The Score Act, Explained: What Congress's NIL Bill Would Actually Do

For six years, the four power conferences and the NCAA have spent heavily lobbying Congress for a federal law that would bring order to college sports. The SCORE Act is the closest they have come. It moved through House committee consideration in July 2025, was formally reported by two House committees in September 2025, and was scheduled for a floor vote later that year. House leadership pulled it before members could take a final vote.

The bill is still alive, but it has not passed. As of April 25, 2026, Congress.gov still lists H.R. 4312's latest action as a December 1, 2025 Rules Committee resolution. ESPN reported on April 3, 2026, citing Capitol Hill sources, that the House bill could be amended and reintroduced in April, while Senators Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell continued Senate negotiations. Separately, Cantwell and Senator Eric Schmitt released a bipartisan Senate discussion draft in March focused on college sports media revenue.

Whether the SCORE Act becomes law will shape college athletics for the next decade: who writes the rules, who pays athletes, and whether the current patchwork of state NIL laws survives.

Here is what the bill would do, who is for it, who is against it, and what the stakes look like for every group touched by college sports.

What the Score Act Is

The SCORE Act, formally the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act, is House bill H.R. 4312 in the 119th Congress. Representative Gus Bilirakis of Florida introduced it on July 10, 2025. The original bipartisan sponsor group included Representatives Janelle Bynum, Brett Guthrie, Tim Walberg, Jim Jordan, Shomari Figures, Lisa McClain, Scott Fitzgerald, and Russell Fry.

The introduction followed a joint House process involving the Education and Workforce, Energy and Commerce, and Judiciary committees. The official House referral went to Education and Workforce and Energy and Commerce. Both committees ordered the bill reported on July 23, 2025, and both formally reported amended versions on September 11, 2025.

The bill runs more than a hundred pages. It has not received a full House floor vote and has not advanced in the Senate.

What the Bill Would Actually Do

The SCORE Act tries to do several things at once. Reading the coverage, it is easy to lose track of the specific mechanics behind the political fight. The core provisions break down as follows.

A national NIL framework replacing state law

The bill would preempt state and local laws governing athlete compensation, payment, benefits, employment status, eligibility, and academic standards. More than 30 states currently have their own NIL statutes, some considerably more protective of athletes than others. Under the SCORE Act, those laws would give way to a single federal standard.

Codification of the House settlement revenue-sharing model

The bill would lock in the revenue-sharing architecture that followed the In re College Athlete NIL Litigation settlement, commonly called House v. NCAA. The court-approved settlement already allows participating schools to share athletic revenue directly with athletes. Section 6 of the SCORE Act authorizes rules for calculating a pool limit, as long as the pool is at least 22 percent of average annual college sports revenue across the 70 highest-earning member institutions of the relevant interstate association.

That is close in practical effect to the House settlement model, but the distinction matters: the settlement exists through court supervision and private governance. The SCORE Act would make the framework federal law, making it harder to dislodge through future litigation or state legislation.

A prohibition on athlete employee status

Athletes could not be classified as employees of their school, conference, or interstate intercollegiate athletic association based on participating in college sports. This is the single most contested provision. It would cut against lawsuits and labor-law arguments seeking employee classification, and it would foreclose collective bargaining as a federal path for athletes under this framework.

Antitrust protection for the NCAA and conferences

The bill would treat adoption, agreement to, compliance with, or enforcement of rules created under Section 6 as lawful under federal and state antitrust laws. In plain English: the NCAA, conferences, and other interstate associations would receive legal cover for rules on eligibility, transfers, recruitment, NIL disclosure, prohibited compensation, playing seasons, and related governance areas.

This is the provision institutional leaders want most. It is also the provision that has drawn opposition from athlete advocates, Senate Democrats, and some House conservatives who argue the bill gives the NCAA too much legal protection.

New athlete benefits requirements

Schools generating at least $20 million in annual athletic revenue would have to provide academic support, career counseling, medical and health benefits, mental health support, scholarship protections, degree-completion assistance, and at least 16 varsity sports teams by July 1, 2027. The 16-sport minimum is a direct response to concern that revenue sharing and roster limits could accelerate cuts to Olympic and non-revenue sports.

Agent regulation and disclosure

The bill would amend the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act and would authorize interstate intercollegiate athletic associations to create agent registration systems. Agents would have to disclose registration status before assisting athletes with endorsement contracts, and associations could set qualifications for registration. The bill also caps the agent share of compensation under certain institutional NIL agreements at 5 percent.

Student-fee transparency and limits

The bill would require new public reporting on student fees used to support athletic programs beginning with the 2026-2027 academic year. It would also restrict high-media-rights-revenue institutions from using student fees to fund intercollegiate athletics beginning with the 2028-2029 academic year. The restriction is narrower than a blanket ban, but it targets a funding mechanism that has drawn growing scrutiny as tuition climbs.

The Timeline so Far

The bill's legislative path has been short, loud, and full of near misses.

• July 10, 2025. Introduced in the House with a bipartisan original sponsor group.
• July 15, 2025. Advanced from the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
• July 23, 2025. Ordered reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Education and Workforce Committee.
• September 11, 2025. Reported amended by both committees and placed on the Union Calendar.
• September 2025. A planned House floor vote was delayed.
• December 1-3, 2025. The Rules Committee reported a closed rule, the House narrowly advanced the procedural rule 210-209, and House leadership then pulled the final vote amid bipartisan opposition.
• April 2026. ESPN reported that an amended House version could be reintroduced in April. As of April 25, 2026, Congress.gov had not posted a new H.R. 4312 action after December 1, 2025.

The December collapse deserves attention. Front Office Sports reported that all four power conference commissioners were in Washington for the scheduled vote and that the vote was delayed indefinitely. One aide told FOS leadership hoped to revisit the bill. Other sources said they did not believe it would ever reach the floor in its then-current form.

Who Supports It

The coalition behind the SCORE Act is dominated by institutional actors with direct financial exposure to the current uncertainty.

The NCAA has lobbied heavily for the bill. NCAA President Charlie Baker publicly said in October 2025 that the SCORE Act, or similar legislation, had a "pretty good chance" of passing the House. The Power Four conference commissioners have backed federal legislation openly, with SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey repeatedly calling for a national solution. Most House Republicans supported advancing the bill, and two Democrats, Representatives Janelle Bynum of Oregon and Shomari Figures of Alabama, were original co-sponsors.

The case supporters make is one of stability. A single national framework replaces 30-plus state NIL laws. Antitrust protection lets the NCAA and conference ecosystem enforce rules without a lawsuit following every major enforcement action. The 16-sport mandate and new benefits requirements offer something concrete to athletes in non-revenue sports whose programs have been threatened as schools redirect resources toward football and basketball.

Who Opposes It

Opposition is broader and more fragmented than support, which is part of why the bill keeps stalling.

Senate Democrats have been among the most vocal opponents. Senator Maria Cantwell, ranking member on the Senate Commerce Committee, criticized the House approach and has advanced alternative frameworks, including the SAFE Act and a Schmitt-Cantwell discussion draft focused on media rights revenue. Senators Chris Murphy, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren also reintroduced the College Athlete Right to Organize Act in July 2025, which moves in the opposite direction by affirming college athletes' right to unionize.

Athlete advocacy groups oppose the employee-status prohibition and preemption of stronger state protections. Current and former college athletes have argued that the bill would reverse recent gains and shift authority back to the NCAA and conferences.

Labor and civil rights organizations have pressed Congress not to short-circuit employment-status litigation or collective-bargaining arguments. The AFL-CIO called the December version a union-busting bill.

Some House Republicans, including Representative Chip Roy of Texas, opposed the bill on process and substance. Roy said the SCORE Act was well-intended but not ready for a floor vote, and other conservatives objected to the scope of antitrust protection and the bill's treatment of coaching contracts, school spending, and NCAA power.

The opposition does not agree with itself. Athlete and labor groups want stronger worker protections. Some House conservatives want less antitrust shielding and less federal involvement. That split explains why the bill could clear committees but still fail to reach a final House vote.

How Score Fits With Everything Else Happening in College Sports

The SCORE Act does not exist in a vacuum. Several parallel tracks are moving at the same time, and all of them would be affected by passage or failure.

The House settlement is already in effect. Schools are already operating under a revenue-sharing cap, and the College Sports Commission is already overseeing the post-settlement NIL environment. The SCORE Act would not create revenue sharing from scratch. It would codify and reinforce a framework that already exists. If the bill dies, the settlement stays in place, but without federal statutory cover it remains exposed to state law conflicts and future litigation.

State NIL laws would be preempted. Texas, California, Florida, and many other states have distinct NIL statutes. Preemption would end those differences. Athletes in states with more protective laws could lose those protections. Athletes in states with weaker laws would get a federal baseline. For more background on the current patchwork, see our state-by-state NIL rules reference.

President Trump's April 2026 executive order on college sports runs on a parallel track. Executive orders cannot preempt state law or grant antitrust immunity, which is why the NCAA still wants a statute. Related: our coverage of the executive order.

The SAFE Act is a Senate alternative that takes a different approach to athlete rights, health and safety standards, and revenue issues. CARO, the College Athlete Right to Organize Act, takes the opposite approach from SCORE on employment and collective bargaining. Whichever proposal moves first will shape what the others become.

What Passage Would Mean and for Whom

The SCORE Act touches every group in college sports, but it touches them differently.

For athletes. A cleaner compliance landscape for NIL deals across state lines. Loss of some state-level protections. Employee status off the table under the federal framework. A real benefits floor at higher-revenue schools, including medical support, mental health services, scholarship protections, degree-completion assistance, and the 16-sport minimum. Athlete tax obligations would still sit outside the SCORE Act; for that layer, see our NIL tax guide for college athletes.

For collectives. Federal rules rather than state-by-state interpretation. The College Sports Commission's role in deal review and fair-market-value enforcement would likely become more durable. Collectives operating across multiple states would get a single disclosure and compliance standard, but they would also face more formal scrutiny.

For brands. One federal framework for endorsement rules, disclosure requirements, and deal approval instead of navigating 30-plus state regimes. Fair-market-value review would become the national baseline for many NIL deals. FTC disclosure rules operate independently of the SCORE Act and would continue to apply. See our guide to FTC disclosures for college athletes.

For athletic departments. Antitrust cover for enforcement. New mandatory spending on athlete benefits and broad-based sports sponsorship. Budget pressure at schools that currently sponsor fewer than 16 varsity teams or rely heavily on student fees. For the largest programs, the tradeoff may be worth it. For middle-tier Division I schools, the compliance cost is real.

For smaller schools and non-power conferences. The $20 million athletic-revenue threshold means many lower-revenue programs avoid the most expensive benefits and sports-sponsorship mandates. They would still live under the federal framework for NIL, eligibility, transfers, agents, and revenue-sharing rules set by their governing association.

What Happens If It Does Not Pass

Failure is as plausible as passage. If the SCORE Act dies in the 119th Congress, a few things happen.

State NIL laws stay in place and keep multiplying. The current patchwork gets more complicated. Litigation continues in parallel: labor cases on employee status, antitrust challenges to NCAA rules, and Title IX disputes over how revenue-sharing dollars are allocated. The House settlement framework remains in effect under court supervision and private governance rather than federal statute. Executive action continues to fill the vacuum on specific questions like transfers and eligibility. The College Sports Commission keeps enforcing through the settlement rather than a statute.

The NCAA and power conferences then spend another year or two lobbying the 120th Congress for substantially the same legal certainty.

What to Watch From Here

A few specific signals will tell you where the bill is going.

Reintroduction text. Any amended House version will show whether Republican leadership tried to pick up Democratic votes or doubled down on the existing coalition. The revenue-share cap, antitrust language, and employment-status provision are the first three places to look.

Senate negotiations. A bipartisan Senate bill changes the math. ESPN reported Cruz-Cantwell talks, while Schmitt and Cantwell released a separate March 2026 discussion draft on media rights. A Senate product would not need to match the House version, but it would pressure the House to move.

The midterm calendar. Senate Democrats have been explicit that a purely partisan college sports bill is unlikely to become law before the 2026 midterms. If a compromise does not move by summer, the issue likely waits until 2027.

College Sports Commission enforcement. If the CSC continues to regulate effectively under the settlement, the urgency for a federal statute decreases. If enforcement runs into serious state-law or antitrust trouble, the urgency spikes.

Bottom Line

The SCORE Act is the most developed federal answer yet to the question of who governs college sports. It would give the NCAA and conferences much of what they have been lobbying for, give athletes a benefits floor and a cleaner compliance landscape, and end the 30-state patchwork that defines the current system. It would also foreclose employee status, preempt stronger state protections, and lock in a revenue-sharing cap that athlete advocates argue is too low.

The bill has not passed because the coalition needed to pass it does not exist yet. House Republicans cannot get every Republican. Senate Democrats have not been given a version they can vote for. The next amended text will show whether anyone in Washington has figured out how to bridge that gap, or whether college sports spends another year governed by courts, states, executive orders, and a settlement agreement.

This piece describes pending federal legislation that has not become law. Legislative text may be amended before any vote. Nothing here is legal, tax, or compliance advice. Athletes, collectives, schools, and brands with specific questions about state or federal NIL compliance should consult qualified counsel.

Sources

• Congress.gov: H.R. 4312, SCORE Act
• Congress.gov: H.R. 4312 bill text
• House Education and Workforce Committee introduction release
• Front Office Sports: How the SCORE Act vote fell apart
• ESPN: April 2026 executive order and federal legislation update
• Senators Schmitt and Cantwell: College Sports Competitiveness Act discussion draft
• Senate Commerce Committee: SAFE Act introduction
• Senator Murphy: College Athlete Right to Organize Act reintroduction