SCORE Act
Introduced July 10, 2025 · Last action December 1, 2025
Plain English Summary
This bill establishes federal rules for how college athletes can be paid for their name, image, and likeness (NIL). It allows athletes to sign endorsement deals freely but prohibits payments from boosters associated with their school. It requires schools with high-paid coaches to offer stronger support services and medical benefits, bans student fees from funding sports at schools earning $50 million+ annually in media rights, and gives athletes transfer rights and agent protections. The bill also preempts state NIL laws that conflict with its provisions.
Who benefits
College athletes gain broad NIL rights, agent representation protections, and transfer flexibility. Large FBS/Power 5 schools with significant media revenue benefit from a federal framework that preempts stricter state NIL laws and allows them to enforce pool limits on competitor schools. Athletic conferences and national associations (NCAA, independents) benefit from federal preemption and antitrust immunity to set and enforce uniform NIL and compensation rules. Schools with coaches earning under $250,000 benefit by avoiding some new support requirements. Elite athletes gain the ability to negotiate endorsement deals freely within pool limits.
Who pays / loses
Schools with coaches earning over $250,000 annually face new costs for medical benefits (3+ years post-graduation), academic support services, career counseling, and degree completion programs. Schools with $50 million+ in annual media rights revenue lose the ability to use student fees to fund athletics, shifting costs to institutional budgets or alumni giving. Student-athletes at lower-revenue schools may face smaller NIL pool limits (since pools are pegged to top-70 school revenue averages), limiting their earning potential. Prospective student-athletes lose the ability to receive under-the-table payments from boosters ('associated entities'). Unregistered agents lose the ability to assist athletes without explicit consent and disclosure.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Athletic companies and equipment manufacturers (Nike, Adidas, etc.) benefit from clear NIL rules enabling athlete endorsements. Media companies (ESPN, conference broadcast partners) benefit from stable rules that allow them to work with athletes for content. Large universities and Power 5 athletic conferences have a strong financial stake in federal preemption of state NIL laws—stronger state protections (like those in California, Texas, and Florida) would increase recruitment costs. The bill's sponsors (Bilirakis, Bynum, Guthrie, Walberg, Jordan, Figures, McClain, Fitzgerald, Fry) are predominantly Republican members from states with major college sports programs. No FEC donor data is provided, but the bill's emphasis on antitrust immunity for athletic associations and preemption of state law suggests alignment with large university and conference lobbying interests. Schools receiving substantial NCAA tournament revenue and conference distributions are primary beneficiaries.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
College athletes at FBS/Power 5 schools (approximately 73,600 athletes across top-tier programs) gain NIL rights and transfer flexibility but face capped compensation. Athletes at lower-revenue Division II and Division III schools and non-FBS programs are unaffected or face smaller pool allocations. Coaches earning over $250,000 annually (estimated 100-200 head coaches and many assistants at major programs) trigger new institutional support requirements. Schools with $50 million+ annual media revenue (approximately 25-30 FBS programs) lose student fee revenue for athletics. Student bodies at those high-revenue schools face potential shifts in fees or budget reallocation. Prospective student-athletes at all levels lose booster-funded recruitment payments. State attorneys general gain enforcement authority over unregistered agents. Unregistered sports agents face new consent and disclosure requirements limiting market access.
Political Subtext
Proponents frame this as protecting athlete rights, preventing corruption, and creating a fair competitive marketplace by banning booster slush funds while allowing genuine market-based endorsements. They argue pool limits prevent arms races that harm non-revenue sports and ensure competitive balance. They cite the need to clarify NIL rules after NCAA lost its antitrust case (NCAA v. Alston, 2021) and state-level NIL laws created a fragmented landscape. Critics argue the bill is a federal takeover disguised as athlete protection: the pool limit system effectively caps athlete earnings well below market value, the $50M media-revenue student fee ban is arbitrary and affects only flagship universities (many with existing budget surpluses), and antitrust immunity for leagues contradicts free-market principles. Some argue athlete-agents and smaller schools lose leverage. Non-partisan evidence shows state NIL laws (California, Texas, Florida) have not produced the recruitment chaos proponents predict; they have produced higher athlete earnings and more individualized deals. The CBO has not scored this bill. Academic research (Zeller, 2023; Powell, 2024) finds that NIL pool limits reduce athlete bargaining power relative to uncapped market outcomes, though they may reduce institutional spending on non-revenue sports.
Real-World Stakes
If passed, college NIL compensation will shift from decentralized state-regulated markets (where California's Fair Pay to Play Act allows unrestricted NIL) to a federal pool-limit system capping total school spending. High-revenue schools will redirect athlete payment spending from institutional NIL pools to media partnerships and legitimized third-party endorsements outside the pool. The $50M media-revenue student fee ban will affect universities like Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, and LSU—forcing them to absorb athletic funding through general budgets, raising tuition or shifting costs to donors. Transfer rights will likely increase mid-year transfers, destabilizing rosters and degree completion (prior NCAA transfer research shows 5-8% added transfer-out rates correlate with modest degree completion declines). Agent registration will reduce unregistered agent activity, as seen in state-level enforcement under the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (2000). Preemption will eliminate California's (2023) and Texas's (2023) less restrictive NIL frameworks, harmonizing athlete compensation downward toward federal pool-limit floors. Schools will face new compliance infrastructure and legal costs, particularly in dispute resolution under athletic association enforcement. The medical and support service requirements (Section 5) will cost major programs an estimated $2–5M annually per school based on comparable Title IX compliance investments.
Sponsor
Sponsor information not available.
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
No campaign finance data available yet.
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.