The Athletes.org Collective Bargaining Framework: A Legal Blueprint for the Future of College Athletics

College athletics is operating in a moment of profound instability. The long-standing regulatory model — rooted in unilateral rule-making and the mythos of amateurism — has fractured under the weight of NIL-era confusion, conflicting state laws, escalating antitrust litigation, and an NCAA whose authority erodes with each legal challenge. Institutions now navigate an environment where compensation rules vary by jurisdiction, athlete mobility is unrestricted, collectives act as quasi-payrolls, and enforcement is unpredictable or nonexistent. The system is not merely outdated; it is legally incoherent. The Athletes.org (“AO”) Collective Bargaining Agreement Framework is the first comprehensive, athlete-driven effort to replace this patchwork structure with a modern, enforceable, and legally durable model. It reframes college athletics as a negotiated ecosystem rather than a series of unilateral institutional rules, and it marks the beginning of the industry’s transition toward true structural reform.

What makes AO’s framework so consequential is its grounding in legal necessity. Under existing antitrust law, nearly every rule that restricts athlete compensation, mobility, eligibility, or NIL activity is vulnerable because it is imposed unilaterally by institutions that are economic competitors. Federal courts have consistently held that such coordinated restrictions can constitute unlawful agreements to suppress the athlete marketplace. A collectively bargained agreement solves this problem by transforming restrictive rules into negotiated terms, which are treated under a distinct labor-law lens rather than antitrust scrutiny. Even without formal employee classification, a non-employee bargaining model — similar to those used in entertainment unions — creates legal defensibility and a credible pathway to congressional support. In essence, a CBA is the only available tool that can stabilize the system and insulate it from continuous antitrust challenges.

Another area of legal exposure is the widespread misclassification embedded in current NIL practices. Many so-called NIL “marketing” deals with collectives function as salary agreements: athletes lose compensation if they are injured, benched, or “underperform,” terms that have nothing to do with marketing value. These arrangements are ripe for breach-of-contract disputes, deceptive practice claims, and conflicts with state NIL statutes. AO corrects this by introducing a standardized athletic-services contract that transparently governs school-based compensation, while preserving true NIL for genuine third-party marketing relationships. This distinction resolves the ambiguity that fuels so many disputes and brings the compensation market into alignment with contract and labor principles.

Labor law also looms in the background. Multiple active cases are examining whether college athletes should be classified as employees under federal and state labor law. If that happens, institutions would immediately face obligations under wage-and-hour statutes, workers’ compensation systems, and collective bargaining regimes. AO’s model serves as a middle ground: athletes gain representation, negotiated protections, enforceable rights, and dispute-resolution mechanisms, while institutions avoid the drastic consequences of full employee classification. The framework anticipates the direction the law is moving and provides a structured alternative before the courts or Congress impose one.

Medical and tort liability represent a further area of institutional risk. Without enforceable health and safety standards, universities face significant exposure for concussions, training-load injuries, negligent medical treatment, and post-career health complications. AO introduces an injured reserve designation, independent medical rights, multi-year post-eligibility coverage, and negotiated practice and travel standards. These provisions elevate athlete welfare to a contractual right and protect institutions by replacing ad hoc medical practices with clear, defensible protocols. The more clarity a system has, the less exposure institutions face when injuries occur.

Dispute resolution is another longstanding deficiency in college athletics. Historically, the NCAA has acted as rulemaker, investigator, and adjudicator, a structure incompatible with principles of neutrality and due process. AO replaces this dynamic with independent arbitration and a structured grievance process — bringing college athletics into alignment with modern labor norms used by every major professional sports league. For the first time, disputes would be resolved by neutral decision - makers rather than institutional bodies with inherent conflicts of interest.

The AO framework also reorganizes the compensation landscape itself. By acknowledging the reality that athletes are participating in an economic system, the model introduces revenue sharing calibrated to sport-specific conference revenue, establishes minimum spending floors, and imposes multi-year compliance requirements. This transforms the current chaotic compensation environment into a predictable ecosystem governed by transparent rules. At the same time, it does not interfere with Title IX funding decisions or institutional program management. Instead, it focuses on contractual labor rights, leaving roster and budget allocations to universities.

What all of this means for the future of college athletics is significant. Collectives, as we know them, will eventually disappear because their role as shadow payroll mechanisms becomes unnecessary under a standardized athletic-services model. NIL will return to its original purpose: monetizing marketable value rather than functioning as a workaround for compensation restrictions. A new national negotiating body representing institutions will likely emerge, effectively replacing or absorbing the NCAA’s athlete-related functions. Roster continuity will increase as multi-year incentive structures reward long-term commitments without undermining athlete mobility. Budgeting will become predictable and defensible, allowing athletic departments to plan sustainably rather than reactively.

Athlete protections will expand dramatically. Post-eligibility medical care, concussion protocols, independent medical rights, and contractual health protections will become standard. Transfer processes will mature into structured free agency windows rather than open-market chaos. As sport-specific CBAs emerge—first in football, then in basketball and later in Olympic sports — the entire ecosystem will begin to resemble a federated labor structure, similar to professional sports but tailored to the collegiate environment.

Perhaps the most important long-term outcome is the emergence of a hybrid athlete identity: not purely “students” and not fully “employees,” but contractual participants with defined rights, protections, and economic opportunities. This hybrid approach may ultimately be the most sustainable evolution of the NCAA model—preserving education while acknowledging the economic realities that modern college athletics can no longer deny.

In sum, the AO Collective Bargaining Framework is not merely a reform proposal; it is the legal, structural, and cultural blueprint for the next era of college sports. It resolves the contradictions at the heart of the NIL era, reduces systemic legal risk, and introduces a framework capable of supporting a multibillion-dollar industry with the stability and professionalism it requires. If embraced, it offers a path toward predictability, fairness, and longevity. If ignored, the future of college athletics will be shaped not by leadership but by litigation — and by courts that have shown little patience for the system as it currently exists.

Full framework here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AII1-gx9asqpZnsrnqpXOeKWrsTqWzvV/view

Summary Cheat Sheet

The Problem:
College athletics is legally unstable — NIL confusion, conflicting state laws, antitrust lawsuits, and weakening NCAA authority make the current system unsustainable.

The AO Solution:
A nationwide Collective Bargaining Agreement between athletes and institutions, creating clear, enforceable rights and protections.

Why It Matters Legally:
• A CBA shields universities from antitrust liability.
• Eliminates misclassified NIL “salary” deals.
• Reduces labor-law exposure (employee-status cases).
• Introduces neutral arbitration instead of NCAA self-policing.
• Creates clear medical, safety, and contractual standards.

Key Features of the New System:
• Standardized athlete contract for school-based compensation.
• True NIL remains uncapped and market-driven.
• Revenue-sharing with conference-specific spending floors.
• Injured Reserve designation and independent medical rights.
• Transfer windows + anti-tampering rules for roster stability.
• Multi-year post-eligibility medical care.
• Neutral dispute resolution and grievance procedures.

What the Future Looks Like:
• Collectives fade away; NIL becomes real marketing again.
• A new national governance entity emerges to negotiate with AO.
• Budgeting becomes predictable; lawsuits decrease.
• Athletes gain rights comparable to pros but retain student status.
• Eventually, sport-specific CBAs form a federated system across all college sports.

Bottom Line:
The AO framework is the first real blueprint capable of stabilizing college athletics. Without it, the future will be defined by litigation. With it, the system can evolve into a modern, fair, and legally defensible structure.