“Who Gets the Scholarship? How the Global Shift in College Sports Affects Americans”
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittings
Burgess Owens
I look forward to our witnesses before us today, visionary adults in the room who care about our future and figuring out how to get America's heart and soul back into college sports. With that I yield back to the ranking member for her opening statements.
Alma Adams
Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. This is the final hearing in this subcommittee before the House once again returns to our district for a long recess. And since the beginning of this Congress, students, families, and teachers have been through the wringer as the Trump administration ramped up its attacks on public education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world. Thousands of public and private institutions draw the brightest minds from around the world to pursue groundbreaking research and other academic work.
International students can offer new perspectives, new ideas, and skills that make America's schools rich in both academic achievement and cultural diversity. Tragically, the Trump administration's bigoted attacks on international students have made coming to the US to attend college an uncertain and often a dangerous prospect. These students face threats of visa restriction, termination, and deportation. These actions don't just affect these students. They affect all of us, all of us who rely on the valuable contributions they make to our communities.
And I worry that today's hearing only serves to further demonize a population already struggling to keep their heads above water. This is just one of many sins that the Trump administration has committed in higher education more broadly. This administration has made it harder for everyone to access a quality higher education. As a result of the dismantling of the Department of Education, students and families lost resources, information, and institutional expertise that they relied on to apply for student loans, combat discrimination, access accommodations, and much more. The Trump administration undermined the Office of Federal Student Aid, which administers the 1.7 trillion dollars in federal student loan portfolio.
In March of 2026, the GAO reported that following massive staff cuts, FSA had stopped key oversight of student loan servicers. As a result, 43 million borrowers have been left without sufficient support. And to make matters worse, last year's congressional Republicans and the president passed their Big Ugly Bill, which made the college cost crisis exponentially worse. It limited access to Pell Grants, imposed new borrowing limits, and made repaying loans more expensive. These cuts will make it harder for low-income students to access the Pell Grant and it will push many students toward the predatory private loan market.
Taken together, this Big Ugly Bill will make college harder to afford, particularly for underserved communities. Now, 7 million borrowers are currently being forced out of one of the most affordable repayment plans ever created.
Those who only strove to improve their education will now be forced into less affordable plans, including the Big Ugly Bill's new less affordable repayment plans, which will raise monthly payments by hundreds of dollars for more borrowers. Additionally, millions of borrowers are now closer than ever to defaulting on their loans. Meanwhile, the GAO report recommended that the Department of Education provide earlier coordination with loan servicers to ensure borrowers have the most accurate information. Our public colleges are full of bright young minds from all walks of life, from all 50 states and from all over the world. These students brave the unknown in pursuit of a better life for themselves and their families.
So we must respect and honor that pursuit by tearing down barriers to entry, not building more walls. In today's economy, a college education is the strongest engine of economic mobility and the surest path to the American dream. College graduates earn more, experience lower unemployment rates, and are better positioned to support their families and contribute to their communities. No one, no matter their race, no matter their religion, nationality, gender, sexuality, or financial situation, should be robbed of that opportunity. Looking towards the next Congress, committee Democrats are ready with real, concrete solutions to the college cost crisis, and we're going to fight tooth and nail to make those solutions a reality.
We're going to continue to push back on this administration's attack on public education. We're going to fight to protect and strengthen federal student aid and expand the Pell Grant and ensure strong oversight of the student loan system so that borrowers are treated fairly. And we will work to create an education system that truly fulfills the promise of the American dream. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Burgess Owens
Thank you. Pursuant to committee rule 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 PM, 14 days after this hearing. Without objection, the hearing will remain open for 14 days to allow statements and other material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I now turn to introduce our four distinguished witnesses. The first witness is Mr. Patrick McEnroe, broadcaster with ESPN in Bronxville, New York.
Second witness is Mr. Tommy Brown, owner and CEO of One Heartbeat, Inc. in Cleveland, Tennessee. Third witness is Mr. Aaron Ament, president of National Student Legal Defense Network in Washington, DC. And our fourth witness is Mr. Douglas DePippo, Lieutenant Colonel, retired, US Army, and special counsel to Buckwalter LLP in Denver, Colorado. We thank the witnesses for being here today and looking forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I ask that you limit your oral presentation to a three-minute summary of your written statement.
The clock will count down from three minutes, as committee members have many questions to ask you. However, pursuant to committee rule 8D, the committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach your five-minute mark. I'd also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of the responsibilities to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. I'd like to first recognize Mr. McEnroe for your testimony.
Patrick McEnroe
Chairman, ranking member, members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for having me. I have to say, I've been doing this, as you said, broadcasting for over 30 years, and I've got some butterflies today because to be here in front of you is an honor. So again, thank you for having me.
I've been lucky enough to spend most of my life around sports and specifically around tennis. As a younger brother, as a coach, as a broadcaster, I was a Davis Cup captain for a decade representing the country all over the world, which was an amazing honor for me. And now I work with young athletes at our tennis academy in New York City with their families and in the broader fan base of sports in general. Earlier this year, I was home in New York and I started raising an alarm about something I was seeing in college tennis specifically. At the SEC and the ACC men's finals, two of the biggest conferences in tennis, I counted up that only three of the 24 players on the court were American.
Today, international athletes make up well more than 60% of Division I tennis, and that number continues to rise for both men and women. And at many schools, as you mentioned in your comments, this is true for 90% or more of the teams. So at that time, I called tennis the canary in the coal mine, and I'm here because the canary was right. This isn't about just about tennis anymore. The same incentives are increasingly showing up across all college sports.
Coaches are under enormous pressure to win now, and if you can recruit an older, fully developed international athlete, often someone who has already competed professionally, why spend several years developing an 18-year-old American? And so this phenomenon is growing not only in tennis, but in basketball, soccer, track and field, cross country, golf, swim, and other Olympic sports. Women's teams are impacted equally, if not even more so than men's. I understand the temptation, but we need to understand its consequences. And let me be clear about something else.
I welcome international athletes. I played with them, I competed with them, and I coached them. They make our teams better, they make our universities better, they bring talent, culture, and competition to American campuses. But this is about balance and making sure we don't close the door on our own kids in the process. Because roster spots are finite.
When one athlete gets a spot, another doesn't. And the families who feel that most are not the wealthiest ones. Youth sports is already extremely expensive. Families with means can buy more coaching, more tournaments, more travel, more opportunities to be seen. Middle-class and working-class families have fewer path fewer options when the pathway narrows.
But here's something else that we should not underestimate, and that is hope. I work with young athletes and parents all the time. Most of these kids are not going to be professionals. Their dream is much simpler. Can I play in college?
Why? Because college provides opportunity. That possibility keeps kids practicing, competing, studying, getting back up after they lose, and becoming our future leaders. But what does a 15- or 16-year-old American kid think when he or she looks around and sees college rosters filled with older, fully developed players from all around the world, many of whom have professional experience? At some point, the message changes from work hard and you might earn your opportunity to maybe that opportunity isn't really there for you anymore.
For millions of kids, college sports is not a professional dream. It's the next rung on the ladder. Take away enough rungs and eventually kids stop climbing. I look forward to your question. Thank you.
Tommy Brown
Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the Team USA Act and greater opportunities for American student athletes and our future leaders of tomorrow.
Like Patrick, this is way out of my comfort zone. My background is as a small college athlete and coach and athletic director. I now work with teams at all levels on teaching mental toughness and confidence. Most of us when we think of college athletics, we think of the Power Four. We think of big-time college football and we also think of March Madness.
In fact, in reality, there are over 1800 institutions that have intercollegiate athletics. I am not against, as Patrick said, I'm not against international athletes competing on American rosters either. I do believe that we need to limit this though. In fact, some of my favorite players I've ever coached have been international athletes. The fifth year of eligibility that the NCAA has granted is a definite game changer.
It has reduced the number of spots for everyone. A friend of mine who is highly involved in an AAU program said to me just yesterday, when is the last time the NCAA made a rule that benefited high school American athletes? A Division I head coach basketball coach recently said to me, the only reason to recruit a high school American athlete is they're less expensive from an NIL perspective. I work with several institutions all over the country. I recently worked with a junior college soccer program.
This team, their institution limits them to 10 international players. This puts them at a distinct competitive disadvantage. However, the coach said one of the positives of having so many American players is is that they develop and many of them end up signing with Division I institutions and almost all of them sign four-year college scholarships. College coaches just want a level playing field. They don't want to be put at a competitive disadvantage.
And if you feel we're discriminating against international athletes, I'd like to remind everyone that the Canadian Football League limits the number of Americans on their rosters. As do most European basketball leagues are limited to two Americans. The reason why they do this is because their roster would be full of Americans if they didn't. I believe deeply in the value of college athletics. Our student athletes develop grit, resilience, they learn to get outside themselves, to put the team ahead of themselves, and they learn valuable leadership skills.
I urge you to support Chairman Walberg's Team USA Act to preserve opportunities for American student athletes and our future leaders of tomorrow.
Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize Mr. Amant for your testimony.
Aaron Ament
Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to testify today. My name is Aaron Amant and I'm the president of the National Student Legal Defense Network, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that works to advance students' rights to educational opportunity and to ensure higher education provides a launching point for economic mobility. So I deeply appreciate the opportunity to testify today about critical issues facing our nation's students. As a die-hard college sports fan, scholarships can certainly feel like a matter of life and death in my household.
But I think it's important to remember that scholarship athletes represent approximately 1% of America's college students. Meanwhile, tens of millions of students and student loan borrowers are trapped in a snowballing crisis that is worsening every day during the Trump administration. Over the past three decades, average tuition and fees at public four-year colleges have roughly doubled after adjusting for inflation, and tuition at private four-year colleges has climbed almost as much. Students and parents borrowed more than $100 billion for the 24-25 school year alone. And too often, these loans are used to attend programs, especially at for-profit colleges, with low graduation rates and poor outcomes.
During the COVID pandemic, federal loan payments were paused. The return to repayment has led approximately 9 million student loan borrowers into default. In short, students are increasingly taking on debt they'll never be able to repay. Rather than confronting this crisis head-on, the Trump administration has made it worse at nearly every turn. According to the Federal Reserve, 35% of current student borrowers who attended for-profit institutions were behind on student loan payments.
That's more than double the rate for public and nonprofit colleges. Previous administrations attempted to halt the flow of federal dollars for for-profit and career-oriented programs whose graduates didn't earn enough to pay back their loans through regulations known as the gainful employment rules. The Trump administration gutted those efforts. At a time when Americans are struggling to afford their daily lives, the Trump administration is poised to resume seizing distressed borrowers' tax refunds, Social Security benefits, and their wages. The administration has gutted oversight of schools and relief for defrauded students.
It has attempted to turn the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program into a political football and undermine the government's promises to millions of teachers, firefighters, nurses, service members, first responders, and other public servants. And it has sowed chaos and confusion throughout the federal student loan program by eliminating popular repayment options, botching implementation of student loan provisions in the so-called big beautiful bill, and decimating the Office of Federal Student Aid's customer service capacity. Each of these missteps has been made worse by the turmoil and disorder at the Office of Federal Student Aid and the administration's obsession with shuttering the Department of Education. President Trump's own executive order acknowledged that FSA is grossly understaffed. As the president noted, FSA manages a loan portfolio roughly the same size as Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo has 200,000 employees. FSA had fewer than 1,500 when Trump took office. The obvious response to that realization would be to better equip FSA to run the government's $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio. Instead, the administration cut it to the bone. Within two months of Trump's inauguration, FSA was down to 861 employees.
You didn't need a crystal ball to see what would happen next. Today, the student loan system is in chaos, and students and families are paying the price. Congress has the authority and the responsibility to demand answers and accountability. Our organization Student Defense stands ready to work with this committee on all of these issues, and I thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
Douglas DePippo
Thank you. Lastly, I'd like to recognize Mr. DePeppe for your testimony.
Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, members of the committee, thank you for asking for my testimony concerning pathways into college sports. My name is Douglas DePeppe. I am an attorney, a retired Army judge advocate, a former Division I soccer player, a youth soccer coach of more than 20 years, and the father of three sons who successfully navigated the pathway from youth soccer to college soccer. I want to show you that soccer tells a similar story about pathway disruption at all levels of American men's college soccer, top to bottom. I analyzed every team that competed in the 2025 national championships across NCAA Divisions I, II, III, the NAIA, and junior college soccer.
216 teams, 7,183 players. Only two of those five levels had rosters that were majority American.
Division II, NAIA, Junior College soccer were all majority international. This reaches all the way down to community college soccer. My research submitted with my written submission to the committee reveals the following levels of international soccer players during last year's national championships. NCAA Division I, about 41% international. NCAA Division II, 50.5%.
NCAA Division III, 16.5% international, which was an outlier. NAIA was more than 70% international. Junior college, 61.5%. To be clear, these findings do not mean international athletes are the problem, they are not. International student athletes are pursuing opportunities exactly as American students would.
The question before Congress is not whether international athletes should participate in American college sports. The question is whether the pathway from American youth soccer to college soccer remains reasonably balanced, transparent, and sustainable for future generations of American athletes. But roster nationality is only part of what I've heard from athletes I represent. Since House versus NCAA litigation, I've continued representing college athletes in soccer, golf, swimming, tennis, track and field. And across every one of them, I keep hearing the same question in different forms: is it fair?
Is it fair for a college to recruit an athlete onto a team already so oversized that it can't realistically develop or play everyone on it, without ever disclosing that fact before the athlete commits, enrolls, and pays tuition? Is it fair for that athlete to discover the truth only after enrolling, when transferring means lost development, lost time, and a year gone from their eligibility? Is it fair that when that happens, the financial benefit flows to the institution while the athlete and family are left holding the debt? These are not abstract questions, they come from athletes who did everything asked of them and found the opportunity they were promised was not the opportunity they received. They are questions about recruitment transparency, athlete opportunity, and institutional accountability.
They raise serious questions about whether athletes and families receive material information necessary to make informed educational, financial, and athletic decisions. For Congress to legislate on protecting fair access to sport rosters, it should not solely focus on international limits, it should also legislate on recruiting transparency and to bar deceptive practices in recruiting. As an attorney who has spent time on exactly this kind of unfairness in college athletics, I urge the committee to look at pathway disruption more holistically, not just who is on the roster, but what colleges are required to disclose to recruited athletes before they commit. My written testimony lays out the full data, the legal question I believe deserves the committee's attention, and several concrete steps Congress can take beyond a cap alone. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
Burgess Owens
Thank you. Under committee rule nine, we'll now begin questioning witnesses under the five-minute rule. I'll recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. McEnroe, in your testimony you referenced college tennis as the canary in the coal mine for college athletics. What did you mean by that?
Patrick McEnroe
Well, what I meant is that tennis has the highest percentage number of international athletes, but we're starting to see this, as you've heard from the other witnesses here, this happened in other sports, because many people maybe would say, well, tennis is an international sport, tennis is for rich people, etcetera, etcetera.
That's not the case realistically, and it's also not the case in what we're seeing in the numbers in other sports as well. So that's why I said when I initially saw, I mean, I've obviously been experiencing this for years, knowing that international players are playing tennis in colleges. They played when I was playing in college. But the numbers have grown so exponentially that when I saw these matches going on in April on television, it just hit a chord with me. And I put a message out on my X account simply stating the facts of what I was seeing, and it blew up in a way that I really wasn't expecting because I think it hit a nerve not only with people in my sport in tennis, but with people like we're hearing from today and from other sports.
That's why it's a canary in the coal mine, because it's happening all across sports, all across America. And again, I welcome people from all over the world. That's what makes America great, especially in our university systems. But we've got a responsibility, I believe Congress has a responsibility to restore the balance here so that we have a balance of our kids having hope and opportunity. The last time I, people will say to me oftentimes, well, maybe American kids just need to get better.
They're not good enough, you know, they're not as good as international kids. I said, well, first of all, this is not professional sports. This is collegiate sports, and collegiate sports is supposed to be something that serves to educate our kids, make them become, how many leaders do we know in these walls that have played college sports, that have gone on to become significant business leaders and political leaders? So I believe that it's worth protecting and worth doing something that restores balance back so that we can have a mix of internationals, but also have our kids and the families of those kids still have that hope and dream of being more successful in life.
Burgess Owens
Thank you. Thanks so much. Mr. Brown, international athletes have played in American colleges for decades, yet the percentage of international students on American rosters has increased dramatically over the last 10 years. From your view, what accounts for this rapid shift?
Tommy Brown
Again, coaches just want to win. They want to be competitive, they don't want to be put at a disadvantage. From a basketball standpoint, there used to be the narrative that international athletes were a little soft, and that has changed. The development in European countries especially has grown and they're just much better players now. And so they've done an excellent job.
And I don't necessarily believe that international players used to be soft. I just think that they have really worked and developed at a higher rate than American athletes have. As far as other, every sport's different, obviously, and basketball's the one I really can speak to the most. But other institutions, I mean, American colleges typically if they feel they can find a competitive advantage, they're going to utilize it. Because I mean, coaches at all levels get fired, not just the Power Four.
And so coaches want to win to keep those jobs.
Burgess Owens
Okay, thank you. Mr. DePape, as you mentioned in your testimony, other countries and their athletic associations already put limits on international players. Why hasn't the NCAA done the same to protect opportunities for American student athletes?
Douglas DePippo
I think the missions are different. So overseas, the athletes tend to be pursuing a professional path, and college sports, I don't believe any university has a mission statement that includes athletics in it. You know, there's other objectives. But I think in terms of the NCAA's role in it, they're somewhat limited, I mean, certainly with all the litigation that's been occurring in the last couple of years. It would be a challenge for them to put a cap on without facing litigation most likely.
So I think from their standpoint, that's possibly, I can't speak for them, but possibly their judgment. Getting to the broader point though, I think that you're asking, certainly in soccer around the world, particularly in Europe, there are prescribed limits for non-EU citizens in most countries. Not universally true, there are some that are very open, but an awful lot of countries have caps far more restrictive than the 20% that's in the bill.
Okay, thank you. I definitely look forward to continuing this conversation. I would now like to recognize the ranking member for comments, questions.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you all for your testimony. Mr. Ment, I want to use my time to talk about what's happening to students and borrowers right now. Congress eliminated the Graduate PLUS program and created higher borrowing limits for certain professional degree programs, and the department then adopted a definition of professional degree that left a number of graduate programs outside of the higher loan limit. That definition is now tied up in court, and the department has had to issue temporary guidance telling schools which programs qualify while the cases move forward. So, Mr. Ment, for a student deciding right now whether they can afford nursing, education, social work, or another graduate program, what does this uncertainty actually mean?
And if the department ultimately prevails in its definition, if its definition takes effect, then what happens to students in programs that do not qualify for the higher loan limits? Are we pushing them more toward private loans or out of these professions altogether?
Aaron Ament
Thank you, Ranking Member Adams. In recent years, we've seen an explosion in graduate lending, particularly in the for-profit sector, seeing several for-profit schools exploiting unlimited lending, recruiting students from underserved communities, Black and Latino students, into many graduate programs with poor outcomes and bleak job prospects. And hopefully we'll see that practice curb down. At the same time, as you note, we're in the midst of an affordability crisis, and the administration has excluded many programs in fields like graduate nursing from the higher caps, you know, that I don't believe was the intent of Congress. And what happens is many people in these communities aren't going to be able to attend those programs.
I served for years as an assistant attorney general in Kentucky, and many of our rural communities, especially in the mountains in eastern Kentucky and Appalachia, have severe nursing shortages and shortages in other medical fields. And when those students that are attending, trying to attend those programs can't get access to the loans, they're either driven, one, to the private market with much worse repayment rates, exclusion from programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness, and many of them are going into public health or working at public hospitals.
Alma Adams
Okay, thank you. Let me have a few more questions. Let me make one broader point here. These are not abstract changes. So when Congress changes how much a student can borrow or the department changes which degree programs qualify, students have to make real decisions about whether they can afford to attend.
Let me talk a little bit about default. Your testimony says approximately 9 million borrowers with about 220 billion in federal student loans are already in default. And so I have some concerns, and have had some for a while. Congressman Raskin and I passed the department after borrowers had their tax refund seized, including reports from people who said they did not receive proper notice.
And so now we're dealing with this default crisis. What does this default crisis actually look like for borrowers sitting at their kitchen table trying to figure out what to do?
Aaron Ament
So there are currently nine million student loan borrowers that have been driven into default with the start of repayment. Estimates are that it could be as many as 13 million by the end of the year. What does that mean to people? Well, the Trump administration has announced that they will start involuntary collections again. So we're going to see seniors have potentially Social Security offset, tax refund seized, wages could be garnished.
For many of these Americans, potentially, you know, hundreds of thousands of people, that could be the difference between being driven into poverty or not.
Alma Adams
So what should the Department be doing to help people get out of default before it starts taking wages, tax refunds, or Social Security benefits?
Aaron Ament
Well, it's going to be difficult since, you know, they have fired more than half of the staff at Federal Student Aid, the very people that are attempting, you know, or supposed to be attempting to help people get back into repayment. But, you know, they could start by rehiring, by staffing up the ombudsman's office that has now been outsourced to half-functioning chatbots. And when borrowers are calling with questions of how can they, you know, transfer into an income-driven repayment plan, assist these borrowers in figuring out what payment plan can they afford, what monthly payment plan can they afford.
Alma Adams
Okay. So, you know, these are not just numbers in a federal loan portfolio. These are people trying to pay their rent, trying to buy groceries, raise their families, and still make good on their student loans. So I thank you very much for your testimony and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 13
Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize the chairman of the full committee, my good friend from Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
Tim Walberg
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the panel for being here. And Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, even though my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to compete on the same playing field that we're discussing today. And in fact, talking about things that are hangovers from the last administration that encouraged student loan debt that was impossible to pay off, and so the only way of dealing with it was to give them total forgiveness and let the taxpayer pay for it. No wonder we've got some of the problems.
But we're talking about something totally different here today, something that I think is very important. I didn't get the wrestling scholarship I wanted to the university that I wanted to go to. But it wasn't because of international students beating me out back in the sixties. Had it been, I could have at least griped about it at this point. But we're seeing it happen today.
So thank you for this hearing. The rise in international recruiting is taking away important opportunities for American kids to earn an education playing the sport they love. American families devote years of time and energy to youth and high school sports, hoping that work turns into a scholarship. Too often, that roster spot goes to an older international athlete, and the American student is left to pay for the school on his or her own, if they can get in. That's hard to justify at American universities.
This week, Senator Huested and I introduced Training and Education for American Members in University Sports and Athletics Act, or TEAM USA Act. Our bill is simple. It limits international students to 20% of each team's roster at any university that receives federal student aid under the Higher Education Act. This ensures that taxpayer-funded schools put opportunities for American kids first, protect Team USA, and still leaves room for meaningful international participation.
With that being said, we have a star-studded witness panel today, so I'm excited to hear what they would say. Mr. McEnroe, thanks for leaving the court and coming to this court.
Thank you.
Tim Walberg
The picture you laid out in your testimony should concern all of us. From your perspective, how did tennis get this lopsided?
Patrick McEnroe
Well, I think we've laid it out, and thank you for all the work you and I know your team have done on this. You know, tennis is a very international sport, period. It's played globally, it's extremely popular in Europe, as we heard from, you know, soccer and now basketball. And I think because of coaches, many of whom I know, by the way, because I grew up with them, I played tennis with them, and in no way am I putting any blame on the coaches. As Tommy said, the coaches want to win, and so they're looking to get the best players they can.
You know, the national championships, I don't know if you know this, representative, for the best junior tennis players, boys' tennis players, is played in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where I've been many times. I played 16-and-under and 18-and-under. And you know what all the people tell me now who go to this tournament, the parents, the coaches from our tennis academy? They say the top coaches in the country, collegiate coaches, are not even going there anymore to recruit players. They're going, they're just picking off international players that are two, three, four years older than when I was when I played in Kalamazoo and lost to a guy from Michigan named Aaron Krickstein, you may remember him, in the final.
So I have great memories of going there. So do all junior tennis players. All the greats have gone to Kalamazoo. And now when I hear that the college coaches are not even going there, this was the place where everyone went to find those Americans, and not just the ones that could possibly be pros, but the ones that could be in the lineup at Division I schools and be part of the team. They're looking for kids with attitude, with the right demeanor on the court, to represent their university.
So I think that many of the coaches have done this because it's the easy thing to do and because the rules have allowed them to do it. When I see a roster of kids on the male or female team in college and the average age is 23, 24, and none of them are American, to me the common sense of that just says something's wrong here. It's gone off the rails, and we need to put some guardrails back in place, we need to restore balance.
Tim Walberg
That ought to wake us up, absolutely. Thank you. Mr. Brown, you mentioned in testimony that this is not only a Division I issue. Why is it happening in smaller schools too?
Tommy Brown
Again, small college coaches have to win to keep their jobs, and to be competitive, they're going to do whatever they can to, they don't want to be held to a competitive disadvantage. And so basically it comes down to winning.
Tim Walberg
Thank you. Mr. DePipp, do you trust schools to regulate themselves on this issue, or does Congress have to set the guardrails?
Douglas DePippo
I think as the other testimony indicated, there's a real competition, necessary competition, and so it's a race to the bottom in the sense that if you can get a competitive advantage by recruiting an older athlete, and certainly in soccer and as Mr. McEnroe indicated the same applies to tennis and most likely other sports, you get a competitive advantage. So the universities, the athletic department, the coaches, if they can get an advantage by recruiting an older athlete, which tends to be international generally speaking, or the transfer portal now, they're going to pursue that. So can you trust the universities? If trust is, are they going to give an opportunity to an 18-year-old high school athlete versus a 21- or 22-year-old more mature athlete, they're going to select the latter.
Yeah, I think the answer is probably what it is. So my time has expired. I yield back.
Adelita Grijalva
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here. I know that it is a sacrifice to come here and today is an especially busy day, so I appreciate your time. Today, you know, we're having a hearing and committee Republicans allege that international student athletes are taking educational and athletic opportunities away from American students, even though foreign athletes account for a small percentage of the NCAA student athletes. In Southern Arizona and across my district, working-class families and students are struggling, not they're not struggling because international student plays tennis or soccer.
They're struggling because of an affordability crisis. Over the last 20 years, the average cost of college tuition and fees has increased by about 50%. Pell Grants cover only the smallest share of college costs for those with the greatest financial need, while nearly 60% of college students experience basic needs insecurity regarding food and housing. We recently had a hearing about capping the possible loans that a student can receive in order to go into their chosen profession. So rather than delivering relief, what we're doing here is talking about what we've what we've done in this committee and in this administration is push policies that make higher education harder to afford, declaring minority-serving institutions unconstitutional and stripping funding from Arizona's HSI, gutting SNAP and Medicaid benefits that students rely on and enacting HR 1 to replace manageable loan options with the RAP plan, eliminating zero-dollar payments and raising monthly bills.
Meanwhile, this committee fails to conduct basic oversight on the department's reckless cutting of FSA staff, haphazard transfer of defaulted student loan collections and Treasury under an inefficient interagency agreement and the quiet erasing of earned PSLF credits from public servants due to internal system errors. We should be using our authority to lower costs and protect student borrowers, not chase manufactured distractions. And to address, you know, critical oversight failures, I think that the issue really is that we have to frame this conversation that international students bring their talents, their sports, academic, etc., not that they're taking opportunities away from American students. So I have questions really about the affordability crisis that we have for students, including my daughter, who is a sophomore at the University of Arizona. The Department of Education has recently removed Public Service Loan Forgiveness qualifying payments credits from borrowers with little communication to borrowers or stakeholders on exactly what coding error or how borrowers can appeal this decision.
Mr. Arment, I'm wondering if you can address the potential impact of those payment count errors on borrowers, especially those that believe they were close to earning forgiveness.
Aaron Ament
Thank you, Congresswoman Grijalva. I think with Public Service Loan Forgiveness, it's it's really important to remember the government has made a promise to millions of nurses, firefighters, teachers, first responders that if they served and served the government for 10 years, that we would give back to them. And we are hearing stories from countless student loan borrowers now who are logging in and seeing their payments reduced with little to no explanation whatsoever from Federal Student Aid. They are calling FSA and not getting a response. They call their servicer and they're on hold for two hours.
They get nowhere with the ombudsman's office. So they are being failed at every turn. And for many of them, they are trapped in trying to figure out what to do.
Some of them are giving up opportunities, staying in jobs, and they're continuing to pay when their loans should be discharged. And you know, for many of them, in the midst of an affordability crisis, that's the difference between, you know, purchasing food or medicine for their daily lives.
Raúl Grijalva
Yeah. I continue to be very concerned about this administration's attack on our immigrant community. This sort of feeds into, I think, the idea that someone is taking away opportunities, when really who's taking away opportunities for our American students is this administration. What action can Congress take to encourage greater transparency and accountability from the department on PSLF, the PSLF program?
Aaron Ament
So there are currently, as of the latest data from Federal Student Aid, more than 60,000 individuals have submitted applications for PSLF buyback to purchase some credits and get their loans discharged. I believe there's, the last data as of April 30th, there were over 211,000 pending applications for borrowers waiting to get loans discharged. I think this Congress could really demand answers from FSA, how are they properly staffing and, you know, processing and assisting borrowers in getting these loan discharges that they have earned.
I'd like to now recognize my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Harris. Thank you.
Andy Harris
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all of you of the panel for your expertise and what you're sharing with us today. We all know for generations college athletics has given American students an opportunity to pursue an education while competing at the next level. And today, as we're hearing in this important time, international athletes make up a growing share of college rosters, particularly in Olympic and non-revenue sports. Mr. McEnroe, you've devoted a large portion of your life to tennis, from college athletics to USTA and now broadcasting. You've talked a little bit about the significance and the growth of international athletes competing in college tennis.
But I want to ask you, do you think most Americans realize just how many international athletes participate in college athletics today, particularly in Olympic and non-revenue sports?
Patrick McEnroe
I do not. And thanks for your question and your interest in this topic. And that's what really surprised me when I put my message out on my X, you know, a few months ago, when I saw the reaction it got. That inspired me to write my op-ed that I did for the Wall Street Journal, something I'd never done before, because I saw the need to kind of get this out there. I mean, we in our little bubble world of tennis, you know, knew about this, but even I was surprised when I really sat down and looked at the numbers.
And it wasn't just in the big power conferences, it was across the board, as we've heard some other, the other people here up here with me. So I think it was necessary to put this out there to find out if Americans actually think this is okay, that American taxpaying dollars are going into universities and in some ways supporting, and again, I am completely for international athletes participating in college sports. It's very important. I have friends that I've made for years playing tennis. But when I hear from parents, as I do often, particularly when I put myself out on this topic, essentially thanking me for getting involved because they feel like they haven't been heard and they feel like their kids are losing a dream.
And they're losing something that, again, it's not about being a professional. It's about continuing to be on a path. Sports teaches us a lot of great lessons in life about, you know, discipline, dealing with adversity. You know, as a tennis player, I lost pretty much every tournament I played in, but I had to get back up and try to improve and do things to make me a better tennis player, but a better person.
So this isn't just about tennis, it's not even about sports. It's about helping our youth still have a dream and still have the facility to use a sport to help them get an education and improve their lives.
Speaker 17
Well, and we know that college rosters have a finite number of spots. And the question we need to ask ourselves is what the growth in international recruiting means for American athletes who are trying to use college athletics to continue their education and athletic development. And Mr. Brown, when we talk about this, really and truly, the growth of international participation has occurred alongside major changes in college athletics landscape. Recruiting's become more global, international pathways into college sports have expanded, and schools now have greater access to athletes around the world. My colleague asked a question earlier that you gave an answer to, like what do you consider the primary factors that have driven this growth in international recruiting in college athletics?
But I want to be a little more specific. How has the emergence of these international recruiting companies changed the way college coaches identify and recruit athletes?
Tommy Brown
Thank you for the question. And I would add too, the fifth year is a game changer as well. We have added another year of eligibility for all athletes, and so that cuts down these roster spots as you were speaking about. In regards to international recruiting agencies, every sport's different, but they are becoming more and more sophisticated, and with technology and the progress there, the evaluation tools are getting better and better. And so that is certainly helping international athletes get to the States and get these college scholarships as well.
Speaker 17
So when a company makes it easier for a school to identify, recruit, and bring in an international athlete, what effect does that have on the incentive for coaches to recruit American athletes?
Tommy Brown
And the American athletes are losing hope as well, like Patrick talked about that hope. Again, there is the only incentive for recruiting an American high school athlete is, from an NIL perspective, they will cost less money. That is the only advantage.
Speaker 20
Well, I'm grateful for Congressman Walberg's bill. I think bringing balance is going to be absolutely crucial, and I appreciate all of what you all are sharing here today. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my friend from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
So this is our final hearing before we recess for seven weeks, and there's so many issues and challenges that are facing higher education, workforce development. So today the Republican majority has chosen to talk about international student participation in college sports. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and thank you to the witnesses. You know, of course this sort of villainization of international students comes at a time when the Trump administration is already engaged in some pretty aggressive and illegal immigration enforcement that's terrorizing immigrant communities, including on college campuses. Interestingly, and maybe coincidentally, I just came from a hearing in the Science Committee where we're, we listened to an expert talk about how we're losing expertise in the bioscience field because international students are afraid to come here to enroll or to go to conferences.
This is, this is not what we need to be talking about today. I fail to see how or why this issue is a priority. I don't think I've received a single call about it from a constituent when there are real issues. I'll tell you what my constituents are concerned about: how much everything costs, and that includes higher education. So here's an issue: with the SAVE plan officially ending, millions of student loan borrowers are being moved into other repayment plans.
Many borrowers are now contacting their servicers or trying to contact their servicers to figure out what their new payment is.
They're trying to do what's best for their financial situation. We should be making on working on making higher education more affordable is what we should be doing. But Mr. Amut, why should the Department of Education, excuse me, what should the Department of Education or what's left of it be doing to provide borrowers with accurate information from servicers as they navigate this complicated transition?
Aaron Ament
Thank you, Congresswoman Bonamici. As you noted, the SAVE plan is ending and there are seven million borrowers on the SAVE plan. The Department of Education has through servicers started sending out notifications in waves to students that they need to transfer. Unfortunately, the default is that these students will be transferred into what they call the new tiered standard plan. Many borrowers are going to see their payments go up three, four, five times as much, even if they're able to transfer into the new RAP plan.
Borrowers that we talk to are calling with questions as to try to figure out what payment plan will be most affordable for them. They're not able to get answers. And I think, you know, ramping up outreach at this time is really critical.
Suzanne Bonamici
They're calling us too. I didn't, like I said, I didn't get a single call about whether there should be more or less international students on a sports team. But borrowers who were enrolled in the SAVE plan, which was an affordable income-driven repayment plan, many are being forced into the RAP, the Repayment Assistance Plan, which has some of the highest monthly payments. So a constituent recently contacted my office. So here's the situation.
His wife's plan went from approximately four hundred fifty dollars a month. Think about how much everything already costs. Now their payment is twenty-four hundred dollars a month. That's more than a five-time five percent times increase in their monthly payment. And they're begging us, please do something.
They said they, you know, they live frugally, they're careful with what they do, but they're close to they're already close to living paycheck to paycheck. And he said, this will put us on the other side of that. I have no idea what we will do. That's the story I'm hearing again and again. I talk to parents who are now have college-age kids.
The parents are still paying off their student loans. We must do something about the existing student loan debt and in the long term make college for those who choose that path debt-free. So Mr. Amut, what are some of the potential challenges borrowers are going to face in new plans like the Repayment Assistance Plan?
Aaron Ament
So, you know, our organization primarily works with students from low-income backgrounds. Single mothers, Black and Latino students, veterans. And many of them, for many of them, they're making decisions for seniors whether to ration their medicine or make their student loan payments. For single mothers, whether to buy enough groceries or make their student loan payments. At this time, I think it is critical for FSA to properly staff and ramp up resources for servicers to work with borrowers to see which of the existing repayment options or the RAP plan is the most affordable for students as they're, you know, seven million borrowers have been in purgatory for two years now with the SAVE plan.
The last year, interest has been accruing. And their balances are going up and now they're going to be hit with monthly payments that for many of them they won't be able to afford.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you. And you mentioned the low-income families. They're already struggling. What we should be doing here today, Mr. Chairman, is we should be at at the very least lowering or eliminating interest payments so that people can at least get ahead. I talk to people who have paid on their loans for years and they still owe more than they borrowed.
It's outrageous. That's what we should be talking about today. I yield back. Thank you.
James Moylan
Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my friend from Guam, Mr. Moylan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our panel. Mr. Brown, college athletics serves as an important pipeline for Team USA.
But they also serve as opportunities for Americans from territories, such as Guam, to participate in national-level sports and bring that talent back home. In turn, that talent is showcased across the globe, including at the Olympic level. In your research, what trends are you seeing that international athletes in the NCAA are limiting recruitment from historically underrepresented areas like the territories?
Tommy Brown
Thank you for your question. I think some of the comments that have been made by both sides, I think we're missing that these scholarship opportunities that we're losing are going to be for low-income families. I think we're missing that, and minorities. And you look at soccer and you think of the importance it is to the American Latino population. Those, they are losing opportunities for these scholarships that are going to international players.
I work with a lot of HBCUs and I walk away from those clinics that I do with them just so optimistic about where our world's going and where our country's going. And international athletes are also taking many of those scholarships as well from our HBCUs. So, absolutely. You know, I know a friend of mine actually coached in Guam and enjoyed his experience there, his basketball experience. So, Olympic sports too.
What is an Olympic sport? I mean, we have men's basketball, we have women's basketball in the Olympics. I assume when people refer to Olympic sports, we're referring to where the Olympics is the main goal of that sport, so track and field or gymnastics, I guess. So, certainly those sports are being affected as well. And we are training those athletes with quality coaches here in the United States to represent other countries, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
So, but thank you for your question.
James Moylan
Thank you very much, sir. Mr. DePape, my office has heard some concerns raised with the percentage-based cap, specifically how this might impact smaller teams, less than ten people. How might we be able to work around those issues to ensure that US nationals and legal permanent residents are given their fair chance to play while still allowing international talent to help develop teams?
Douglas DePippo
For smaller teams, my understanding in the bill is that there will be, you know, if it falls below, there'll be at least one spot for very, very small teams. One thing though that I've noticed in my research is that there was a comment earlier about roster spots are finite. From my research, what's true is that positions in competition may be finite, but roster, like in soccer, there are rosters at some schools that are more than fifty. And the realistic opportunity to compete on a roster that size, there's other reasons for having a roster of that magnitude. And part of what I believe Congress should be looking at with respect to rosters is not just the cap, but the overall transparency and recruiting practices for collegiate sport.
James Moylan
Thank you. We have about one minute left. Mr. McEnroe, can you just elaborate on how creating a cap would lead more opportunities to athletes like Guam, for example, and other US territories?
Patrick McEnroe
First of all, I'd like to just follow up quickly on the Olympic issue. That in the Paris Olympics, the last Olympic summer games 2024, there were over more than 1200 NCAA athletes that participated. Over 800 of them were not Americans. Okay, and then went back and so again, we're training them to then go back and participate in the Olympic Games. So it'd be interesting to see what happens in 2028 in LA if that, you know, continues to go in that direction.
As far as the number itself, that's not for me to decide. That's for I think you in Congress to decide what's the fairest number that exists. Am I still on? Okay. What's the fairest number that exists?
And I think obviously there can be some some discussion about that, but that seems to me to be a number that's that's fair. That that gives the opportunity for internationals to go into that sport. Obviously there's some some sports that have carry a lot more athletes than tennis per se, which is normally 10 to 12, but that that I think is changeable depending on the rules that are set forth not only by Congress, but then by the NCAA.
Thank you very much. Thank you to the panel. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Chairman Walberg for this measure. Thank you so much.
Kevin Kiley
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just want to make clear a distinction that I think is really important, which is that I think international students add a lot to colleges and universities in in this country. I mean, number one, they enrich the experience of other students, provide different perspectives, and are an important part of university life at many campuses across the country. And in addition to that, it's a tremendous asset for the United States that despite many problems that our universities have, they nevertheless remain places that are world-leading institutions that folks from all across the country want to want to come to and we and that serves as an important instrument for building relationships across borders with tremendous benefits economically and otherwise. So all those are very good things.
So it is pretty disturbing to me to see that this has been co-opted for purposes of athletic recruitment in sort of another step towards the professionalization of of intercollegiate athletics. And so I just want to make that very clear that this is I don't think the purpose of this hearing is at all to question the place of of international students at many of our universities. It's to say that that athletic recruitment shouldn't be the basis upon which those spots are are are taken. So I think that the basic premise of this hearing is is a good one. That it's a bad thing for university culture when we have this sort of now, you know, international recruitment operation, cottage industry that is that has sprung up.
And it does indeed limit opportunities for student athletes in the United States as well. So I'm glad the committee has brought some attention to this issue. But I'd open it up for anyone on the panel who wants to address that that distinction. You know, that we have that there is a place for international students at our universities, and I've been critical of some attempts that I think are overreaching in terms of of imposing restrictions there, but we do want to protect the character of of college sports as well.
Douglas DePippo
I can make a comment. Mr. McLain, what I think the role, there's an issue of the role of Congress, some of the questions were what's the proper role of Congress, and my remarks in that regard are the world-class facilities, education facilities that you speak of are indeed that. And they became such from a lot of of funding, much of it federal, but also from American taxpaying families. And in terms of the international presence on campus, absolutely helpful for the culture. We're testifying about reestablishing some balance for rosters to ensure that American families and American players have proper pathways.
I would just add one observation as a coach and observing athletes in the soccer environment on soccer rosters. To be successful, team chemistry and character are essential. And when you start to have friction because of these underlying ecosystem and business practices that are occurring, that disrupts the team, the performance, the competitiveness. And so it's that, and it's because in some cases there're just way too many internationals on a roster. I mentioned my statistics showing in certain categories over 50% of the team is international.
So it's it's a great thing to have that intercultural relationship and different nationalities, but when it starts to deprive Americans of a pathway into institutions that Americans built, I think that's problematic and we're just we're just testifying about restoring balance.
Patrick McEnroe
Just one quick comment from me and I appreciate everything you said. There's nothing you said that I don't agree with, but I'm not here to pretend there's one perfect number, right? If you're talking about the number, I'm here because I think the current trajectory that we're on is unsustainable. Congress can debate exactly where the line should be drawn. My principle is pretty simple: international athletes should remain a part of American college sports, but American universities need to preserve a meaningful pathway for American athletes and kids.
Yeah, I think that makes perfect sense. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Thank you. I'd now like to recognize my friend from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Emmett, we've heard that it's important for high school students to know that they have these opportunities and have a strategy of participating in sports so they can get these college scholarships. What portion of high school athletes actually will get a scholarship to play college sports?
Aaron Ament
Thank you, Congressman Scott. I believe less than 1% of our college students are scholarship athletes.
Robert Scott
Well, so if someone's applying to trying to figure out how to get into college, it seems to me that focusing on academics is a better strategy than playing trying to play sports to get a scholarship because so few actually get it. Now, of all the millions of students at NCAA participating schools, I understand that about 500,000 are athletes and 25,000 of those are international. Is that right, about right?
I believe so, yes.
Robert Scott
Now, we have a tendency around here to state a problem, then state a solution without ever saying how the solution solves the problem. If you got rid of all the international students, would that make a significant difference in the number of scholarship opportunities for high school students trying to get in?
Aaron Ament
I think when you're looking at the large picture of our entire college student population, as you note, it's not a significant percentage overall.
Robert Scott
Now, the gentleman from California mentioned how the international students enrich the educational experience for all students just having them on campus. Do you agree with that?
Robert Scott
Again, stating a problem and stating a solution. I think you mentioned that there are nine million students who are in default, may go up to thirteen million. If we got rid of all international students, how would that solve that problem?
Aaron Ament
Congressman Scott, I think you're hitting on a really important point. I mean, we're in the midst of a student loan crisis in this country, and this issue wouldn't do anything to the what could be thirteen million students who are soon to face default and the severe consequences of that.
Robert Scott
Now, you were at the Department of Education dealing with loss of opportunity. Can you describe the loss of educational opportunity because of low-quality schools defrauding their students?
Aaron Ament
Certainly. So, our for-profit institutions make up a vastly disproportionate number of students who go into default. And these are students often attending institutions with extremely low graduation rates, very low job prospects and job placement rates. So students who are already, you know, trying to enter a workforce without a credential or degree and little prospect of being able to pay back their loans. At the time, I think it's important to note, you know, the rifts at FSA have depleted the offices overseeing these institutions.
So thirty-two of the seventy-two sub-offices at FSA have no staff left. This includes the very offices that oversee for-profit institutions, school eligibility service group, the office that oversees certification and financial analysis of all of these schools, including the for-profit institutions. The office that oversees our loan servicers has been almost completely depleted. OIG found, I believe in February 2025, that FSA stopped measuring their servicers based on accuracy and call quality altogether. So it's not just, you know, our students entering these for-profit institutions, but even when they're going into repayment and struggling with their servicer, there's now almost no oversight of that process either.
Robert Scott
And how would limiting international student athletes deal with that problem?
I don't think it would.
Robert Scott
And on the big ugly bill, there were limited opportunities. I think you've commented on that. Would limiting international students fix the limited opportunities that were created in last year's big ugly bill?
Robert Scott
Mr. Chairman, this is our last hearing before we go into long recess. We ought to be talking about increasing affordability at colleges and staffing the federal student assistance program so that people can get straight answers when they have questions about their student loans.
I'd hope we'd be focused on that rather than a situation that doesn't amount to much in terms of solving the real problems that students have. I yield back.
Burgess Owens
Thank you. We will now move to closing remarks. I'd like to recognize Dr. Adams for her closing remarks.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you once again to our witnesses for joining us today. Americans are fighting to pay their bills, fill their gas tank, and put food on the table in an economy that puts billionaires first and hardworking families last. We should be focused on making it easier for workers to get better jobs and earn higher wages to support their families, and registered apprenticeships are one of the best tools to make that a reality. I recall visiting Arkansas Baptist College, and they termed it as skills to pay the bills. Subcommittee Democrats and I welcome any bipartisan support for registered apprenticeships, but talk is cheap, and we believe any positive comments must be backed up with concrete action to invest in workforce development and create high-quality apprenticeships.
And finally, I want to touch on a point that's been raised during the hearing. At the end of the hearing, at the end of the day, of course, a strong academic environment depends on a safe learning environment and equal access to opportunity. Undermining either would weaken the entire system. The college cost crisis will require long-term dedicated investments to solve, and Democrats are committed to putting in the work to achieve an outcome that works for all students, not just the wealthy few. So when we come back from the recess in November, I hope that we can have productive conversations that lead to real solutions to the cost of college instead of blaming an already embattled population for decades-long, enormously complicated problems.
And I have an article that I want to submit for the record, which discusses the students defrauded by colleges and not the repayment pause as we heard from earlier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vital career tracks such as nursing continue to face issues with retention, and workforce training is necessary but not sufficient to solve the root problem. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Burgess Owens
Thank you. And let me just start off by saying thank you again to the chairman for his Team USA Act. Thank you to RJ and Eli. This is one of the more important conversations we can have, friends. We're talking about the culture of our country, and it's always been based on grit, character, tenacity, dreams, things that we learn in sports.
It's always been there. The fact that we're having this conversation decades after I played and many of you have, the reason we're sitting where we are now is because of sports. You're looking at a very shy, introverted person when I was a high school kid. Only through sports did I learn that I could maybe do something like this. Our sports are being attacked in so many different ways.
Earlier during this year, we had another hearing dealing with club sports. Realize the ecosystem there is becoming too expensive for parents that are not wealthy, not middle class, to participate. We're now talking about a process here in which minorities are getting hit big time. Kids that want to have a dream, kids that want to build and get to the middle class, they want to experience appreciation of hard work, and they realize early in their process it's not going to happen. I mean, they're bringing kids from around the world that are older, more ready for this process.
So we're dealing with right now this conversation as we have been all year, and I'm thankful for this side of the aisle that's really getting this.
We want to get and hold on to our American culture. We can only do that by giving our kids a great opportunity, a platform to stand from, to build from. And everyone in here who's ever dealt with sports, I look at my friend at the end of the aisle, we talked about wrestling because that was not professional that the chairman got to, but he learned so much through wrestling that it gave him this life experience like many of us have. So we have to make sure we're fighting for this. We cannot depend on the NCAA.
Those guys have messed up as much as I can think, I mean, we've got to figure this out because they're not going to. And I get it with our coaches, the American way is about winning. So coaches are kind of caught in this place where we want to win, I want to keep my job, I love what I'm doing, but if we don't have these parameters in which we keep things fair, then we're going to continue to go in the direction we are right now. So I also want to thank you for bringing up the roster conversation, I had not thought about that. But when it comes down to institutions focusing on their profits and having a roster of kids who will never ever play, the kids never get the opportunity to experience their dreams and go out there and make things happen.
That's another part of this process we have to think about. So I just want to thank you enough, I can't thank you enough for this committee for the work they've done to put this together. It's a great way to kind of finish this conversation off at this time of the year and hopefully we'll address this so we can make sure our kids have a great opportunity. And I will say this, we need to address it all the way down to our sixth, seventh, eighth grade kids that are competing and not let the venture capitalists take over that ecosystem. We cannot do it.
In their mind is profit, in our mind is patriotism, it's our kids growing and moving forward. So I want to thank you for your time, this remarkable hearing. I'd like to thank our witness for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee today. Without objection, there being no further business, the subcommittee now stands adjourned.