Why it Matters

The NCAA's enforcement machine has long been criticized as opaque, slow-moving, and prone to inconsistent outcomes. It's about to face a rare moment of congressional accountability.

The House Education and Workforce Committee is taking its NCAA enforcement hearing on the road to Memphis, Tennessee, on June 12, and the stakes extend well beyond college sports: the hearing could accelerate the first federal due process standards ever imposed on the NCAA's disciplinary apparatus, reshaping how the association investigates and punishes schools and athletes for years to come.

For the hundreds of thousands of student-athletes whose eligibility, scholarships, and futures can be upended by NCAA compliance investigations, the outcome matters enormously. So does it for the universities that have long complained they have no meaningful recourse when the NCAA moves against them, often relying on confidential informants, missing self-imposed deadlines, and issuing penalties with little public explanation.

The Cases

Two high-profile enforcement controversies have given this NCAA disciplinary hearing its immediate urgency.

The most explosive involves Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby, who was declared permanently ineligible by the NCAA after a gambling investigation found he had wagered at least $90,000 while enrolled at Indiana, including bets on Indiana football games in 2022. Sorsby entered residential treatment for gambling addiction approximately three weeks before filing a federal lawsuit seeking to have his eligibility restored in time for the 2026 college football season. His legal filing identified June 22, the NFL Supplemental Draft deadline, as the point by which a ruling was needed to inform his future. The NCAA, in its opposition, argued that Texas Tech itself contributed to delays by waiting weeks after receiving the association's findings before filing for reinstatement. The case crystallizes the core complaints the hearing is designed to examine: Is the process transparent? Is it timely? Does it afford adequate due process to the people it affects most?

The Michigan sign-stealing saga has provided a parallel backdrop for the NCAA enforcement review. Former Wolverines head coach Jim Harbaugh received a 10-year show-cause order as part of the NCAA's final penalties in that case, while current coach Sherrone Moore received a two-year show-cause order with a game suspension extending into the 2026 season. The length and conduct of that investigation, involving confidential sources and years of proceedings, became a flashpoint for critics who argue the NCAA's enforcement process lacks basic procedural fairness.

Meanwhile, the NCAA declined a Big Ten request for a moratorium on tampering investigations, issuing a memo to schools stating the Division I Board of Directors had directed staff to "pursue significant penalties" against tampering offenders. The message was unmistakable: the association intends to press forward aggressively even as member conferences push back on its authority and methods.

The Legislation

The legislative foundation for this college sports enforcement hearing is the NCAA Accountability Act of 2025, introduced in the House as H.R. 3976 and in the Senate as S. 955, notably, on the same calendar date as this hearing, one year prior. Both bills remain at the introductory stage, but the House version was referred directly to the Education and Workforce Committee, making this hearing the logical vehicle for the bill's advancement.

The legislation would impose sweeping federal due process requirements on the NCAA, any intercollegiate athletic association with at least 900 member institutions. Key provisions include:

  • Written notice of investigation within 60 days of a determination that one is warranted
  • A two-year statute of limitations on violations
  • Formal charges filed within eight months of the initial notice
  • A hearing held within one year of the notice of inquiry
  • A prohibition on evidence from confidential sources
  • The right to compel binding arbitration by a three-person panel
  • A ban on public disclosure of investigation details until formal charges are filed
  • Annual enforcement reporting to the U.S. Attorney General and each state attorney general
  • Civil penalties ranging from $10,000 to $15 million per violation, enforced by the Justice Department

The House bill was introduced by Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN-8)(whose district encompasses the Memphis area where the hearing is being held) alongside Rep. Josh Harder (D-CA-9). The bipartisan Senate companion was introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ).

Critically, Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT-4), a cosponsor of H.R. 3976, sits on the Education and Workforce Committee. He is the only bill sponsor or cosponsor with a seat at the table for this NCAA accountability transparency hearing, positioning him as a key inside advocate for the legislation's advancement.

The Committee

The hearing is chaired by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), with Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) as ranking member. The decision to hold the hearing in Memphis rather than Washington is a deliberate signal: this is Kustoff's home turf, and the field hearing format allows the committee to hear directly from those affected by NCAA enforcement decisions in a region where college sports carry enormous cultural and economic weight.

NCAA President Charlie Baker has previously told Congress there is "no transparency, no accountability, no standards" in the association's handling of NIL, and separately warned lawmakers that student-athletes had described classmates soliciting them to influence bets. This context ties the gambling enforcement failures illustrated by the Sorsby case directly to the broader NCAA compliance investigation landscape Congress is now scrutinizing.

The Bottom Line

If the NCAA Accountability Act advances, it would mark the first time the federal government has imposed binding procedural standards on the association's internal enforcement machinery, which is a fundamental shift in the relationship between Congress and college sports governance. The NCAA has historically resisted federal intervention, preferring to manage its own disciplinary processes. But the combination of high-profile enforcement controversies, bipartisan legislative momentum, and a committee willing to take its NCAA enforcement hearing directly to the affected communities suggests the window for voluntary reform may be closing.