Earlier today, we posted an item about ESPN’s advocacy for the Protect College Sports Act. The latest example of ESPN’s effort to turn the bill into a law was a one-sided interview with Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), one of the act’s sponsors.
I said what I had to say. I heard from multiple members of the media, who agreed with the sentiments that were expressed.
But not everyone agreed. At 5:45 p.m. ET, I got a phone call from a number I didn’t recognize.
It was Randy Levine, president of the New York Yankees and vice-chair (along with Ron DeSantis) of President Trump’s Saving College Sports Roundtable.
Did I immediately know who Randy Levine was? No. Did that set the stage for a call that didn’t go very well? Possibly.
He said he wanted to correct some of the statements made in our article about the Cruz interview, by ensuring that I have the facts. I told him that I always want to operate within the confines of any and all relevant facts.
Levine then explained that, in his view, collective bargaining is an impossibility for college sports. He pointed to the fact that most universities are public institutions, that the federal labor laws do not apply to public employment, and that it would require a change in the Federal Labor Relations Act, which dates back to the 1930s.
When I observed that the NCAA is instead trying to change federal antitrust laws that have been on the books even longer than that, Levine didn’t seem to appreciate my point.
I wanted to explain to him that the prevalence of commentary regarding the possibility of collective bargaining from various corners of the college-sports ecosystems suggests that it’s hardly a non-starter. Laws can be changed. Private entities can be created. Conferences, which aren’t public entities, could be the conduit for an acceptable model that would give the NCAA and its members the antitrust exemption that flows from maintaining a multi-employer bargaining unit — which is how the NFL has managed to engineer a path around the antitrust laws.
Indeed, Pac-12 Commissioner Teresa Gould said in June 2026 testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee that it’s time for “honest conversations” about collective bargaining. Common sense suggests that, if collective bargaining is impossible, there are no conversations to be had.
My conversation with Levine didn’t get to that point, however. After I allowed him to speak his mind on the collective bargaining issue, I began to respond, by pointing out the effort to change long-settled federal antitrust laws. He interrupted me. I asked him to let me finish my point. He then launched into the “do you want pro athletes going back to college?” talking point. I told him, bluntly but politely, that the “pro athletes” in question had signed tryout contracts and opted to try to make more money by returning to college football, after they were not offered NFL roster spots.
I also told Levine that the entire “pro athlete going back to college” argument is a fallacy, and that college athletes are already pro athletes.
And, at that point, he ended the call.
Before doing so, Levine pointed out he’d tell everyone that I don’t know what I’m talking about, or words to that effect.
Good luck with that, Randy. Many people already think I don’t know what I’m talking about. That has rarely stopped me from talking, however.
Bottom line? We’ve apparently struck a nerve. Really, why would Levine have taken the time to call me on a Saturday afternoon?
The Saving College Sports Roundtable is apparently concerned that this small corner of the Internet may have a little bit of influence when it comes to calling the Protect College Sports Act what it is, and when it comes to mustering real opposition to a flawed bill that will be bad for players.
Read the full article here