Federal law shields NCAA from antitrust while capping athlete pay at 22% of revenue

What it does

The SCORE Act creates a federal framework for student-athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, requiring transparency in NIL deals, establishing a 'pool limit' (minimum 22% of college sports revenue) that institutions can pay athletes collectively, and mandating that high-revenue institutions provide comprehensive support services, medical benefits, and degree completion assistance. It also preempts conflicting state laws and shields NCAA-style rule-making from antitrust challenge.

Why we flagged it

The bill's primary mechanism is a federal NIL compensation floor (pool limit) paired with broad antitrust immunity for NCAA-style rule-making. While framed as athlete protection, the immunity provision is the operative power shift—it shields athletic associations from legal challenge for wage-suppression rules.

What the text implies

• The 22% pool-limit floor may function as a de facto ceiling: institutions can comply by paying exactly 22% and face no legal pressure to exceed it, potentially suppressing athlete compensation below market rates.
• Antitrust immunity in Section 8 applies to 'any rule, regulation, requirement, standard, or other provision established pursuant to, or in compliance with, section 6'—this shields NCAA-style associations from Sherman Act challenges for rules that restrict athlete mobility, agent compensation (capped at 5%), or recruitment timing.
• The bill preempts state NIL laws (Section 11) but does not preempt state employment law; however, Section 9 explicitly bars student athletes from being classified as employees, creating a federal carve-out that may conflict with state wage/labor protections.
• High-revenue institutions ($20M+ in athletic revenue) face new mandatory costs (medical benefits for 3+ years post-graduation, degree completion assistance, 16+ varsity teams, comprehensive support services), but the bill does not appropriate federal funds to offset these costs—the burden falls on institutions and may be passed to students via tuition.
• The FTC is directed to study an independent agent-certification program (Section 12), but no such program is established by this bill; the study is advisory only, leaving agent oversight fragmented across state AGs and NCAA-style associations.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Student athletes gain explicit federal protection for NIL rights, transparency requirements, and mandatory institutional support (medical care, counseling, degree completion). However, the bill's core mechanism—a 'pool limit' capping total athlete compensation—may suppress wages below market value, and the antitrust immunity granted to NCAA-style associations insulates them from legal challenge for potentially anticompetitive rules. The net effect depends on whether the pool limit floor (22% of

Who stands to gain

• Student athletes (via NIL rights protection and mandatory institutional support)
• NCAA and Power Five conferences (via antitrust immunity for rule-making)
• High-revenue institutions (via federal preemption of state NIL laws, which may reduce compliance cos

Named in the bill

NCAA, Power Five conferences (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12), Student athletes, Interstate intercollegiate athletic associations, Federal Trade Commission, Comptroller General, State attorneys general, Higher Education Act (referenced), Title IX, Clayton Act, Federal Trade Commission Act

Where it stands

21 cosponsors: 15 Republicans, 6 Democrats.

• Jul 10, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jul 10, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce and House Committee on Education and Workforce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade”
• Jul 15, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Jul 23, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 23”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

105 lobbying clients named this bill on 159 disclosure filings across 4 quarters, Sep 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $27,005,055 in lobbying spend. A filing names 5 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 100% of bills with at least one filing.

Gus Bilirakis, the sponsor, reported $937,250 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Ncta - the Internet & Television Association — $6,870,000 on 2 filings
• American Association for Justice — $3,610,000 on 2 filings
• AFL-CIO — $1,520,000 on 2 filings
• Paramount Skydance Corporation — $1,520,000 on 1 filing
• Disney Worldwide Services Inc — $1,400,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 26, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.