basic pay like base salaries
what I kind of refer to it as, so all
of the athletes meet the criteria to be a student
employee more than their fellow students who are again filing papers,
checking IDs, you know, washing dishes or again I go

(31:42):
to the popcorn, taking tickets at the games. They all
meet it more than So that's now if you're going
to talk about how some sports generate more revenue those
kinds of things, that's where I think you get into
the collective bargaining aspect of this.

Speaker 4 (31:53):
And well two things.

Speaker 3 (31:54):
One is you got collective bargaining where you can have
revenue sharing which would be based upon I think sport
because I think even if you if you unionize, you
probably would have units that would be based upon sport football, basketball,
and then you might have some sports that might be
grouped together.

Speaker 4 (32:09):
Right, so you.

Speaker 3 (32:10):
Would have some revenue sharing differences among the sports, and
then you would also have nil differences individually because of
popularity of sports and individuals. Our case just deals with
the idea of a base salary. So for instance, right now,
you know, if you're the parent of an athlete who
maybe doesn't make an IL or isn't you know, in
a situation where you're you're blessed in that circumstance and

(32:33):
you still have to send your kid, you know, weekend
beer money, right, whereas the parents down the street whose
kid might be on academic scholarship. And by the way,
not every athletes on athletic scholarship people, you can also
remember that. But let's say you're talking about a kid
who's on academic scholarship, but his or her parents he
works here or she works in the library checking ID.
One person told me that they were essentially getting paid,

(32:54):
you know, to to to study when they were checking
id's the library, right. You know, they get money that
their parents don't have to send them. But if you're
an athlete, your parents who've already probably dug deep into
their pockets to even get to that place. When you
look at all the camps and travel things that the
folks have to do nowadays, they have to still dig
deeper to send you money for the weekends. Because even
if you have a scholarship, it's only academic expenses. It

(33:17):
doesn't include you know, walking around money.

Speaker 4 (33:20):
So that's the thing is.

Speaker 3 (33:21):
It's not that our case again doesn't address the differences
in sports in terms of revenue. Collective bargaining revenue sharing
would do that. It doesn't touch an il. It's just
simply saying everyone deserves some type of base pay that's
comparable to what the other students on campus are getting.
So we're not saying that, you know, they should be
treated exorbitantly better. I mean, we're not talking about hundreds

(33:43):
of dollars an hour again like lawyers would make. We're
talking about the range that the other students are doing.

Speaker 2 (33:49):
Let me ask you this or could it be subject
to cause different states? Yes, we have a federal minimum wage,
but different states have some states have different minimum wages.
You have fifteen bucks or eight ten bucks doing so
would they legally would they be subject would that be
the law that they are following? Because like comparing it

(34:11):
to the average student, And again I'm you're the lawyer here,
so you tell me.

Speaker 1 (34:15):
But the average student.

Speaker 2 (34:16):
You know, if you're in California, for example, what we
have a higher minimum wage, you could go out and
get a job at Chippolan and get paid eighteen dollars
an hour, right, So would then that be the basis
for what a student athlete is paid.

Speaker 4 (34:28):
It would?

Speaker 3 (34:28):
It would. So what you'd have is really the comparison
of what colleges are paying their work stay students. So
you have the Bureau of Labor Statistics kind of has
these things they do on an annual basis. It gives
you an idea of what the going rate is on
campuses for different kinds of jobs. You know, you have
some some benchmarks that are quite interesting. I mean, you
know the Dartmouth case. You found out through the Dartmouth

(34:48):
case that the dining hall workers at Dartmouth get paid
twenty one dollars an hour. Wow, I know, right, And
by the way, that's it. And by the way, and
by the way, that's the dining services that has lost
money for the last three years. So you know it,
so that those things could kind of work their way around.
I think kind of one of the things you're kind
of getting at. I don't see that there would be

(35:10):
a bidding war, if you will, on hourly wages or
anything of that nature, because I think that still is
the nil area. In other words, you're not going to
be looking at some school offering a star player in
any sport. Oh, we're going to pay you hundreds of
dollars hourly wage. No, they would still do the nil thing.
So it's still again, ours is kind of the base
salary to make sure everybody is taken care of, consistent

(35:32):
with the fact that all of them meet the standard
and are working harder and contributing more to the universities
than their fellow students, and no one can see that's
something else is kind of interesting. No one complains about
work study, and they don't say it's too expensive, you know,
they don't say any of these things. And the other
thing is important about the work study comparison because it
goes really at the heart of what the NCAA is
trying to do when they're in Congress arguing for some

(35:53):
type of exemption. When you recognize that there are other
student employees, which again the NCAA has tried to kind
of obscure, then you also recognize, especially as a lawyer,
that any attempt to single out athletes to deny them
the same status and rights as their fellow students, you know,
who are working in work stay stout programs. Finally, its
equal protection, which is to say that what the NCAA

(36:15):
is trying to do in Congress is an in complete
waste of Congress's time and a waste of lot being money.
And again, the way they try to do that is
they don't even acknowledge work study exists. It's a really
interesting trick that here you have representatives of universities that
work study has been a fixture for more than fifty
years if they know. I mean, the presidents of universities
have students working in their offices. They know this, and

(36:38):
yet they go up and they kind of deal with
the fact that people, if you haven't been on campus
in a while, you might forget that there are student employees.
It's not a big deal. And they use that in
a very disingenuous way. I don't even know they've ever
technically been sworn in and hearings. To be honest, I
can't recall that happening. I would love to see them
sworn in and deny that there are student employees. But yeah,

(36:58):
that's what they're doing. It's it's in vilet equal protection.
So they're really just wasting Congress's time trying to get
them to do something that would be struck down in
federal court.

Speaker 2 (37:07):
I was a work study student and I'm trying to
I remember there was a minimum number of hours you
had to do. What I don't recall is if there
was a maximum.

Speaker 3 (37:16):
And nowadays it's twenty. Now it's twenty at least they
recommend twenty.

Speaker 1 (37:19):
Yeah, they recommend it.

Speaker 4 (37:20):
They want you to be.

Speaker 3 (37:21):
Part time because the idea is that, well, say that
nothing's funny about it, right, So work study, for instance,
supervisors are supposed to schedule your work around your choices
of classes, right, So there's there's there's an accommodation for
academics with work study, whereas if you're an athlete, you
you have to schedule your classes in your major around

(37:41):
practice times. That's you know, I tell people all the time,
you can't believe every athlete wants to be a communications major.

Speaker 1 (37:47):
Come on right, right?

Speaker 2 (37:48):
Or say it was criminal justice, and yes, I think
a universe of Michigan is like kinesiology.

Speaker 1 (37:56):
It's like, hey, guys, we're kind of into it.

Speaker 3 (37:59):
Yeah. It's the people I think don't appreciate how much control.
And that's kind of you know, the fundamental the main
issue when you look at an employee status is control.
How much control the computive employer in this case, university
has over you for instance. That's the reason why when
people sometimes the NCAA used to try it back, and
I think USC is still trying this in the NLRB case,

(38:19):
trying to say, oh, it's a slippery slope. What about
the members of the band and those things. It's like, well,
those by definition, in their own directories are student run groups.
If you're a student run group, you could be an
employee of the student run group, depending on the circumstance.
Let's say you are working for the school newspaper and
the school newspapers Incorporated and so on and so forth
it's student run. You might be an employee of the

(38:40):
student run group, but you're not employee of the university
because the university can't tell you what to do.

Speaker 4 (38:45):
The only people on.

Speaker 3 (38:47):
Campus that the university can absolutely tell what to do
for athletes, and they and they do it in numerous ways.
And so yeah, that's the control issue. It's the level
of control that the university is have over athletes more
than anyone else on campus.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
Yeah, and people have to also recall, I mean, is
that it used to be that student athletes couldn't work
at all, right, And so yeah, obviously in ail kind
of kind.

Speaker 1 (39:13):
Of change that.

Speaker 2 (39:14):
But because there were caps and limits on them being
able to work at all, that's what made it even
more egregious that they were not able to participate in
the economy that they they created. Well, yeah, so you know,
let me let me ask you this for if you're
an athlete and you're you know, thinking about this is
how what would you say are the biggest benefits to

(39:35):
why they should be recognized as an employee.

Speaker 3 (39:38):
Putting aside for a second again, first, because some athletes
you know, who do well in an IL, you know,
the money we're talking about may not be that a
big deal for them, and it will be a big
deal for some athletes who don't get an IL in
terms of their parents having to send them money. Putting
that aside, the big thing really and gets back to
what we're talking about with house, how kind of house
kind of connects is the ability to then collectively bargain,

(40:00):
as you know, to unionize on some in some form
or fashion and collectively bargain because it's it's to me,
it's crucial whether you're talking about not just money and
revenue sharing, but whether it's mental health issues, whether it's
you know, just medical benefits, whether it's any term and
condition you can think of of for example, So for instance,
since we're kind of dealing with this idea of them

(40:22):
being student athletes, which by the way, the third circuit
kind of bought into the notion of well, that's you
know again that term is you know, it's a made
up it's a alter buyer's term right from back in
the day with the NCAA. Uh And there's in fact,
I try not to use it anymore. De Smith convinced
me it's like you need to not say students student athlete,
you know, so I say college athlete now. Uh, so

(40:44):
you know that that idea though of being students, because
there's not an accommodation for athletes in terms of practice
times are held just you know, during other classes, as
opposed to say in high school, where we all know
practices are held you know, in the afternoons so you
can take your class you know, during the day, right,
because there's not accommodations like that, because of we know

(41:04):
that it affects athletes choosing different majors, because we know
that they actually are doing more than twenty hours in theory.

Speaker 4 (41:11):
If you're if the athletes got together and decided.

Speaker 3 (41:14):
Hey, we don't want to do more than twenty hours,
you know, we want to have it strictly limited. To
actually have the rules strictly applied, they could bargain for
that in collective bargaining. And so what you have is
kind of a tension that the NCAA and the schools
have On the one hand, they would love to have
the immunity from anti trust suits that a collective bargaining
agreement would give them. They would love to have the

(41:35):
certainty around some of you know, the rules and how
things are done. But the tension and the reason why
I think they really are against them being employees is
they still want to be able to dictate every term.
They don't want the athletes to have any substantial say
in any in any condition.

Speaker 4 (41:53):
Of what they're doing for the university.

Speaker 3 (41:55):
That's the only thing I can come up with because otherwise,
again you know, prince speaking, if it's good enough and
I've been talking about the kids selling popcorn, it's good
enough for the kid washing dishes, it was good enough
for the kid, you know, checking IDs in the library.
Why is it not good enough for the athletes? But that,
to me is the big benefit the athletes could have ultimately,

(42:16):
is the ability to collectively bargain and assure that they're
not being exploited. Because I mean, some people think, and
there's an argument why that the twenty two million, you
know that that's being set aside house undercuts what.

Speaker 4 (42:27):
The revenue share should be.

Speaker 3 (42:29):
Right, it's you know, it's it's far less than fifty
percent that you see in pretty much any other major sport.

Speaker 4 (42:34):
You know, there are folks that.

Speaker 3 (42:35):
Say that there are other things that are folded into that,
but at the end of the day, the athletes should
have a say in that because right now, to some extent,
the terms in house.

Speaker 4 (42:43):
And again this is not criticizing.

Speaker 3 (42:45):
I think Kessler and Burman have done a great job
getting the NCAA to concede to certain things that they'd
never conceded to before. But those terms were not negotiated
with real student input, you know, student at college athlete
pardon me, college athlete input. You know, it just wasn't.
So that's that's that's the I think the principal benefit.

(43:05):
But the money is not insignificant because of your parent
and you don't have the money to send to your
kid who's not making an il. That that that keeps
you from digging into your pocket.

Speaker 2 (43:17):
And as every college student knows, and I certainly remember,
every little bit helps, that's for sure, it definitely does.
Before I get you out of here, Paul, give us
a sense at the time of this recording or where
does your case stand.

Speaker 3 (43:32):
So we're going to follow them in the complaint next week.
That's that reflects. So the Third Circuit kind of gave
us some guidelines as to the criteria. They kind of
modified it. They modified the guy the guideline or the
criteria that we had initially worked with, and kind of
in recognition that there's no academic benefit associated with just
pacing nca sports. So the test that had existed was

(43:54):
a test that took into account academic benefit. For for instance,
if you were a student working at a corporation or
the university kind of in an internship position. The idea
was that if you got academic credit, or if it
was related to your academic program, then that might weigh
against your being an employee because you were the primary
beneficiary would be you the student, right, But the court

(44:18):
recognized essentially, well, there's no real academic benefit to participation
in NCAA sports, So they constructed a different kind of
primary primary beneficiary test. So we're filing it amend too
complaint that will reflect the guidelines that that they provided
the summer. Not concerned at all about beetting that criteria
because again it's still basically the criteria that that any

(44:38):
student employee would have to meet, and you know, for instance,
give a perfect example, to give you one example, the
only essential student labor force on campuses is are the
athletes because in work study, for instance, work study guidelines
say that you are really to hire students to complement
what other with what the adults you know, are doing

(45:00):
in the offices, right, not to substitute, but to compliment.
In the case of athletics, you can't play the games
without the athletes.

Speaker 4 (45:08):
They're the only essential labor force.

Speaker 3 (45:10):
I mean, and just may paying you to talk about
Michigan a little bit, but you know, it's like Harball
last year when he was suspended, they kept it moving,
you know, they you know he was spended, the players
kept playing.

Speaker 4 (45:23):
You know.

Speaker 3 (45:24):
Harorball is interesting because and again I don't want to
harp on him because of your Michigan state affiliation, but
you know that all he also made some great statements.
I actually miss him in terms of his advocacy on
behalf of college athletes because he made a great statement
last year before the Big Ten Championship game in the
media call talking about, hey, you know, I would take

(45:45):
less money for the athletes to be paid, because that's
something I think people also forget when they talk about
how are the colleges going to afford this, Well, the
colleges have had a free labor force for all these years,
so all they've done is given all the money to
the adults and spend it on unnecessary facilities. And if
all you take are the highest paid coaches and staff,
not the ones in the smaller sports, but the highest

(46:06):
paid coaches and staff, and you just cut some of
their pay just a little bit, make it more rational again.
And I think the faculty members would be happy with that.
It's faculty members are always like, hey, why these guys
getting paid so much more than we are. You could
pay all the athletes, and to the extent that you
had a smaller school that after doing that still had issues.
Then of course you have the fact that you could
have the model you have in every other major sport,
where the larger players in the game, if you will,

(46:30):
can put together a pot that helps subsidize the other
folks who are who are in their competition. So but
I mentioned all that because it's I think this thing
is not as complicated as people think it is. They
just it's because you have the model of work study,
we're going to be able to certainly meet that criteria.

(46:50):
It's just a matter of at what point people recognize
that it is just work study and trying to legislate
yourself out of this bily tequal protection, so there's no
point in trying. And then, of course, you know, hopefully
people appreciate what the NCAA again, the argument they've been making,
because there should be accountability for that. By the way,
the SEC joined in that argument. You know, it's kind

(47:12):
of on brand, if you will, right.

Speaker 1 (47:14):
I was just thinking that, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 (47:18):
They followed the Amenkas brief supporting the ncaaa's argument about
Van skyk b. Peters, And yeah, so you know, there
should be accountability at both the NCAAA and the SEC.
What that looks like, I think will depend upon, you know,
how people react to being informed that this is happening,
because again, sports media, you.

Speaker 4 (47:36):
Know, hasn't touched it. It's amazing when you think about it.

Speaker 3 (47:40):
It's amazing when you consider, as you mentioned, it's not
just the number of black folk who participate in the
higher revenue sports in the NCAA, but it's also, as
I mentioned in my out bet for Sportico, if you
are in sports media, you rely upon access to black athletes,
black coaches, black executives and c suites. You know, how

(48:02):
do you expect us to react, you know, if we
find out that you couldn't even be concerned about disrespect
to our history and our dignity. You know, and and
you know again I have receipts. What I do with them,
I don't know yet.

Speaker 4 (48:18):
We'll see.

Speaker 3 (48:19):
I'm hopeful that sports media will wake up and actually
press this issue, just even ask the question of the
NCAA as to because again it's not my allegations what
the Third Circuit said, and you know, and that folks
actually appreciate that this argument was being made, and you know,
for the last ten years in twenty twenty four, well, Paul,

(48:41):
I want.

Speaker 2 (48:41):
To thank you so much for joining me and breaking
all of this down. Be very curious to see what
the NCAA, if it exists, looks like in the next
you know, ten years, because I think ultimately there undoing.

Speaker 1 (48:57):
This has been a reckoning.

Speaker 2 (48:59):
Again, it's been a long time coming, and so I
think we are looking at probably the last days of
the NCAA as it was known to be at its height.
It is I think their relevancy is over one more
segment to go, and you guys know what that means.
I got questions to answer up next, your viewer slash

(49:20):
listener questions, and I have plenty of answers coming up
next on the final segment of politics. Usually I close
out the show within the audience question, but today I'm
making a short detour to discuss the fires that have

(49:41):
ravaged Los Angeles. For those who don't know, I live
here in Los Angeles. It's been my home for seven years.
I cannot begin to describe how devastating these fires have been.
Now my husband and I are blessed. Our home is
largely out of harm's way. Other than those in power
for a few hours, the inside of the house sometimes
feeling like smoke, and some other very minor inconvenience is
we were fine. However, I know people who lost their homes,

(50:03):
people who had to evacuate, and generally, whether your home
was directly impacted or not, we were all living in
a constant state of fear and anxiety. But what has
been truly fucked up is outsiders, people who do not
live in California at all. So that cheering on this
happening to the folks who live here. Obviously, some of
the biggest headlines have been about which celebrities have lost

(50:24):
their homes, and that seemed to create this perception that
the only people who lost anything were millionaires who could
theoretically afford such an unspeakable loss. I can assure you
a lot of people who were not millionaires and not
famous lost their homes. And just because you're famous and rich,
that doesn't mean you deserve something awful like that to
happen to you either. The other thing that was especially

(50:46):
bothersome and racist was the number of right wing conservative
jackasses who rose up to blame the fires on diversity,
equity and inclusion. Since the fire chief is a queer
woman who upon her appointment, she said that she wanted
to emphasize creating an inclusive workforce, it seems that the
white folks who constantly bitch and complain are operating from

(51:08):
an attitude that only white people are qualified to do
these jobs. Actually, those people think white people are the
only ones qualified to do any job. Diversity, equity and
inclusion does not mean hiring less qualified people. It means
opening up the hiring pool to include people who have
historically been frozen out of those jobs because of their

(51:29):
race or sexuality. The Los Angeles Fire Department has a
pretty nasty history when it comes to racial discrimination. In fact,
as recently as twenty twenty two, organizations representing black and
Latino firefighters called for a federal investigation of the LA
Fire Department for racist and discriminatory practices. That is why
the department was public about its efforts to increase diversity.

(51:51):
It was a response. So I'm wondering where all those
white people who complain about DEI. Now, where were they
when blacks and Latinos and women were being systematically just
discriminated against for years? If they cared as much about
a quality as they claim they do, how come these
same white folks didn't look at these companies, businesses, and
other organizations and say, gin, why is everyone in a
decision making role white? Why are white people only being

(52:13):
hired and promoted? I can tell you why. The racism
and discrimination was acceptable as long as they were the
main beneficiary. DII has given them this false impression that
they won't be as desired in the workforce. And by
the way, more than half of Los Angeles's Fire Department
employees are white in a city where white folks are
only twenty eight percent of the population.

Speaker 1 (52:32):
Go figure.

Speaker 2 (52:33):
Anyway, I'm sending good vibes, positivity prayers to all the
folks in Los Angeles. We're going to get through this. Meanwhile,
I still want your questions. If you would like to
ask me a question, I'm at Jmail Hill across all
social media platforms Twitter, Instagram, Blue Sky, and threads. Please
use the hashtags politics. You also have the option of
emailing me as Politics twenty twenty four at.

Speaker 1 (52:55):
Gmail dot com.

Speaker 2 (52:56):
You can also send me a video of your question,
but please make sure it's thirty seconds or less. Don't
forget to follow and subscribe to this politics on iHeart
and follows Politics pod on Instagram and TikTok. Politics is
spelled s po l i tcs. That is spo l
i t cs. A new episode of Spolitics drops every
Thursday on iHeart Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

(53:20):
This is politics where sports and politics don't just mix,
they matter. Spolotics is the production of iHeart Podcasts and
The Unbothered Network. I'm your host Jamel Hill. Executive producer
is Taylor Shakoigne. Lucas Heymen is head of audio and
executive producer. Megan Armstrong is associate producer. Original music for

(53:41):
Spolitics provided by Kyle Visz from wiz FX.