Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)
Correcting Opportunity and Accountability in Collegiate Hiring Act (COACH Act)
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Correcting Opportunity and Accountability in Collegiate Hiring Act or COACH Act. It amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to place limits on compensation and buyouts for athletic department employees at colleges that participate in Federal student aid programs. The total annual compensation for any athletics department employee cannot be more than 10 times the institution's tuition and required fees for a full-time undergraduate student. Buyouts and separation payments count toward this compensation limit in the year they are paid. The bill also includes rules for compliance certifications, public disclosures, and transitions for existing contracts. Finally, it provides a liability limitation so that compliance with these rules is treated as lawful under antitrust laws.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +4
Would students be better off under this?
Students benefit from ensuring that college athletic departments operate consistently with educational missions and academic priorities.
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The legislation requires public disclosure of athletic compensation caps and tuition figures to hold officials accountable.
- Scored +4
Does this make college cost less?
By establishing caps on athletics department compensation tied to tuition, the bill encourages better management of institutional resources.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of academic resources: According to the findings in Section 2, escalating compensation and buyouts for sports personnel can take away resources from academic priorities and broad-based opportunities like women's and Olympic sports. This bill sets reasonable guardrails to help manage athletics in service of educational priorities.
-
Caps on high sports salaries: Under Section 3, adding Section 487(a)(30)(A) to the Higher Education Act of 1965, the total annual pay for any athletics department employee is capped at 10 times the institution's tuition and required fees for a first-time, full-time undergraduate student. This stops sky-high pay packages for coaches and athletic directors.
-
Inclusion of buyouts and third-party payments: Under Section 3, adding Section 487(a)(30)(B) and (30)(F)(iv), buyouts and separation payments count as compensation, and total annual compensation includes payments from foundations, booster organizations, media arms, and third parties. This closes loopholes that could otherwise let schools and affiliates bypass the pay cap.
-
Public transparency: Under Section 3, adding Section 487(a)(30)(D), schools must publicly disclose the cap amount, the tuition figures used to calculate it, and the number of covered employees whose pay is within 10 percent of the cap. This holds officials accountable and lets the public see how athletic money is handled.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Restrictions on existing written agreements: Under Section 3, adding Section 487(a)(30)(E)(i), written employment agreements made before the date of this Act can continue for their original term, but no amendment can increase compensation above the amounts stated in the agreement as of the date of the Act. This restricts schools and employees from altering current contract terms even if circumstances change.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — Students benefit from ensuring that college athletic departments operate consistently with educational missions and academic priorities. Would women be better off under this? — By reducing excessive spending on high-profile personnel, the bill preserves funding for broad-based opportunities like women's sports. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Students benefit indirectly when athletic spending is reined in and resources are redirected toward academic and broader campus priorities.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation requires public disclosure of athletic compensation caps and tuition figures to hold officials accountable. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill places new federal compliance conditions on institutions participating in Title IV student aid programs.
- Education And Technology
- Does this make college cost less? — By establishing caps on athletics department compensation tied to tuition, the bill encourages better management of institutional resources.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — By curbing exorbitant salaries for athletic staff, the bill helps protect resources for broader opportunities like women's sports.
- 10/24/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Introduced in House