A House subcommittee on Tuesday advanced legislation that seeks to address recent seismic changes in how college athletes are compensated.
The legislation, introduced last week by Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., would create national standards for name, image and likeness deals while preempting a patchwork of existing state laws on the topic. It would bar student-athletes from being considered as university employees and carve out exceptions to antitrust law for conferences and the NCAA.
The bill advanced out of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade on a party-line, 12-11 vote. Democrats on the subcommittee opposed the measure, saying it would transfer power back to the NCAA and impede progress made over the last few years by student-athletes.
“We’re here today to consider the SCORE Act, but a title like the NCAA Wish List Act would better reflect its true objectives,” said Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, D-N.Y.
Next the full committee is expected to consider the proposal, which was also referred to the Education and Workforce Committee. Its prospects on the House floor are unclear, but it already has the backing of two Democratic co-sponsors: Reps. Janelle Bynum of Oregon and Shomari Figures of Alabama.
The latest congressional effort to create a nationwide NIL standard comes just a month after a federal judge approved a settlement resolving antitrust lawsuits brought by former Division 1 athletes. Those athletes sought damages for NIL deals they were forced to forgo and the ability to share in revenues generated from broadcasting.
The settlement now allows universities to directly share revenues with college athletes, capped at roughly $20.5 million per school for the 2025–2026 season, in a watershed change for college athletics. But lawmakers agreed Tuesday that athletes and universities still face a confusing mishmash of NIL policies across the country.
“The fractured NIL landscape that has developed in recent years has left athletes, schools and conferences without certainty or guardrails,” said Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., who chairs the full Energy and Commerce Committee. “Across the country, athletic departments are trying to compete in a system that is anything but fair or stable, where chaos makes it difficult to understand, let alone meet their compliance obligations.”
The debate over NIL began more than a decade ago, when former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA after his likeness was featured in the 2009 edition of EA Sports’ NCAA basketball video game. In 2019, California passed a law allowing student-athletes in the state to make money on NIL deals, and in the intervening years many other states have followed suit.
Interest in NIL only increased when the NCAA implemented new transfer rules that made it easier for players to jump from one school to another, shopping the best options without the past penalty of having to miss a year of playing time. Since the rule change, boosters at major schools — particularly those with renowned basketball and football players — are competing for top talent, sometimes offering north of a $1 million a year in deals for college athletes.
The legislation, according to its proponents, would level the playing field by requiring all eligible universities to maintain at least 16 varsity sports teams and would require schools to report on revenue from media rights and on fees charged to students used for athletic programs.
“With revenue-sharing as the new norm in college athletics, we must ensure that all athletic programs, from powerhouse football teams to smaller sports, have the tools to thrive,” Guthrie said.
Democrats on the subcommittee argued the measure goes too far in shielding the NCAA from antitrust lawsuits and not far enough when it comes to benefits and protections for students. Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., herself a former Division 1 volleyball player at Georgetown University, pressed for changes to the bill.
“As currently drafted, the SCORE Act would grant sweeping power to the NCAA and athletic conferences, power that comes at the expense of the very athletes who make college sports possible,” Trahan said.
She proposed carving out room for states to “go further in protecting college athletes and strengthening their rights if states so choose,” withdrawing an amendment to that effect after receiving assurances that Republicans would work with her to find “common ground.”
Other amendments from her and Clarke were voted down. California Rep. Kevin Mullin offered, then withdrew, an amendment that would ask the Federal Trade Commission to study the idea of creating an independent entity to regulate agents, while also clarifying that agents have a fiduciary duty to their student-athletes.
The post House subcommittee advances NIL framework for college sports appeared first on Roll Call.
