WASHINGTON — A massive bill seeking to regulate how the NCAA compensates student-athletes and standardize rules on name, image and likeness contracts has hit a roadblock in Congress — and may be punted until next year as details are ironed out.
The House was set to vote on the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements, or SCORE Act, earlier this week, but the bill was scrapped from the lineup just hours before it was scheduled for a vote. The legislation was punted due to growing opposition within rank-and-file Republicans who argued there are still unanswered questions about how the regulations would be implemented.
“There were a few members that had some questions and wanted to know more about the bill,” Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told reporters on Thursday. “So we’re just going to take our time with it to make sure we can get the coalition finalized.”
The proposed bill would codify rules that were decided in a multibillion-dollar settlement last year that broadened the scope of how student-athletes can be paid while clarifying certain provisions that supporters say are crucial to prevent loopholes.
The SCORE Act would guarantee students’ rights to sign name, image and likeness contracts, otherwise known as NIL agreements, without restrictions from their schools or athletic organizations. The bill would enact the law on a national level, effectively replacing individual state NIL laws so all conferences fall under the same standards.
The bill is backed by the NCAA and has received support from the White House and the U.S. Olympic organization.
The legislation is opposed by a majority of congressional Democrats, meaning Republicans would need to stick together in near-unanimity for the bill to pass through the House. However, a faction of House Republicans came out against the framework earlier this week, prompting leaders to scrap it from the weekly schedule.
“I just don’t think it was ready for prime time and we’re trying to work through some of the lingering issues,” said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who staged a rebellion on the House floor early in the week.
How did we get here?
The legal battle over how student-athletes should be compensated for their talent has been ongoing for years. But things really started picking up steam in 2021 after the Supreme Court decided in NCAA v. Alston that the NCAA was unfairly profiting from NIL contracts of college athletes.
At the time the NCAA mandated certain restrictions on what student-athletes could receive in non-cash compensation, such as internships, arguing it was necessary to prevent the appearance of “pay-to-play” schemes or that student-athletes were being treated like professionals.
The Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that those restrictions violated antitrust laws, paving the way for major changes in how college athletes could receive compensation.
Individual states began passing laws to regulate NIL contracts that would allow students to benefit from their own name, image and likeness. That prompted the NCAA to reverse its stance and allow athletes to begin signing NIL contracts and endorsement deals without violating conference rules.
As more college athletes benefited from their name recognition and endorsements, advocates began to challenge other NCAA restrictions on how students could be compensated for media rights and other benefits. This led to a major settlement in 2024 as part of the House v. NCAA, which allows each school to pay its athletes up to $20.5 million per year, which works out to about 22% of the average athletic department revenue at Power Four schools.
What would the bill do?
The SCORE Act, in essence, would codify those changes into law and apply them on a national scale.
The bill would make clear that student-athletes are not considered employees of any school or athletic association, which would offer colleges legal protections while ensuring students are fairly compensated.
If schools were to classify the athletes as employees, they would be required to establish rules on things such as minimum wage for practices and games; health care benefits and insurance; and overtime policies — guidelines that would get overly complicated and too expensive for schools to uphold.
It would also allow schools to uphold the tradition of college sports being considered “amateur competitions” rather than professional employment.
The SCORE Act would require schools to provide access to academic and career counseling for student-athletes as well as mental health services. Athletes would receive medical coverage for injury-related expenses for up to three years after graduation, and students would be entitled to scholarships regardless of injuries or NIL activity, according to the bill.
Why do lawmakers oppose the changes?
Although the original bill has some bipartisan sponsors, top Democratic leaders on the Hill urged rank-and-file members to oppose the bill this week over concerns it still grants too much authority to the NCAA.
Because the NCAA and colleges are given certain protections that would allow the conference to control compensation, rules, and athlete eligibility without legal challenges, some opponents argue this could create a monopolistic structure in which the biggest sports programs can dictate decision making.
Opponents also worry national standards would give the NCAA outsize control rather than allowing individual states handling questions of NIL contracts. Doing so could strip athletes of stronger protections, they argue.
But some lawmakers oppose the framework simply because they argue it was hastily drafted and that Congress should focus on more pressing legislation before the end of the year.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., said she is undecided on the bill, telling The Associated Press it’s not “a top priority issue right now for us.”
What comes next?
Congress is only scheduled to remain in session for two more weeks before adjourning for the holiday break, making it likely the SCORE Act will be punted into the new year before being considered.
That’s increasingly likely as Congress will need to focus instead on passing some sort of healthcare bill to prevent the expiration of certain enhanced Obamacare subsidies at the end of this year. If those lapse, millions of Americans could see their health care premiums go up.
Appropriators are also scrambling to get a spending deal to the floor before the end of the year to get a head start on finishing the annual budget before the Jan. 30 deadline next month.
Meanwhile, the House has a lengthy to-do list filled with bills that have been placed on the back burner after remaining out of session for seven weeks during the government shutdown.