The SCORE Act and the Protect College Sports Act: Should Congress Write College Sports' Rules?

Timeline

1. Jul 10, 2025H.R. 4312, the SCORE Act, is introduced with bipartisan cosponsors.
2. Jul 23, 2025Energy and Commerce reports the bill 30–23; Education and Workforce also marks it up.
3. Dec 2, 2025The House adopts the rule for considering the bill, 210–209.
4. May 2026House leaders pull the SCORE Act from a planned Rules Committee debate.
5. Jun 18, 2026Senate Commerce advances an earlier version of the Protect College Sports Act.
6. Jul 31, 2026Revisions win the endorsement of SEC and Big Ten leaders.
7. Sep 28, 2026The Senate passes S. 4668, as amended, 77–22.
8. Oct 5, 2026The House receives S. 4668 and holds it at the desk.
9. Oct 2026The bill awaits the House, which returns after the midterm elections.

The ethical issues

• Athletes' employment status and labor rights.
• Antitrust immunity for an athletic association's rules.
• Federal preemption of state athlete protections.
• Guaranteed benefits in exchange for limits on legal claims.
• Who represents athletes in writing national rules.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
College athletes	Earnings, benefits and legal rights.
The NCAA and conferences	Legal stability and uniform rules.
Schools	Managing costs and competitive balance.
States	Their own athlete protection laws.
Members of Congress	Policy goals and constituents.

The case

After the NCAA lifted restrictions on NIL and transfers in 2021, college sports faced waves of litigation, state laws and executive action. Conferences and schools asked Congress for one national rulebook. In 2025 and 2026, both chambers tried to write it, and split over the question that runs through modern college sports: are athletes students, employees or something in between?^[3][8]

Background

Rep. Gus Bilirakis introduced H.R. 4312, the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act, on July 10, 2025, with cosponsors from both parties.^[1] Education and Workforce chairman Tim Walberg said that since 2021 “college athletics have been in a period of chaos, as constant litigation and efforts to classify student-athletes as employees jeopardize thousands of academic and athletic opportunities.”^[3] Rep. Russell Fry argued that “a patchwork of state laws is unsustainable.”^[2]

The stakes were financial as well as legal. During the Senate debate in 2026, Sen. Chris Coons said that 70 Power Four schools would together generate more than $7 billion in revenue that year, “but they are all running at a deficit,” and that universities chasing athletes and coaches “have begun cutting sports… with women’s sports and Olympic sports.”^[7] (See Stephen F. Austin’s cuts.)

The rules and governance

The SCORE Act as introduced would:^[1]

• Bar employee status. “No individual may be considered an employee of an institution, a conference, or an interstate intercollegiate athletic association based on the participation of such individual on a varsity sports team.”
• Grant antitrust protection. Compliance with the Act, and adopting or enforcing rules under it, “shall be treated as lawful under the antitrust laws and any similar State law.”
• Preempt state laws. States could not maintain laws governing athletes’ “compensation, payment, benefits, employment status, or eligibility.”
• Require benefits. Schools above a certain size would provide medical care for athletic injuries during enrollment and for at least three years after, mental health services, independent medical decisions on return to play, scholarships that cannot be cut for performance or injury, and degree completion programs.
• Regulate NIL. It would protect athletes’ NIL rights, require disclosure of deals and regulate agents and boosters.
• Disclose student fees used to support athletics.

Committee versions may differ from this introduced text.

The Senate’s Protect College Sports Act (S. 4668) took a different path. Sponsored by Commerce chairman Ted Cruz with ranking member Maria Cantwell and Sens. Eric Schmitt and Chris Coons, it would set national NIL standards, establish guidelines for schools’ direct payments to athletes and grant “targeted antitrust protections” to certain governing organizations.^[7][8] Bloomberg Government reported that it would also cap sports agents’ fees and create uniform eligibility and transfer rules.^[9] Crucially, it omitted the employee ban; Cruz acknowledged that he dropped it because it was “a non-starter” for Cantwell and other Democrats.^[8]

The House process

On July 23, 2025, Energy and Commerce reported the SCORE Act 30–23, and Education and Workforce marked it up the same day.^[2][3] On December 2, 2025, the House adopted the rule for its consideration 210–209, with all Democrats voting no and three Republicans joining them.^[4] In May 2026, House leaders pulled the bill from a planned Rules Committee debate after the Congressional Black Caucus, with nearly 60 members, announced its opposition; Politico described it as “again pulled.”^[5][8]

The Senate process

Senate Commerce advanced an earlier version on June 18, 2026, but SEC and Big Ten leaders resisted sharing revenue with lower-earning conferences, and some committee members from Big Ten states voted no.^[7] After a July 31 deal, the conferences endorsed the bill. The revisions required athletes to report NIL deals to their schools and a national association, required apparel and shoe companies with school contracts to certify separate NIL agreements, tightened the ban on NIL payments to recruit high school athletes, allowed schools to exceed spending caps through a “retention pool,” and permitted an extra $5 million for women’s NIL opportunities for nine years.^[7]

On September 28, 2026, after adopting amendments on non-preemption of certain state injury laws, foreign-funding disclosure and a 20-member conference cap, the Senate passed the bill 77–22.^[6][7] Supporters called it a compromise; Schmitt said it was “not a perfect bill.”^[7] Opponents included Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who said it “imposes the duty of enforcement on the athletes themselves,” and Sen. Cory Booker, a former Stanford football player, who called it “a money play, plain and simple.”^[7] Sen. Rick Scott objected to “spending more money for college sports.”^[9]

What the Senate bill actually says

The text the Senate sent to the House runs to dozens of sections. Several of them go beyond money.^[10]

• Neutrality on employment. Section 122 says the title “is neutral on, and does nothing to alter, employee or non-employee status for student athletes.” This is where it differs most from the SCORE Act.^[10]
• Antitrust shield. Section 118 says it “shall not be unlawful under the antitrust laws” for an association, conference or school to enforce or comply with the bill’s rules. These include the compensation limits, the eligibility and transfer standards and the recruiting windows. Associations may also fine or bar schools that break those rules.^[10]
• The cap and the retention fund. Section 114 bars schools and their “associated entities” from paying athletes or recruits in ways that would exceed the revenue-share cap. It requires that third-party NIL deals with athletes serve “a valid business purpose” and pay what comparable non-athletes would earn. It bars payments to recruits before enrollment. In the passed text, schools may exceed the cap by up to $22.5 million a year to retain athletes who have spent at least a season at the school, plus up to $5 million more tied to NIL for non-revenue sports.^[10] Under Section 115, if the House settlement that set the cap expires or ends, the cap and retention fund lapse unless Congress passes a joint resolution approving their continuation.^[10]
• Eligibility and transfers. Division I and II athletes get five calendar years of eligibility. The clock starts at whichever comes first: the academic year after their 19th birthday or their first full-time enrollment. It pauses for pregnancy, a religious mission or active military service. Athletes may transfer once without penalty and a second time with a year’s loss of eligibility. They may also move without penalty if their sport is cut, their head coach leaves, they are sexually assaulted or harassed, or they are starting a graduate degree.^[10]
• Athlete voice and redress. At least a third of the membership and voting power of an association’s governing boards and rule-making committees must be current athletes or recent graduates who are not association or school employees. An association-funded Office of the Student Athlete Ombudsman would give athletes “independent advice” at no cost.^[10] Section 119 limits private lawsuits to listed sections, and says such suits do not narrow the antitrust protection.^[10]
• Protecting other sports. Larger schools must keep at least as many scholarships and roster spots in non-revenue sports as they had in 2024–25, unless they obtain a waiver for a single year at a time.^[10]
• Commission and media. The bill creates a 24-member Congressional Commission on the Future of College Athletics. It also amends the Sports Broadcasting Act to make it unlawful for a conference reporting more than $700 million in revenue to make certain mergers and acquisitions, including one that would take it past 20 members.^[10]

Senators also rejected several amendments on September 28. These included a Booker amendment to raise funding limits for post-eligibility and catastrophic-injury insurance, which failed 49–50, and a Kennedy amendment to limit ticket-price increases.^[11] The House received the bill on October 5, and it was “held at the desk.”^[11]

Aftermath

As of early October 2026, the bill awaited the House, which was in recess for the midterm elections. Majority Leader Steve Scalise opposed it in its current form, insisting on an employee prohibition and “strong antitrust protections for schools to be able to govern themselves.”^[8] The Congressional Black Caucus opposed both chambers’ bills, citing athletes’ ability to pursue private legal action and a lack of guaranteed funding for HBCUs, among other concerns.^[8][9] President Trump endorsed the Senate measure, and White House aides said he wanted to sign a bill before year’s end; the 119th Congress expires in early January 2027.^[7][8]

The core dilemma

The SCORE Act offers stability and guaranteed benefits, but at the cost of athletes’ ability to seek employee status, sue under antitrust law or rely on state protections. Should Congress make that trade on athletes’ behalf?

Competing values

• Stability vs. athletes’ legal rights.
• National uniformity vs. state experimentation.
• Guaranteed benefits vs. bargaining power.
• Broad-based programs vs. market pay for top athletes.

Strongest arguments

For the bill: litigation and state patchworks threaten programs; national rules plus required benefits protect most athletes.

Against: it shields the NCAA from antitrust law, removes employee rights and overrides states, without athletes having bargained for the trade.

On process: a one-vote procedural margin shows how contested the trade-off is.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks whether the bill fairly distributes benefits and burdens between athletes and institutions.

Rights

A rights lens focuses on athletes’ rights to organize, sue and be treated as workers if they meet legal tests.

Utilitarianism

A utilitarian lens weighs stability for thousands of athletes and programs against lost earnings and legal options.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are a member of Congress deciding your vote. Stakeholders include athletes, schools and states. Less visible are athletes in non-revenue sports. The codes are the Constitution, antitrust law and labor law.
2. Gather facts. What does the bill do and who supports it? Beware relying on one side’s framing.
3. Test options. (a) Vote yes. (b) Vote no. (c) Seek amendments, such as narrower immunity.
4. Check codes and law. Check court rulings and state laws.
5. Decide and document. Explain your reasoning to constituents.
6. Communicate and follow up. Monitor implementation or alternatives.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the bill’s introduced text, committee votes and the December 2025 rule vote.
• Contested: whether athletes should be employees; whether antitrust immunity is justified; the bill’s future.

Why this case matters

The SCORE Act shows how lawmakers might rewrite college sports’ legal foundations, and who gets a say.

See also: Governing College Sports by Executive Order.

Key terms

Agency

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

Commercialization

The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.

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.

Distributive justice

Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.

Institutional accountability

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

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Should Congress declare that college athletes are not employees? What would athletes gain and lose?
2. Is antitrust immunity for NCAA rules justified to end constant litigation?
3. Should federal law override state NIL laws?
4. Do guaranteed medical care and degree completion programs make up for limits on athletes' legal options?

Sources

1. H.R. 4312 (Introduced in House), SCORE Act — U.S. Government Publishing Office (via Congress.gov)
2. Full Committee Markup Recap: E&C advances the SCORE Act and OMUFA reauthorization to the full House of Representatives — House Committee on Energy and Commerce
3. Chair Walberg delivers opening statement at markup — House Committee on Education and the Workforce
4. Roll Call 309, H. Res. 916 (Dec. 2, 2025) — Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives
5. SCORE Act revamping college athletics is again pulled from House agenda — Politico
6. Roll Call Vote 119th Congress, 2nd Session, Vote No. 250: On Passage of the Bill S. 4668, as amended (Sept. 28, 2026) — U.S. Senate
7. Senate laterals college sports bill to House, but forward progress uncertain (Sept. 28, 2026) — Roll Call
8. Employee question could stall Senate college sports bill at midfield in House (Oct. 5, 2026) — Roll Call
9. College Sports Legislation Proceeds to Uncertain Vote in House — Bloomberg Government
10. S. 4668, Protect College Sports Act of 2026 (Engrossed in Senate) — U.S. Government Publishing Office (via Congress.gov)
11. Actions: S.4668, Protect College Sports Act of 2026 — Congress.gov