🎯 Key Takeaways: The SCORE Act
---
📋 Overview
The SCORE Act passed House subcommittee by a narrow 12-11 vote and was approved by the Rules Committee 210-209 in early December 2025, positioning it for imminent House floor action. The legislation establishes a federal framework for college athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights while explicitly blocking athletes from employee status and granting the NCAA sweeping antitrust immunity. Senator Maria Cantwell has characterized the bill as widening inequities, rolling back athlete rights, and shortchanging women's and Olympic sports. The most surprising element: while marketed as protecting athlete rights, the bill's revenue-sharing formula creates a $20.5 million minimum that only wealthy programs can afford, potentially accelerating competitive stratification across college athletics.
---
⚙️ What the Bill Actually Does
Creates NIL rights with institutional override. Athletes gain the right to enter NIL agreements and hire agents, but institutions can block deals that conflict with their own sponsorship contracts—potentially giving schools total control over athlete earning opportunities.
Mandates revenue sharing for top programs. The 70 highest-revenue schools must distribute at least 22% of average sports revenue to athletes (currently $20.5 million annually), creating a compensation floor that smaller schools cannot match.
Blocks employee classification permanently. The bill federally preempts any state or federal law that would classify athletes as employees, denying access to workers' compensation, collective bargaining, and labor protections.
Grants NCAA antitrust immunity. Athletic associations receive broad protection from antitrust lawsuits for any rules they establish under the legislation, shielding them from legal challenges over compensation limits, transfer restrictions, or membership decisions.
Imposes unfunded institutional mandates. Schools with coaches earning over $250,000 must provide three-year post-graduation injury coverage, life skills programs, degree completion assistance, and maintain at least 16 varsity sports—all without federal funding.
Preempts state NIL laws. More than 30 states have implemented varying NIL laws; the SCORE Act would preempt these with one national standard.
Bans student fees at wealthy programs. Starting in 2028-2029, institutions with media rights revenue exceeding $50 million cannot use student fees to fund athletics, forcing budget restructuring.
---
🏆 Winners and Losers
Winners:
💰 Power Five conferences – Revenue-sharing formula cements competitive advantage; antitrust immunity protects existing structure
🏛️ NCAA and athletic associations – Broad legal immunity from antitrust challenges; federal preemption of state oversight
🎓 Wealthy athletic programs – Can afford $20.5M athlete payments; gain control over athlete NIL deals through institutional override
⚖️ Sports agents – New market created with 5% commission cap and mandatory disclosure requirements
Losers:
🎽 Mid-sized and small programs – Cannot compete with $20.5M revenue-sharing floor; become "feeder schools" for top programs
👨🎓 College athletes – Blocked from employee status and labor protections; institutions can override individual NIL deals
⚖️ State governments – Lose authority to regulate college athletics, employment status, and athlete protections
🏅 Olympic sports programs – Resource concentration on revenue sports threatens non-revenue programs at smaller schools
👩🎓 Female athletes – Without explicit Title IX application to revenue-sharing, legislation could deepen existing inequities
🎓 Students at high-revenue schools – May face tuition increases or reduced services as athletics lose student fee funding
---
🔍 Surprising Provisions & Common Misconceptions
⚠️ Institutional NIL override swallows athlete rights. Athletes cannot enter NIL agreements that conflict with institutional contracts—an exception so wide it gives schools total control, allowing them to lock athletes into exclusive sponsor arrangements. The bill appears to grant NIL freedom but actually centralizes control with universities.
⚠️ Revenue-sharing creates permanent competitive stratification. The $20.5 million minimum pool limit functions as a talent acquisition floor that only elite programs can afford. Analysis shows this will "accelerate the loss of talent from smaller schools, turning them into mere 'feeder' schools for the largest programs" and fundamentally restructure competitive balance.
⚠️ State enforcement creates litigation chaos. State attorneys general receive broad authority to bring civil actions for NIL violations, potentially exposing institutions to inconsistent enforcement across 50 jurisdictions and multiple simultaneous lawsuits for the same conduct.
---
📊 Fact Sheet (Backers, Opposition, Context)
Key sponsors/backers: • Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) – primary sponsor • Over 20 conservative groups backing the legislation • 31 Division I athletic conferences publicly endorsed the bill • Sen. Ted Cruz supports the SCORE Act
Major supporters (industries or groups): • NCAA and Power Five conferences • Multiple athletic conference commissioners • Student-athlete advisory councils from Big Sky, Ivy League, and Pac-12
Who opposes it: • AFL-CIO Sports Council opposes the SCORE Act • Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) calls it "the National Championship of all heists" • Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) criticizes it as federal overreach • Athletes.org warns it's "the single largest threat facing college athletics today" • Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA) sent letter opposing the bill
Related bills or negotiations: • Competing SAFE Act (mostly Democratic support) proposes rewriting 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act to allow conference media rights pooling, potentially injecting billions • House Settlement includes $2.8 billion backpay for former athletes and prospective revenue-sharing model
---
🗓️ What's Next
The House is poised to vote on the SCORE Act as early as December 2025, following Rules Committee approval by 210-209 vote on December 2, 2025.
Immediate procedural steps: • House floor vote expected imminently • If passed, moves to Senate where opposition is stronger (Sen. Cantwell's vocal resistance signals difficult path) • Senate may favor competing SAFE Act framework
Timing pressure: • Ongoing litigation over athlete employment status creates urgency for NCAA • House Settlement's $2.8 billion backpay obligation increases pressure for federal resolution • Patchwork of 30+ state NIL laws creates compliance chaos for institutions
Strategic outlook: The narrow House committee margins (12-11, 210-209) and bipartisan opposition suggest difficult Senate passage. Competing SAFE Act framework and constitutional concerns over federal preemption of state labor laws may force significant amendments or stall the legislation entirely.