College sports are at a crossroads, and the future of thousands of athletes hangs in the balance. Two competing bills in Congress are vying to reshape the landscape of collegiate athletics, but their approaches couldn’t be more different. As fall arrives, the fate of these reforms remains uncertain, leaving athletes, schools, and fans in limbo. But here’s where it gets controversial: Can these bills truly protect college sports while addressing the needs of the athletes at their heart?
The SCORE Act, introduced in July with a hint of bipartisan support, aims to grant the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption. This move is designed to shield the organization from lawsuits challenging its eligibility rules, which have long been a point of contention. However, the bill also explicitly prevents athletes from being classified as employees of their schools—a provision that has sparked fierce debate. Critics argue this strips athletes of essential rights, while proponents claim it preserves the amateur status of college sports.
On the other side of the aisle, the SAFE Act, introduced by Democratic lawmakers, takes a different tack. It focuses on allowing conferences to pool their broadcast rights, a move supporters say could inject billions into the industry. This additional revenue, they argue, is crucial for financing a new era where schools can directly compensate players. But this is the part most people miss: While the SAFE Act seems to prioritize financial growth, it doesn’t directly address the employment status of athletes—a glaring omission for many advocates.
Do these bills share any common ground? Surprisingly, yes. Both seek to preempt state laws regarding name, image, and likeness (NIL) payments, which have varied widely since their introduction in 2021. This inconsistency has created a patchwork of rules across conferences, leaving athletes and schools confused. Southeastern Conference Commissioner Greg Sankey hailed this “state preemption” as a common-sense solution, ensuring athletes compete under uniform rules regardless of their state. Additionally, both bills mandate that schools provide medical insurance to athletes after graduation, though the SCORE Act extends this coverage for three years, while the SAFE Act offers five.
Where do they diverge most sharply? The treatment of athletes. Democrats largely oppose the SCORE Act’s prohibition on athlete employment, arguing it undermines their rights to unionize or sue the NCAA. An NCAA executive has dismissed the idea of athletes as employees as a “budget-buster of the century,” citing surveys claiming most athletes oppose it. However, these surveys have been met with skepticism, with critics questioning their methodology and impartiality.
The NCAA insists its limited antitrust protection is necessary to avoid the legal quagmire it currently faces, with over a dozen lawsuits challenging its eligibility rules. Meanwhile, the SAFE Act’s proposal to pool TV rights has been met with skepticism from conferences like the SEC and Big 12, which doubt it will guarantee significant financial gains. Proponents, like Texas Tech’s head of regents Cody Campbell, counter that such an arrangement could generate between $4 billion and $7 billion in additional revenue—though neither side has provided detailed evidence to support their claims.
Could the Olympics be the key to compromise? Politicians often rally behind the American flag, and the impact of these bills on Olympic sports could be a unifying factor. Both bills acknowledge the importance of football and basketball in funding “non-revenue” sports that feed the pipeline for Team USA. The SCORE Act would mandate a minimum number of sports for larger schools, while the SAFE Act proposes using increased TV revenue to maintain participation levels in women’s and Olympic sports at 2023-24 levels.
If evidence emerges that the Olympic pipeline is genuinely at risk, it could create a sense of urgency for bipartisan compromise. While some programs have been cut, the NCAA argues that scholarship dollars and participation levels are at record highs following recent settlements. “There’s a lot going right,” said NCAA Vice President Tim Buckley, though critics remain skeptical of the organization’s ability to self-regulate.
Will either bill pass? The odds are uncertain. Senator Ted Cruz, a vocal opponent of the SAFE Act, chairs the Senate Commerce Committee overseeing college sports, giving him significant influence. The SCORE Act appeared poised for a House vote but faced resistance from Republican doubters. With the government shutdown looming, college sports reform seems low on the priority list.
However, if House Republicans unite behind the SCORE Act, they could attach it to a “must-pass” bill, forcing Senate Democrats into a tough decision: reject a bill they otherwise support or accept a measure they believe undermines athletes’ rights. As long as Senate Democrats view the SCORE Act as a threat to athlete protections, it’s unlikely to pass without substantial revisions.
Here’s the burning question: Can Congress strike a balance between protecting college sports and empowering its athletes, or will partisan divides and financial interests derail these efforts entirely? Share your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
