In the summer of 2021, the world of college sports shifted dramatically when the United States Supreme Court held in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (“NCAA”) limits on student-athlete compensation violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.[1] In response to the decision, the NCAA initiated an interim policy to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling and expanded name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) opportunities for college athletes in all three NCAA divisions.[2] While the policy functioned as the NCAA’s attempt to advance the right of collegiate athletes, it presented a wide array of problems, especially when interacting with state laws.[3] Over thirty states, as well as the District of Columbia, have also created their own variations of NIL laws, leaving college athletes to navigate through varying state laws and the NCAA’s policy.[4] This confrontation led many to call upon the United States Congress to sort through this maze of state laws and attempt to create an organized federal program to supersede all prior laws.[5]
In June of 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California resolved three antitrust cases with House v. NCAA, which influenced Congress’ involvement in federal NIL laws.[6] Known as the “House Settlement,” the decision allows colleges to pay their athletes for their NIL’s directly and lets athletic departments share up to 22% of their revenues with their student athletes.[7] Almost twenty-five states have considered bills in response to the House Settlement, but many of their current NIL laws conflict with the terms of the House Settlement.[8] States’ inabilities to adopt laws in accordance with the House Settlement finally motivated Congress to attempt to implement federal NIL legislation.[9]
After the House Settlement, different forms of legislation have been proposed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.[10] Less than a month after the House Settlement, in July 2025, a bipartisan group in the House of Representatives introduced the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsement Act (the “SCORE Act”), which seeks to create a uniform federal system for college athletics and codify the House Settlement into federal law.[11] The SCORE Act would also prevent student athletes from being labeled as employees, relieving schools of providing certain obligations such as wages and healthcare.[12] The SCORE Act’s main attractive quality to the NCAA, however, is providing the NCAA with antitrust protections.[13] If the SCORE Act provides these protections to the NCAA, which would amount to antitrust immunity, the NCAA would essentially be able to once again restrict athlete compensation, overturning National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston.[14]
Many critics of the SCORE Act highlight that this antitrust immunity would place too much power into the hands of the NCAA and the wealthiest conferences, who would also benefit from the antitrust protections.[15] Senator Maria Cantwell has been particularly candid in her opinion on the SCORE Act, emphasizing how the Act will create a “distorted system” that will disenfranchise smaller and mid-major schools, as well as sports that are less commercially popular, such as women’s sports.[16]
Despite heavy support from the NCAA, the SCORE Act has stalled in Congress thanks in part to Cody Campbell, an outspoken Texas Tech booster who echoes Senator Cantwell’s fears that the Act would give the NCAA too much power.[17] Senator Cantwell, Mr. Campbell, and lawmakers who agree with them, would rather see the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 amended to grant antitrust protections to colleges and conferences, rather than to the NCAA.[18] The stalling in Congress created fear that NIL policies would never be codified into federal law, so critics began supporting the SCORE Act for the sake of reaching some form of resolution, until another alternative was presented.[19]
In September 2025, Senators Cantwell, Cory Booker, and Richard Blumenthal introduced the Student Athlete Fairness and Enforcement Act (the “SAFE Act”), also designed to replace state NIL laws with uniform federal legislation.[20] Unlike the SCORE Act, the SAFE Act includes amending the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 and creates a committee within the NCAA that is not controlled by the wealthiest leagues so that all conferences are represented.[21] The SAFE Act also contains several provisions for athletes, including strengthening protections for athletes from losing scholarships and increasing the number of times they could transfer schools.[22] Furthermore, the SAFE Act also asks schools to use the extra revenue they receive from pooling media rights to maintain and increase scholarships and spots for Olympic and women’s sports.[23]
While the SAFE Act is seen as more athlete-friendly, many of its critics emphasize how the projections of additional media revenue may not be realistic.[24] Additionally, the SCORE Act has received support from larger conferences, however the Big Ten and the SEC have shown little interest in the SAFE Act.[25] The NCAA, likewise, has also expressed no desire to be relegated to a lesser role or to have a new committee created within its organization.[26]
If Congress seeks to avoid litigation from collegiate athletes in the future, there is a clear choice as to which of the two proposed acts should be passed. The Senate-proposed SAFE Act is likely the safer option to adopt to avoid collegiate litigation, as its policies focus more on the athletes’ abilities rather than prioritizing the interests of the NCAA and major conferences.[27] The SAFE Act provides athletes with more freedom to utilize their NIL rights while also preserving the 22% cap from the House Settlement.[28]
While there are still concerns that the SAFE Act’s projection of revenue is too ambitious, these hesitations pale in comparison to the SCORE Act’s policies, which would keep the NCAA and larger conferences in power. In fact, this fear was so strong that the SCORE Act had not even been put up for voting before ten Division I programs demanded changes to it because the original bill would have likely pushed the programs out of the conference.[29] Even with these changes, the SCORE Act could still devalue smaller schools, conferences, and sports, which could have dire consequences over time, including affecting America’s competitiveness in Olympic sports if certain sports are undervalued.[30] While the SAFE Act is still new, it has learned from its predecessor and seeks to balance both the NCAA’s interests and collegiate athletes’ interests, reaching a more impartial resolution.
While it is unclear how the bills will proceed, especially considering the government shutdown, one thing is certain: the future of college sports will play out in the Capitol Hill arena.
[1] NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 70 (2021).
[2] Michelle B. Hosick, NCAA Adopts Interim Name, Image and Likeness Policy (June 30, 2021, at 4:20 ET), https://www.ncaa.org/news/2021/6/30/ncaa-adopts-interim-name-image-and-likeness-policy.aspx.
[3] Austin Reid & Andrew Smalley, What the NCAA Settlement Means for Colleges and State Legislatures, National Conf. of State Legislatures (June 9, 2025), https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/what-the-ncaa-settlement-means-for-colleges-and-state-legislatures.
[4] Amy L. Piccola et al., NIL Legislation Tracker,Saul Ewing (last visited Oct. 8, 2025), https://www.saul.com/nil-legislation-tracker; Lesley Kennedy, College Athletics Faces Uncertainty Amid NIL Policy Changes, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures (Sep. 8, 2025), https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/college-athletics-faces-uncertainty-amid-nil-policy-changes.
[5] Greg Daugherty, NIL and the NCAA: What Are the Rules? (Mar. 8, 2025), https://www.investopedia.com/nil-and-the-ncaa-8599762#citation-6.
[6] Reid & Smalley, supra note 3.
[7] Bernard G. Dennis, III et al., Unpacking the “House” Settlement’s Impact on Collegiate Athletics (Sep. 30, 2025), https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/unpacking-house-settlements-impact-collegiate-athletics-0.
[8] Reid & Smalley, supra note 3.
[9] Id.
[10] Bruce Siegal, SAFE Act vs. SCORE ACT: A Federal NIL Legislation Comparison, GreenspoonMarder LLP (Oct. 6, 2025), https://www.gmlaw.com/news/safe-act-vs-score-act-a-federal-nil-legislation-comparison.
[11] Bryan DeArdo, SCORE Act, A Bill Alter that Would the Landscape of College Sports, has Been Formally Introduced in U.S. House, CBS Sports (July 10, 2025, at 2:23 PM ET), https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/score-act-a-bill-alter-that-would-the-landscape-of-college-sports-has-been-formally-introduced-in-u-s-house; Addison E. Fontein et al., The Goals of the SCORE Act: What Lawmakers Aim to Achieve (Sep. 11, 2025), https://www.mcguirewoods.com/client-resources/alerts/2025/9/the-goals-of-the-score-act-what-lawmakers-aim-to-achieve.
[12] Ralph D. Russo et al., Why is the SCORE Act in Limbo? College Sports’ Long Wait for Help from Congress Continues, N.Y. Times: The Athletic (Sep. 16, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6632189/2025/09/16/college-sports-score-act-congress/; Bruce Siegal., SCORE Act Advances in Congress, While President Trump Issues Executive Order, GreenspoonMarder LLP (Aug. 6, 2025), https://www.gmlaw.com/news/score-act-advances-in-congress-while-president-trump-issues-executive-order.
[13] Darren Heitner, Newsletter, Image, Likeness Vol. 152: The SAFE Act is Another Federal NIL Bill Destined to Fail,LinkedIn: Newsletter, Image, Likeness (Oct. 3, 2025), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/newsletter-image-likeness-vol-152-safe-act-another-federal-heitner-4gg4e.
[14] Id.
[15] Ralph D. Russo & Chris Vannini, SCORE Act Advances Through Committee, Moving College Sports Reform Closer to House Floor, N.Y. Times: The Athletic (July 25, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6511289/2025/07/23/score-act-congress-college-sports.
[16] Eddie Pells, Democratic senator warns colleagues of ‘distorted system’ if college sports bill passes, Associated Press: Sports (Sep. 10, 2025, at 9:52 ET), https://apnews.com/article/college-sports-congress-score-act-641f7fd0b28d9f892e12caaac4ef2de9; see also Russo & Vannini, supra note 15 (explaining that the SCORE Act places more value on larger schools and men’s sports as opposed to smaller and mid-major schools and women’s and Olympic sports).
[17] Russo et al., supra note 12.
[18] Id.
[19] Ralph D. Russo, As SCORE Act Regains Momentum, Senate Critics Launch New Bill to Reshape College Sports,N.Y. Times: The Athletic (Sep. 29, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6674856/2025/09/29/college-sports-bills-congress-score-safe-act.
[20] Leslie Bolden, Senators Introduce ‘SAFE Act’ To Overhaul College Sports with Athlete Rights, Rev Sharing, Tampa Free Press: Pol. (Sep. 29, 2025, at 8:32 ET), https://www.tampafp.com/senators-introduce-safe-act-to-overhaul-college-sports-with-athlete-rights-rev-sharing.
[21] Russo, supra note 19.
[22] See id. (explaining how the SCORE Act only allows athletes to transfer schools once, while the SAFE Act allows athletes to transfer schools twice).
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Siegal, supra note 10.
[28] Id.
[29] See Russo, supra note 19 (explaining how the conferences eventually supported the SCORE Act only after their suggested changes were implemented).
[30] Pells, supra note 16.