Athletes at the Table: Has the 2020 Empowering Athletes Act Given Them Real Power?

Timeline

1. Jul 30, 2019Senators Jerry Moran and Richard Blumenthal introduce S. 2330 after an 18-month investigation into abuse in the Olympic movement.
2. Aug 4, 2020The Senate passes the bill by unanimous consent.
3. Oct 1, 2020The House clears the bill by voice vote.
4. Oct 30, 2020The bill is signed into law as Public Law 116-189.
5. Oct 30, 2021The provisions allowing Congress to dissolve the USOPC board or decertify a governing body by joint resolution take effect.
6. Jun 2023The Team USA Athletes' Commission asks the USOPC board to let athletes elect or select all athlete representatives; according to the commission, no changes follow.
7. Mar 1, 2024The Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics delivers its final report, calling for an independent, separately funded athlete body.
8. Oct 2024The USOPC begins decertification proceedings against USA Badminton, citing governance failures and unremedied audit findings.
9. 2025The USOPC decertifies USA Badminton. Its compliance report lists athlete representation among the most common audit issues.
10. 2026The Athletes' Commission begins formal participation in athlete feedback for governing-body certification reviews.

The ethical issues

• Whether guaranteed seats and vote shares give athletes real influence or only a presence.
• An athlete body funded and governed by the organization it is supposed to hold accountable.
• Who should choose athlete representatives: athletes themselves or the institutions?
• Using a threat of congressional dissolution as an accountability tool.
• Balancing athlete control with the expertise and independence that boards also need.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Olympic and Paralympic athletes	Real influence over the selection, safety, commercial and governance decisions that shape their careers.
Team USA Athletes' Commission	Authority, independent resources and the power to choose athlete representatives.
USOPC board and leadership	Running the organization effectively while meeting statutory requirements and its dual role of winning medals and protecting athletes.
National governing bodies	Meeting representation rules with limited staff and athlete pools while keeping certification.
Survivors of abuse	Structural changes that make it harder for institutions to ignore or cover up abuse.
Congress	Accountability for a federally chartered body without running Olympic sport directly.

The case

When Congress rewrote the law governing U.S. Olympic sport in 2020, its sponsors said the goal was to give athletes “a seat at the decision-making table.”^[2] The law raised the share of votes athletes must hold on the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee’s board and committees, required athlete-elected members on the boards of national governing bodies, and gave Congress a fast-track way to fire the USOPC board. Six years later, the athletes’ own representative body was still describing what it lacked: independence, leverage and control over who speaks for athletes. The question this case asks is the one Congress left open: has the law given athletes real power?

Background

The Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act grew out of the Larry Nassar abuse scandal. Its findings state that Nassar, the former USA Gymnastics national team doctor, “sexually abused over 300 athletes for over two decades because of ineffective oversight.”^[1] Senators Jerry Moran of Kansas and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced the bill in July 2019 after an 18-month investigation that included four subcommittee hearings, interviews with athletes and survivors, and more than 70,000 pages of documents.^[2] The two senators said the institutions charged with protecting athletes had “failed countless times, choosing to ignore or cover up abuse.”^[2]

The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent in August 2020, and the House cleared it by voice vote on October 1.^[2][3] In a Roll Call interview, Blumenthal summed up its purpose: “The failure in the past has been to put medals and money before the athletes, which is how the culture has to change.”^[3] The President signed it on October 30, 2020.^[1]

Much of the law dealt with safeguarding. It required the USOPC to pay $20 million a year to the U.S. Center for SafeSport, strengthened abuse-reporting duties and protected people who report abuse from retaliation.^[1][2][3] But its title promised something broader: empowering athletes.

The rules and governance

Since 1978, the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act has made the USOPC, a private nonprofit with a federal charter, the coordinating body for Olympic sport in the United States.^[4] According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first wrote athlete-empowerment requirements into the Act in 1998, and the 2020 law expanded them to their current level.^[4]

The 2020 law requires that:

• at least one-third of the USOPC board be made up of, and elected by, amateur athletes;^[1]
• at least 20 percent of the board be athletes who currently represent the United States internationally or have done so in the past ten years, known as “10-year athletes”;^[1]
• athletes hold at least one-third of the membership and voting power on the board and on USOPC committees and entities, “including any panel empowered to resolve grievances”;^[1]
• the chair of the Athletes’ Advisory Council, or a designee, hold a vote on the board and in USOPC committees;^[1]
• national governing bodies maintain athlete-elected voting members on their boards under guidelines approved by the USOPC, the athletes’ council and the governing bodies’ council, with exceptions requiring approval.^[1]

The law also strengthened the Office of the Athlete Ombuds, which gives athletes free, independent advice. The athletes’ council nominates one candidate for the job, and the USOPC’s executive committee must either hire or reject that person.^[1][4] The USOPC must commission an independent, anonymous annual survey of athletes and publish the results.^[1] It must also review each governing body’s certification at least once every four years.^[4]

Finally, the law gave Congress a new tool. By joint resolution, Congress can dissolve the USOPC board or end a governing body’s recognition. Those provisions took effect one year after enactment.^[1] Any resolution dissolving the board must provide for a new board in a way that “safeguards the membership and voting power of the representatives of amateur athletes at all times.”^[1]

Seats without independence

The athletes’ council, renamed the Team USA Athletes’ Commission in 2023, quickly ran into the limits of the system. In its 2023 impact report, the commission said its mission statement, which is written into the USOPC’s bylaws, did not capture its real role. It explained that, “because Team USA AC is not an independent entity, it cannot amend its own mission statement”; only the USOPC board could change it.^[5]

In June 2023, the commission asked the USOPC board to change its bylaws so that the commission would elect or select all athlete representatives, from the board down to working groups. It also asked the board to drop the mandatory reserved seats for 10-year athletes.^[5] The commission reported that “no changes have been made” and that it “was not presented with a rationale.” It called that “unacceptable” and said the episode supported the case for independence.^[5] It described another dispute, over collegiate name, image and likeness guidelines, in similar terms: “Athletes lack leverage and bargaining power with the USOPC and NGBs.”^[5]

The same report gave a more positive account of other parts of the system. An Athlete Representation Working Group reviews governing bodies’ requests for exemptions from the representation rules. The commission said the group had been “hugely impactful” in making the increase from 20 percent to 33 percent athlete representation “attainable and realistic.”^[5] The report also flagged a basic data problem: accurate lists of who qualified as a 10-year athlete were still needed before the 2024 elections, and the commission called it “very concerning” that such information had not existed before.^[5]

The congressional commission weighs in

The 2020 law also created the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics, a 16-member body of which at least eight members had to be current or former Olympians or Paralympians.^[1] It delivered its final report on March 1, 2024.^[6] Testifying to a Senate subcommittee, co-chair Dionne Koller said that “broad, systemic change is needed, not piecemeal adjustments.” She called for “the creation of an independent body representing high-performance athletes within the system, with its own source of funding and a statutory mission to advocate solely on these athletes’ behalf.”^[6] The Athletes’ Commission quoted the report’s sixth recommendation, which said Congress should strengthen athletes’ representation “by making the Team USA Athletes’ Commission fully independent,” and urged Congress to adopt it.^[5]

Aftermath

As of October 2026, the sources reviewed for this case do not show that Congress has made the Athletes’ Commission independent. The commission itself has changed direction. Its 2025 impact report says its leadership concluded that “the AC’s most meaningful opportunity lies not in structural change, but in strengthening its authority” and in expanding athlete influence “precisely where consequential decisions are made.”^[7] The commission said it had logged 211 direct engagements with athletes and others in 2025, with athlete-representation concerns the largest category. It also said it had secured formal inclusion, beginning in 2026, in the athlete-feedback part of governing-body certification reviews.^[7] It acknowledged “meaningful room to further institutionalize athlete participation” in oversight and decision-making.^[7]

The USOPC’s compliance work points the same way. Its 2025 compliance report says its audit team issued 19 governing-body audit reports that year and that the most common issues fell into the categories of “athlete representation, conflicts of interest, grievance / complaint procedures, and athlete safety requirements.”^[8] The same report describes the USOPC’s decertification of USA Badminton after the governing body failed to fix long-standing deficiencies, including more than 14 audit findings.^[8] The report shows that the oversight system can be enforced. It also shows that, five years into the audits, athlete representation remained a common gap.

The core dilemma

The 2020 law guarantees athletes a large minority of seats and votes. Power in an organization, however, also depends on who chooses the representatives, who controls the agenda and information, who funds the representative body and who can change its rules. On those measures, the athletes’ own commission says it remains dependent on the USOPC. The dilemma is whether to treat the guaranteed vote share as the answer or only as a starting point. If it is only a starting point, the next question is whether athletes need structural independence or more authority inside the existing system.

Competing values

• Athlete self-determination vs. institutional control: athletes want to choose their own representatives, while the USOPC keeps authority over its bylaws.
• Independence vs. integration: a separate, separately funded athlete body could advocate more freely, but one embedded in governance may have more influence on day-to-day decisions.
• Recency vs. breadth: reserved seats for 10-year athletes keep current competitors’ voices central, while the commission argued they limit who can serve.
• Uniform rules vs. feasibility: one-third representation everywhere is principled, but small governing bodies need exemptions to comply.
• Accountability vs. stability: the threat of dissolution concentrates minds, but using it would disrupt an organization athletes depend on.

Strongest arguments

That the law has given athletes real power: Athletes are guaranteed at least one-third of the votes on the USOPC board and its committees, including grievance panels, and the athletes’ chair votes on the board.^[1] No athlete-ombuds candidate can be hired unless the athletes’ council nominated that person.^[1][4] Governing bodies that fail to comply can lose certification, as USA Badminton did.^[8] Annual independent surveys and four-year recertification reviews create regular checks.^[1][4] By 2025, the athletes’ own commission described growing credibility and a new formal role in certification reviews.^[7]

That it has not: A one-third minority can be outvoted on every contested question. The athletes’ commission says it cannot change its own mission statement, that its 2023 bylaw requests were ignored without explanation and that athletes lack bargaining leverage.^[5] A congressional commission, at least half of whose members had to be Olympians or Paralympians, concluded that an independent, separately funded athlete body was needed.^[1][6] USOPC audits still list athlete representation among the most common compliance problems at governing bodies.^[8]

Applying the frameworks

Justice & fairness (Rawls)

Behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether you would be an athlete, an administrator or a sponsor, you would want those with the most at stake and the least bargaining power to have a voice that cannot be easily ignored. Athletes bear the physical risks and career consequences of USOPC and governing-body decisions. A fair procedure would give them not only seats but a say in choosing who fills them, and an explanation when their proposals are rejected. The commission’s account of requests declined without a rationale is the sort of procedural failure a Rawlsian would flag.^[5]

Rights-based

A rights-based view asks whether athletes have enforceable claims or only privileges the institution can withdraw. The 2020 law turned some practices into statutory rights: guaranteed vote shares, a vote for the athletes’ chair, a say over the ombuds and a protected survey.^[1] Other matters remain dependent on the USOPC’s bylaws, including the commission’s mission and the method for choosing athlete representatives.^[5] On this view, the law secured important rights but left athletes’ collective self-governance as a privilege.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian asks which arrangement produces the best results for athletes and the movement. The law’s sponsors argued that athletes on boards would help “identify problematic policies and practices faster.”^[2] Independence might strengthen advocacy but add cost and duplication. The Athletes’ Commission’s own 2025 report noted the need to clarify roles among the commission, the USOPC and the ombuds.^[7] The evidence to judge outcomes includes the annual athlete surveys, audit findings and decertifications. Whichever model improves those measures should prevail.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue: A law guarantees athletes one-third of the votes, but their representative body says it lacks independence and leverage.
2. Gather facts: Statutory requirements, USOPC bylaws, how athlete representatives are chosen, exemption decisions, audit findings, athlete survey results and the commission’s requests and their outcomes.
3. Test options: Keep the current model; give the commission control over its own governing documents and the selection of athlete representatives; fund an independent athlete body as the congressional commission urged; expand the commission’s formal role in oversight.
4. Check codes and law: The Ted Stevens Act as amended in 2020, USOPC bylaws, the NGB compliance standards and the congressional commission’s recommendations.
5. Decide and document: Record reasons when athlete proposals are accepted or rejected, and publish exemption decisions.
6. Communicate and follow up: Report survey and audit results to athletes, review representation rules each Olympic cycle and adjust them based on evidence.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: federal law requires athletes to hold at least one-third of the membership and voting power on the USOPC board and committees, with at least 20 percent of the board made up of 10-year athletes; Congress can dissolve the USOPC board or decertify a governing body by joint resolution; the USOPC decertified USA Badminton; the congressional commission recommended an independent athlete body.^[1][4][6][8]
• Contested: whether one-third representation translates into real influence; whether the Athletes’ Commission should be independent of the USOPC; whether 10-year seats help or hinder representation; whether Congress will act on the commission’s recommendation.

Why this case matters

Sports bodies around the world have added athlete seats in response to scandals. The U.S. experience shows that a guaranteed vote share is only part of the answer. Who chooses representatives, who funds them, who writes their rules and whether anyone must explain a refusal all shape how much power athletes actually have. Students studying any athlete-representation reform can ask the same questions this case raises: do athletes have votes, voice, or real control?

See also: Rebuilding U.S. Olympic Sport: The 2024 Congressional Commission.

Key terms

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Agency

An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Principal–agent problem

When those acting on others’ behalf (agents such as executives, officials or agents) have interests that diverge from the people they serve.

Conflict of interest

A situation where a person’s private interest could improperly influence a decision they make in an official role.

Trust

The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. The law gives athletes at least one-third of the votes on the USOPC board and its committees. Is a guaranteed minority enough to change an organization's priorities?
2. The Athletes' Commission said it could not even change its own mission statement without USOPC board approval. Can a body that depends on the institution it advises be an effective advocate?
3. Should athletes elect all athlete representatives, or should the institution keep some role in choosing them?
4. Is the power to dissolve the USOPC board a useful threat, or too drastic to ever be used?
5. In 2025 the Athletes' Commission decided to focus on strengthening its authority rather than seeking structural independence. Was that realism or retreat?

Sources

1. Public Law 116-189: Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act of 2020 — U.S. Government Publishing Office
2. Moran-Blumenthal Olympic Reform Legislation Heads to the President's Desk for Signature — Office of U.S. Senator Jerry Moran
3. House clears sweeping Olympic and amateur sports oversight package — Roll Call
4. The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee: A Primer (R47850) — Congressional Research Service (via EveryCRSReport)
5. Team USA Athletes' Commission Impact Report 2023 — Team USA Athletes' Commission
6. Testimony of Dionne Koller, Co-Chair, Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics & Paralympics — U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
7. Team USA Athletes' Commission 2025 Impact Report — Team USA Athletes' Commission
8. 2025 USOPC and NGB Annual Compliance Report — U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee