In recent years, college athletics has undergone a transformation. Once the realm of amateur students, college sports conferences have become minor professional leagues occupied by paid athletes.
This transformation began when the National Collegiate Athletic Association removed restrictions on individual athletes who sought to profit off their name, image and likeness. This in turn led to several antitrust challenges, which eventually resulted in the House v. NCAA settlement.
Under the House settlement, the NCAA and the conferences will pay $2.8 billion in damages to athletes who competed during the span of 2016 through 2024, while allowing schools to share up to 22% of revenue (approximately $20.5 million for 2025) with their current athletes.
This marked a breakthrough for athletes — who finally earned the right to share in the revenue they helped generate for their schools, conferences and the NCAA — but it has created several issues for universities. While $20.5 million may be a fraction of the revenue generated by schools in the Big Ten and Southeastern conferences, which garner much greater media and postseason revenues, that same figure represents a considerable expense for everyone else, as they face pressure to remain competitive without undermining funding for women’s and Olympic sports.
Following years of escalating litigation and pressure, and in the hope of gaining some relief from the growing confusion over its eligibility rules and the employment status of athletes, the NCAA has sought help from the federal government. For its part, Congress has introduced two competing proposals: H.R.4312, also known as the SCORE Act (Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements), and S. 2932, the SAFE Act (Student-Athlete Fairness and Enforcement).
As of December 2025, neither of the bills had advanced far enough to face a vote. While both aim to create a uniform federal standard for NIL rights, the two bills are at odds over whether the NCAA should be given some form of antitrust immunity and whether college athletes should be considered employees. Below, we examine the two bills and their potential impact on the NCAA, member schools and college athletes.
The SCORE Act
Introduced by Representative Gus Bilirakis of Florida, the SCORE Act seeks to codify the House settlement and establish a federal NIL enforcement framework. The bill, which emphasizes institutional control and protection for schools, has strong backing from the NCAA and Power Four conferences, with the SEC even launching national advertisements urging its passage.
The Act centers on three points. One, it seeks to grant limited antitrust exemption to the NCAA, athletic conferences and member schools over eligibility, transfers and other issues concerning athletes and the schools. Secondly, it seeks an explicit prohibition on classifying college athletes as employees of their schools. Finally, it seeks a federal law preempting all state NIL laws, thereby replacing the fragmented state regulations with a single national standard.
Supporters of the SCORE Act argue that passage of the bill will accomplish the following: promote uniformity in college sports and help smaller schools stay competitive; provide legal protection to the NCAA and clarity to the conferences and schools; and shift the current fragmented state-by-state NIL regulatory environment to a single policy with national oversight. Supporters of the bill further emphasize the need for Congress to codify that college athletes are not employees of their schools, but simply students.
The SCORE Act enjoys strong support, including from NCAA president Charlie Baker, and the legislation will eventually advance for a vote in Congress. Even if it were to advance out of the House of Representatives, a group of Senators have stated that the bill will never pass the Senate. Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont argue that shielding the NCAA from antitrust litigation would only serve to entrench the NCAA’s restraints on athlete compensation, primarily benefiting the NCAA, the power conferences and private equity investors at the expense of college athletes and those smaller schools unable to compete in the “arms race” for top recruits, particularly in football and basketball.
Some critics also point out that the SCORE Act limits athlete earnings under conference revenue-sharing rules and favors institutional power over athlete autonomy.
The SAFE Act
Introduced by Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, the SAFE Act focuses more on athletes than the NCAA. The Act proposes a comprehensive federal framework focused on athlete welfare, equitable competition, and long-term medical and educational protections.
To achieve these goals, the SAFE Act proposes amending the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 to allow schools and conferences to pool media rights without triggering antitrust violations. The Sports Broadcasting Act provided antitrust protection for professional sports to combine their media rights. The legislation would grant the NCAA and conferences the same limited antitrust protection as held by professional leagues, while requiring schools to reinvest the additional revenue generated by the sale of pooled media rights into women’s and Olympic sports.
The SAFE Act includes extensive health and safety standards requiring schools to adopt protocols for brain injuries, heat-related illness and asthma management, while guaranteeing five years of medical coverage for sports-related injuries. The Act also guarantees 10-year post-eligibility scholarship access regardless of injury or performance, and caps agent compensation on athletes’ NIL contracts at 5%.
Additional reforms include:
• Privacy protections ensuring NIL contracts will not be disclosed without athlete consent
• Up to two penalty-free transfers and reinstatement for athletes who enter professional drafts and are not selected
• A new F-1 visa category allowing international athletes to profit from NIL without immigration risk
• A private right of action for athletes against agents who violate regulations
Supporters of the SAFE Act — including players associations representing athletes in the NFL, NBA and National Women’s Soccer League — argue the bill modernizes NIL governance while preserving athlete safety and educational opportunities.
Critics of the SAFE Act claim it leaves unresolved the issue of antitrust immunity, collective bargaining and employment classification. By omitting these provisions, the NCAA and member schools fear exposure to future litigation. In addition, just because the SAFE Act would allow conferences to pool their media rights, that does not mean that the dominant conferences — the Big Ten and SEC — would be willing to share revenue with smaller conferences. For example, the Big Ten is currently in the middle of a seven-year media rights agreement with Fox, CBS and NBC that will pay the conference more than $7 billion. While the NFL currently makes $10 billion a year for its media rights, would combining the media of the Group of Five schools really increase the Big Ten’s revenue, especially since the networks will want the games of the power conferences over those of the smaller conferences?
Debate takeaways
The SCORE Act and the SAFE Act present competing visions for the future of college sports. The SCORE Act seeks to preserve the traditional amateur model and protect the NCAA, athletic conferences and universities from potential future lawsuits over rules that restrict athletes’ rights. The SAFE Act prioritizes athlete welfare, revenue sharing, and long-term health and education protections, without granting the NCAA the antitrust protection it seeks.
With competing legislative bills on college sports, and the outcome of neither one certain, there are two points athletic administrators should take away from this debate.
First, as illustrated by the key points raised in the two bills, the stakes of this debate extend far beyond NIL reform. At issue are long-standing, fundamental questions about the employment status of college athletes, distribution of billions in media revenue and the future of the collegiate model itself. The SAFE Act promotes an athlete-centered approach emphasizing health, education and equitable compensation, while the SCORE Act reinforces institutional authority through antitrust immunity and federal preemption. Each reflects a broader ideological divide: individual rights and athlete empowerment versus institutional stability and centralized control.
Second, regardless of the outcome of the two bills, Congress should at the very least take up federal legislation that preempts the patchwork of state NIL laws, capping agent commissions and placing other limits on agent contracts. While it is true that some of today’s college athletes have lawyers and agents looking out for their best interests, many college athletes are young and financially unaware. Congress needs to protect these athletes more than the NCAA and colleges. Until Congress acts to protect college athletes, NIL governance will remain decentralized, leaving the balance of power between athletes and institutions — and the future of amateurism — hanging in the balance.
