By Lauren Burke
Republicans who control Congress are considering changes to the name, image, and likeness (NIL) rules for college athletes. They are joined by two members of the Congressional Black Caucus: Reps. Shomari Figures and Janelle Bynum (D-OR). Efforts to contact their office for comment on the SCORE Act were not returned. The legislation could be voted on by the House on Dec. 2.
The SCORE Act, which stands for the “Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act,” would undo the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in June 2021 that was a major victory for college athletes. The decision paved the way for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights for college students whose play creates millions in revenues for colleges with successful sports programs. That case, NCAA v. Alston, featured Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion strongly criticizing the NCAA’s claim that student-athletes were amateurs.
But the SCORE Act would permit the NCAA to limit how much schools can spend on NIL deals. It would also control and limit athletes regarding transfers to other schools. The legislation hands more power to the NCAA and shields the NCAA from lawsuits by removing the ability of student-athletes to sue. The main provision of the SCORE Act would eliminate student athletes’ primary tool for challenging the system of college sports and revenue by eliminating the ability to challenge the system in court. The SCORE Act would also allow universities to stop athletes from setting up NIL deals that the school says are a conflict with the school’s sponsorship arrangements.
The NCAA sits atop a multibillion-dollar machine built on the labor, talent, and sacrifice of student-athletes who receive only a fraction of the value they generate. Each year, March Madness alone brings in more than a billion dollars in TV revenue, while football powers drive massive ticket sales, merchandising, and sponsorship deals that enrich universities, conferences, and executives.
In a House Rules Committee hearing on the evening of December 1, the discussion centered around free markets and government interference in private contracts. Something that conservatives have long argued they’re concerned about.
“This is the federal government stepping into contracts between two private individuals,” said Georgia Republican Austin Scott as he questioned the need for the bill.
“These are amateur athletes and they need to be protected. I think we have a responsibility to do that,” said Florida Republican member Rep. Gus Bilirakis, a lead sponsor on the SCORE Act, in response.
Though the SCORE Act benefits the NCAA, it is the players who fill the stadiums, deliver ratings, attract the fans, and fuel the economic engine of the revenue behind the business of college sports. Players on the field have historically been restricted from earning anything close to their true market value. Even with recent NIL reforms, the financial imbalance is staggering: institutions and corporate partners continue to stack revenue into the billions while the “amateurs” on the field who attract the money and do the real work often walk away with a scholarship and sometimes broken promises.
Tellingly, the SCORE Act broadens the employee status ban and asserts that college athletes cannot be considered “employees” on the basis of receiving compensation. That lack of an “employee” designation has deep legal ramifications for student athletes. The change could allow colleges and universities to control an athlete’s time with no ability for the athlete to receive basic labor law protections while attracting millions of dollars to the school through their on-field play.
