Congress gets in bed with the NCAA -- against student athletes’ bargaining rights

Just weeks after a Name-Image-Likeness (NIL) lawsuit was settled for $2.8 billion, the overlords at the NCAA got Congress to bend the knee and propose the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act last month.

Its protections for student athletes are mostly NIL – made more confusing by President Trump’s latest Executive Order muddying the waters even more than appeals stemming from the “House v. NCAA” lawsuit.

And organized labor has forcefully added its objections to the opposition from several lawmakers.

“We write in strong opposition to the SCORE Act of 2025 (H.R. 4312),” said the AFL-CIO Sports Council. “Just as we stand up for our members, protecting them against predatory contracts, we would likewise advise our nation’s college athletes to steer clear of the deal that the SCORE Act offers.

“It is a bad deal for athletes.”

The labor federation’s Sports Council includes the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), the NWSL Players Association (NWSLPA) and USL Players Association-CWA (USLPA-CWA), plus the Major League Soccer Players Association (MLSPA) and the Women’s National Basketball Players Association (WNBPA), the NHL Players' Association (NHLPA) and the Professional Hockey Players' Association (PHPA).

Its fierce objection to the 30-page bill has four points: It increases the NCAA’s power by exempting the association from antitrust laws, giving “the NCAA and its members the power to collude against their athletes with no recourse available to those athletes.”

Next, it limits student athletes’ right to enter into a NIL agreement if a college or conference decides their interests conflict. Also, the measure “sets a ceiling on athletes’ rights and protections by preempting state laws, and it prohibits the classification of athletes as school employees.

“This provision disempowers college athletes and prevents them from seeking to join together and bargain over issues important to them,” the Sports Council says. “Once a person is deemed to not be an employee, as the SCORE Act would do, they lose all of the rights that could be associated with employment, including the right to organize a union and collectively bargain.”

Oddly, schools and conferences should support athletes’ designation as employees and labor contracts since that would add stability and uniformity to the current confusion. But colleges, conferences and coaches groups support the bill.

The SCORE Act was sponsored by Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Gus Biliraki 9r-Fla.) and eight other Republicans, plus two Democrats: Janelle Bynum of Oregon and Shomari Figures of Alabama. It’s been referred to House committees, including Energy and Commerce, with Illinois Congresswomen Robin Kelly and Jan Schakowsky are members. Schakowsky is against the SCORE Act.

“The most important thing right now is the health and safety of our student athletes,” she said. “I don’t think this piece of legislation is the one that will actually do what we need to do to protect our athletes. [Here,] we’re doing more for the NCAA than we’re doing for the athletes themselves.”

Agreeing with Schakowsky are two Washington state lawmakers – Republican Congressman Michael Baumgartner and Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell. They said, “The bill entrenches the NCAA’s authority at a time when the NCAA’s governance structure is becoming increasingly dominated by wealthier conferences.

“Second, while we are pleased that college athletes can earn a share of the revenue they generate for their schools, the SCORE Act’s formula for determining the size of revenue shared with players will make it difficult for small and mid-sized schools to compete with wealthy schools. Third, the SCORE Act ignores important national policies regarding college sports. It ignores the explosive growth of women’s sports and how revenue sharing under the ‘House v. NCAA’ settlement may jeopardize these gains and lead to far less money flowing to women’s sports. It ignores the importance of college athletics to the Olympic pipeline. The SCORE Act will inevitably lead to the loss of men’s and women’s Olympic sports as schools are implicitly forced to devote ever more resources to the college football arms race. The SCORE Act also fails to address how conference realignment has changed the map of college sports and the absurdity of sending college athletes coast-to-coast on a weekly basis while foreclosing any opportunity for athletes to have a voice at the table to advocate for themselves as these changes continue to play out.”

The ”House vs. NCAA” settlement would include provisions to compensate athletes who competed in 2016-2024,  and to form a College Sports Commission to enforce rules on NIL deals, revenue-sharing and roster limits (rules yet to be written). However, the day after House Speaker Mike Johnson sent members home for summer recess (possibly to avoid action demanding the White House release files about convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein), CBS News reported Trump’s Executive Order plans to establish national standards on his own.

Meanwhile, the non-profit American Economic Liberties Project released its objections to the SCORE Act for several “fundamental flaws”:

* The bill specifically prohibits universities from treating college athletes as employees, ensuring they would never receive the benefits and protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This would undo last year’s decision from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the NCAA cannot use “amateurism” as an excuse for denying athletes employment status;

*  The SCORE Act would grant the NCAA an exemption from antitrust laws that the Supreme

Court unanimously denied in “NCAA v. Alston”;

*  Unworkable NIL compensation standards. The Act’s definition of “prohibited compensation” limits college athletes’ earnings;

* Flawed “Pool Limit” system advantages wealthy programs;

* Unfunded mandate on universities;

* Data collection provisions enable wage suppression;

* The bill preempts all state laws governing “the compensation, payment, benefits, employment status, or eligibility of a student athlete.” This deprives states of the ability to govern state-run educational institutions funded by taxpayer dollars and deprives college athletes of protections identified by their state legislators; and

* Limited stakeholder input.

 

The SCORE Act’s future is uncertain. While it could be considered next month, when the House reconvenes – weeks after approving an unpopular budget bill, but seven Senate Democrats would have to join all Republicans for passage there.