UConn athletics urges Connecticut to allow revenue-sharing agreements as NCAA settlement nears

At a public hearing of the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, University of Connecticut athletics officials urged lawmakers to pass HB 6446 to allow Connecticut public institutions to enter revenue-sharing agreements with student-athletes.

David Benedict, UConn's director of athletics, told the committee that a pending nationwide settlement in the case often called House v. NCAA would introduce direct payments and a revenue-sharing model for college athletes beginning in the 2025–26 academic year. "I believe it is inevitable," Benedict said, arguing the state should act now so Connecticut schools do not fall behind in recruiting and retention.

Benedict and UConn deputy legal counsel Nate LaValle outlined two priorities: preserve student privacy and retain competitive recruiting flexibility. UConn requested the bill include a Freedom of Information Act exemption for individual revenue-sharing agreements and contracts, while allowing aggregate public reporting of the total dollars paid and the total number of athletes who received revenue sharing. LaValle told the committee, "None have a reporting requirement. Connecticut would be the first," and warned that more granular reporting (by team or by individual) could allow rivals to identify how athletes are compensated and create safety and recruiting risks.

Committee members pressed UConn on details. Senator Derek Slapp asked whether a $20.5 million cap referenced in discussions would be available to UConn; Benedict said the $20,500,000 figure is the cap discussed nationally, but he does not expect UConn to reach that level and said the university plans to use outside revenue sources—ticket sales, sponsorships and media dollars—rather than state appropriations.

Lawyers and administrators described the likely contract structure as fees for the use of a student's name, image and likeness or for services, rather than fixed percentages of institutional revenue. Benedict also asked the committee to consider expanding the statutory definition of "student athlete" to include recruits who have accepted an offer to attend but are not yet enrolled; he emphasized that no payments would be made before enrollment, but that allowing early agreements is important for fair recruiting.

Speakers repeatedly stressed Title IX obligations and equity concerns. Benedict said UConn has a long record of investing in women's athletics and that any revenue-sharing framework must respect gender-equity requirements.

Committee members signaled urgency: witnesses and several legislators noted a potential April 7 deadline in the national settlement process and suggested the committee consider timely action so Connecticut institutions retain competitive options in recruiting. No formal vote was taken at the hearing; the committee indicated it may fast-track related work as settlement details and NCAA guidance emerge.

What happens next: the committee will continue deliberations as the national settlement and NCAA guidance develop; legislative language could be revised to clarify reporting, privacy exemptions and the recruit/accepted-student definition before the bill moves out of committee.