A substantive revision. V2 introduces new provisions for NIL agreement transparency and state enforcement, mandates specific governance structures for athletic associations, and adds several reporting requirements. It also significantly modifies the criteria for institutions subject to certain requirements, refines agent regulations, and narrows the scope of federal preemption over state laws.
SCORE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 1, 2025
Bottom line
The SCORE Act aims to standardize NIL rules, enhance student athlete protections, and increase financial transparency in college athletics, while explicitly preventing student athletes from being classified as employees.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a federal framework for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights for student athletes, preempting state laws. It grants student athletes the right to enter NIL agreements and obtain agents, with exceptions for "prohibited compensation" and institutional codes of conduct. It also imposes requirements on certain high-revenue institutions regarding student athlete welfare (academic support, medical care, degree completion, minimum sports teams) and mandates transparency for student athletic fees, restricting their use for high-revenue programs.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill provides much-needed clarity and consistency in the rapidly evolving NIL landscape, protecting student athletes from exploitative agreements and ensuring their welfare. They contend it balances the commercial opportunities for athletes with the amateur nature of college sports, preventing a patchwork of state laws and preserving fair competition. The bill's provisions for academic support, medical benefits, and degree completion are seen as significant advancements for student athlete well-being.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill's definition of "prohibited compensation" and the "pool limit" still unduly restrict student athletes' earning potential and maintain an unfair power dynamic in favor of institutions and conferences. Some may contend that the bill's preemption of state laws could roll back more expansive NIL rights established at the state level. Additionally, the explicit denial of employee status for student athletes is a point of contention for those advocating for greater labor protections.
The bill is moderately complex due to its detailed definitions and regulatory framework, requiring a dedicated read of approximately 45-60 minutes to fully grasp its implications.
Section 3(a), 3(b)
Student Athlete Name, Image, and Likeness Rights and Representation
This provision prohibits institutions, conferences, or interstate athletic associations from restricting a student athlete's ability to enter into Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements or to obtain an agent. It includes exceptions for "prohibited compensation" and agreements that violate an institution's code of conduct or existing contracts.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision empowers student athletes to profit from their own identity, aligning with broader individual rights and market principles. It ensures athletes are not exploited while generating significant revenue for their institutions.
Critics contend
Some institutions or conferences might argue that unrestricted NIL deals could lead to recruiting imbalances, undermine team cohesion, or create administrative burdens in monitoring compliance with institutional codes of conduct.
Tradeoffs
Balances student athlete economic freedom with institutional control and the perceived integrity of amateur athletics.
Section 2(19), 2(18)
Restrictions on Compensation and Establishment of a Pool Limit
Defines "prohibited compensation" as payments from associated entities/individuals of an institution unless for a valid business purpose at market rates, or compensation that causes an institution to exceed a "pool limit." The "pool limit" is defined as an annual maximum amount an institution can provide to student athletes, set by an interstate athletic association at a minimum of 22% of the average annual college sports revenue of the 70 highest-earning member institutions.
Section 5
Enhanced Welfare and Academic Support for Student Athletes at Certain Institutions
Institutions generating at least $20,000,000 in annual intercollegiate athletics revenue (or where a coach earns over $250,000) must provide comprehensive academic support, career counseling, medical and health benefits (including 3 years post-separation injury care), maintain grants-in-aid regardless of athletic performance or NIL compensation, offer degree completion assistance for former athletes, and maintain at least 16 varsity sports teams.
Section 6
Federal Authorization for Athletic Association Rule-making and Governance Reforms
Grants interstate athletic associations (like the NCAA) explicit authority to establish and enforce rules on NIL disclosure, data collection, prohibited compensation, recruitment, pool limits, transfers, eligibility, agent registration, membership, and playing seasons. This authority is conditioned on the association complying with the Act and implementing governance reforms, including student athlete and non-high-earning institution representation on decision-making bodies.
Section 9
Clarification of Student Athlete Employment Status
Explicitly states that no individual may be considered an employee of an institution, conference, or interstate intercollegiate athletic association based on their participation as a student athlete, regardless of team membership or competition requirements.
Section 10
Transparency and Restriction on Student Fees for Athletics
Amends the Higher Education Act to require institutions to disclose the total amount of student fees used for intercollegiate athletic programs, their specific uses (facilities, salaries, scholarships, etc.), and the percentage of total program costs covered by these fees. It also prohibits institutions with average annual media rights revenues of $50,000,000 or more from using student fees to support intercollegiate athletic programs, starting in academic year 2028-2029.
Section 11
Federal Preemption of Conflicting State Laws
Establishes that no state or political subdivision may maintain or enforce any law, rule, or regulation that conflicts with this Act, specifically regarding student athlete compensation, benefits, employment status, eligibility, or the rights of institutions/conferences/associations. It also preempts state laws requiring release of NIL rights for broadcasts of intercollegiate athletic competitions.
Section 7
Preservation of Title IX Protections
Explicitly states that nothing in the Act or its amendments should be construed to limit or affect Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs receiving federal financial assistance.
This definition broadly captures entities and individuals connected to an institution's athletic department or who contribute significantly to its athletic programs (over $50,000 lifetime, adjusted for inflation). It also includes individuals/entities directed by or assisting in recruitment/retention.
Section 2(3)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, but the expansive nature of this definition makes it particularly impactful.
Case for: Proponents argue this broad definition is necessary to prevent circumvention of "prohibited compensation" rules by institutions or boosters attempting to use third parties to induce athletes.
Case against: Critics might argue its breadth could inadvertently restrict legitimate business opportunities for student athletes with individuals or entities who have a minor, indirect connection to the institution, or create ambiguity for potential NIL partners.
Estimated impact: High, as it directly impacts who can pay student athletes and under what conditions, affecting the entire NIL market.
Amends the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act to cap agent fees for endorsement contracts at 5% of the compensation provided to the student athlete. It also grants student athletes the right to terminate an agency contract 6 months after they are no longer enrolled at any institution.
Section 4, amending 15 U.S.C. 7801 et seq.
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes, but the specific details are easily missed.
Case for: Proponents argue the fee cap protects student athletes from predatory agent fees, ensuring they retain a larger share of their earnings. The termination right provides flexibility for athletes post-college.
Case against: Some agents might argue that a 5% cap is too restrictive for certain types of deals or services, potentially disincentivizing agents from working with student athletes on complex or smaller NIL agreements.
Estimated impact: Moderate, directly affecting the financial relationship between student athletes and their agents.
Requires high-revenue institutions to provide degree completion assistance to former student athletes who received a grant-in-aid, were student athletes after the Act's enactment, have not received a bachelor's degree, and for whom the institution was their last attended. This assistance is for up to 7 years post-enrollment, at the average annual grant-in-aid rate, unless the former athlete fails academic progress or violates the code of conduct.
Section 5(a)(4)
Why it matters:Standard legislative detail, but the specific conditions are important for understanding its scope.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a crucial investment in the long-term educational outcomes of student athletes, many of whom leave college early for professional sports or other reasons without completing their degrees.
Case against: Institutions might express concern about the administrative burden and potential financial cost of tracking and supporting former athletes for up to 7 years, especially given the specific eligibility requirements.
Estimated impact: Moderate to high, providing significant educational benefits to a subset of former student athletes.