SCORE Act Withdrawn Amidst Controversy Over NCAA Power

The Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act, a bill aimed at establishing a federal framework for regulating college sports, was withdrawn from a final vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on December 4, 2025. The decision came amid bipartisan opposition and concerns over the bill's provisions, which critics argue could grant excessive authority to the NCAA and major athletic conferences, potentially undermining athletes' rights and limiting their legal recourse.

Introduced on July 10, 2025, by Representative Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), the SCORE Act sought to address issues such as athlete compensation and governance in college sports. The bill had garnered support from the NCAA, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), and the White House. Key provisions included prohibiting institutions from restricting student-athletes' ability to enter into name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements, providing limited antitrust exemptions for the NCAA, preempting state laws on athlete compensation, and stipulating that student-athletes may not be considered employees of their institutions.

Despite this support, the bill faced significant opposition. On December 3, 2025, the House narrowly passed a procedural vote to advance the SCORE Act with a 210-209 margin. However, House Republican leaders subsequently withdrew the bill from the final vote schedule, citing the need to address members' questions and build a broader coalition of support. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) stated, "There were a few members that had some questions and wanted to know more about the bill. So we're just going to take our time with it to make sure we can get the coalition finalized."

Critics of the SCORE Act argue that it would grant excessive authority to the NCAA and major athletic conferences, potentially undermining athletes' rights and limiting their legal recourse. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) warned that the bill could lead to a two-tier collegiate sports system favoring the Big Ten and Southeastern Conference, dubbed the "Power 2." She argued that the legislation would entrench inequities, allowing wealthier conferences to dominate recruitment and revenue, while smaller schools struggle to compete.

Labor organizations have also expressed opposition to the bill. AFL-CIO President Elizabeth H. Shuler criticized the SCORE Act as a "brazen attempt" to strip athletes of their rights, opposing the antitrust exemption for the NCAA and the prevention of athletes from monetizing their image rights. In a letter to Congress, Shuler stated, "The NCAA does not deserve an antitrust exemption. Colleges and universities should not be allowed to block athletes from monetizing their image rights. States should not be prevented from protecting their student athletes. And college athletes should not be denied the rights enjoyed by other workers, including their fellow students."

The withdrawal of the SCORE Act highlights the complexities and contentious nature of regulating college sports at the federal level. The debate over athlete compensation and governance continues, with stakeholders divided on the best approach to address these issues. The NCAA's efforts to establish a federal framework for college sports regulation have faced significant setbacks, underscoring the need for continued dialogue among lawmakers, institutions, athletes, and other stakeholders to find a balanced solution that addresses the multifaceted issues surrounding athlete compensation and governance.