Federal and Florida Whistleblower Protections
Federal law currently provides two civil rights statutes with protections that are applicable to student-athletes: Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments and, in limited cases, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. It currently provides the principal protection for student-athletes, particularly women, against discrimination in areas such as athletic participation, facilities, and access to resources.
Title VII, in contrast, is a workplace statute that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Unlike Title IX, it applies only to employees, not students. Therefore, university student-athletes—who are not presently considered employees—cannot yet claim Title VII protection. However, if they were to be classified as employees in the future, they would gain access to Title VII’s broader anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation safeguards.
Importantly, Title VII and Title IX differ in their legislative purposes. Title VII was enacted with a comprehensive compensatory and remedial aim—it includes detailed procedures for filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and allows for damages and attorney’s fees. Title IX, by contrast, was created to prevent the federal funding of discriminatory practices and was historically enforced through administrative remedies. Although both now support private rights of action, Title VII’s litigation framework offers a more robust enforcement mechanism for employees.
In short, the main difference lies in who qualifies for protection and the mechanisms available for redress. While student-athletes today rely on Title IX, reclassification as employees would open the door to the stronger workplace protections of Title VII.
Florida’s Whistle-blower’s Act, Florida Statute § 112.3187, extends whistleblower protections to public employees who report legal violations, gross mismanagement, or other abuses by state agencies—including public universities. Unlike Title VII, the Whistle-blower’s Act is designed specifically to protect those who challenge misconduct within government institutions, and it could serve as a valuable statutory remedy—if athletes are deemed employees under Florida law (which they are currently not).
Why Employment Classification Matters
The NCAA curated the term “student-athletes” in the 1950s as a legal strategy to protect colleges from liability and workers’ compensation claims by athletes. The term categorizes students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, specifically at the amateur level, emphasizing the primary role of this specific group being academic not professional. Courts have historically upheld this interpretation, ultimately reinforcing the notion that student-athletes are students first and competitors second.
Employee classification is the ultimate turning point for student athletes to get whistleblower protection on the national and state level. Recognition as an “employee” triggers eligibility for federal protections under Title VII and for whistleblower protection under Florida law, as discussed above. It unlocks the full toolbox of workplace rights: wage claims, anti-retaliation claims, collective bargaining, and the ability to report internal misconduct without fear of reprisal.
For student-athletes at public universities, being classified as employees would mean they are no longer passive beneficiaries of institutional generosity, but active economic participants entitled to legal recourse when that relationship is abused. Without this classification, athletes must rely on the more limited and education-focused protections of Title IX.
Case Law Leading to the House Decision: From Ohr to Alston
Momentum for reclassifying athletes as employees began with NLRB Region 13 Director Peter Sung Ohr’s 2014 decision regarding Northwestern University’s football team. Northwestern is a private institution, meaning the ruling only applied under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which governs private-sector employment. Ohr found that the football players performed services for compensation (in the form of scholarships), were subject to the University’s control, and were economically dependent on the school—satisfying the common-law definition of employment. While the NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction, citing instability in asserting authority over a single private school in a system dominated by public institutions, Ohr’s reasoning was left undisturbed and has heavily influenced the legal dialogue surrounding student-athlete employee status since.
The United States Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston eroded the NCAA’s long-standing reliance on amateurism as a defense to compensation-related legal challenges. The Court unanimously held that NCAA limits on education-related benefits violated federal antitrust law. Justice Kavanaugh, in a widely cited concurrence, went further—explicitly stating that the NCAA is not above the law and suggested that its compensation restrictions were likely illegal under other antitrust theories. This marked a decisive turn away from the deference courts had long granted to amateurism and signaled a willingness to scrutinize NCAA policies under traditional labor and competition frameworks.
In 2021, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo reinforcing that universities should recognize student-athletes as employees. Then in 2024, NLRB Region 1 Director Laura Sacks allowed Dartmouth’s men’s basketball team to hold a union election, directly rejecting the notion that “student-athlete” status precludes employment.
Beyond litigation, the question of student-athletes as employees has gained attention from other fronts. United States Representative Bob Good introduced H.R. 8534, otherwise known as the “Protecting Student Athletes’ Economic Freedom Act,” which seeks to prohibit a student-athlete from being considered an employee of an institution, a conference, or an association based on participation in certain intercollegiate athletics.
The NCAA has stated that while it wants to help member institutions direct more financial benefits to athletes, it nonetheless believes employee status could “harm their experiences and needlessly cost countless student-athletes opportunities in women’s sports, Olympic sports, and sports at the HBCU (historically Black colleges and universities) and Division II and Division III levels”. However, each of these developments chipped away at the NCAA’s traditional defenses and the House settlement suggests this ship has already set sail.
The House Settlement: Compensation and Complication
The June 6, 2025, House v. NCAA settlement marked a seismic shift in the college athletics world. For the first time, universities can directly compensate student-athletes through revenue-sharing agreements. This is set to start in the 2025-2026 year at up to $20.5 million annually. While NIL opportunities allow athletes to earn from third parties, the House settlement makes schools themselves able to pay players, which is a hallmark of employment.
This change reframes the athlete-university relationship. Compensation is now contractual, structured, and institutionalized. Under Florida’s Whistle-blower’s Act, this may now be enough to meet the statutory definition of employment: services performed under university control, for money.
Pending Case Focused on Employee Classification
Despite growing compensation and institutional integration, college athletes currently lack official whistleblower protection. Title IX fails to adequately shield athletes from peer retaliation—especially common in hazing, harassment, and abuse cases—while Title VII remains inaccessible without employee classification.
This absence of protection is why the Johnson v. NCAA case is so pivotal. The central question of Johnson, is if college athletes are employees of the NCAA and its member institutions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case dates back to 2019, where several Division I athletes argued that they should be paid minimum wage for their athletic participation and damages because the NCAA and its members have profited at their expense. The NCAA argued that athletes are amateurs and thus not employees.
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that college athletes have the right to sue under the FLSA, which governs wages and work hours, and remanded the Johnson case for application of an economic realities analysis grounded in common-law agency principles. Under this framework, the Third Circuit held that college athletes might be employees if they (1) perform services for another party, (2) primarily for that party’s benefit, (3) under that party’s control, and (4) in return for compensation or in-kind benefits. The court also rejected the argument that amateurism alone could bar FLSA claims.
The outcome on remand, which will consider developments like the House settlement, is pivotal. Should plaintiffs prevail, the NCAA and colleges could face millions in foregone wages, potentially paving the way for permanent employee status among student-athletes.
Whistleblower Protections May Ultimately Not Be Sufficient
However, even if student-athletes are ultimately classified as employees and thereby gain access to Title VII protections, a large gap in retaliation protection remains: peer-to-peer retaliation. Section 704(a) of Title VII codifies anti-retaliation protections, granting employees two key rights: the opposition clause, which protects those who oppose unlawful practices, and the participation clause, which protects those involved in investigations or complaints. To succeed in a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show engagement in protected activity, a materially adverse action by the employer, and a causal connection between the two.
In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, the Supreme Court clarified that an adverse action is material if it would dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity. Yet, many informal but chilling forms of peer retaliation, such as social ostracism, rumor-spreading, or implicit threats of violence, often fail to meet this threshold under Title VII and Title IX protections.
This “blind spot” is particularly pronounced in college athletics, where a pervasive “code of silence” and power dynamics among athletes, captains, and coaching staff create substantial disincentives to reporting misconduct. Studies reveal 80% of NCAA athletes experience hazing, but fewer than 15% report it, often fearing peer retaliation that could derail their athletic careers or force them to leave their programs.
In this context, even full employee status, while a step in the right direction for whistleblower protections, would not automatically fill the legal void unless courts or legislatures act to interpret adverse actions more broadly or create other mechanisms to address peer-level retaliation. Until then, whistleblower protections for student-athletes will remain incomplete, even in the face of rising recognition of their labor rights through employee classification.
Legal and Financial Implications of Classifying Student-Athletes as Employees
The economic burden on universities with athletes classified as employees would be considerable. Beyond reallocating scholarship funds, colleges would incur additional costs for benefits like health insurance, workers’ compensation, and unemployment benefits. This would particularly strain schools with smaller budgets or non-revenue sports programs, as only a small percentage of Division I athletic programs (25 out of 350) actually turn a profit. Consequently, employment status could lead to cuts in funding for non-revenue sports or increased tuition to cover these expenses.
Classifying athletes as employees would fundamentally alter their relationship with universities. Employment law requires contractual obligations, potentially leading to stricter performance requirements and reduced academic flexibility. Schools might gain the ability to terminate an athlete’s “employment” due to injury or poor performance, which could contradict Title IX protections and limit athletes’ access to education.
A ruling classifying student-athletes as employees would also affect non-athlete students. Universities would need to fund athlete salaries and benefits, likely leading to tuition increases or cuts to academic resources. Most athletic departments already operate at a deficit, making it improbable that employment status could be sustained without increasing student-loan debt and reducing higher education accessibility for non-athletes.
Conclusion: The Direction of the Game
The combination of NLRB precedent, judicial skepticism toward amateurism, and the university direct-pay structure now established through House, has narrowed the gap between “student-athlete” and “employee.” While whistleblower protections remain out of reach for now, the Johnson case may soon provide the judicial clarity needed to extend state and federal employee protections.
In Florida, that shift could bring public university athletes under the umbrella of Florida Statute § 112.3187, empowering them to safely report misconduct and demand institutional accountability. The field is tilting toward employee classification. The law just needs to catch up with the playbook.
If you would like to learn more about the whistleblower Protections in your company in Florida, do not hesitate to contact one of our experienced business attorneys at EPGD Business Law. With offices in Miami, Florida, we are ready to assist you. Call us at (786) 837-6787 or email us to schedule a consultation.
