No SCORE: Congress Leaves College Sports in Regulatory Limbo, Forcing the White House to Sub In

Even with the White House’s recent Executive Order 14400, Congress’ lack of support for the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act or other legislation leave the world of college sports in regulatory uncertainty.

For the second time in recent months, Republican leadership pulled HR 4312, the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act, from consideration by the US House of Representatives, signaling an ongoing lack of support for the legislation. This most recent setback may indicate the culmination of House-led efforts to reform college sports in the 119th Congress.

Similarly, the White House, having issued two major college sports-related Executive Orders in the past year, may have reached the end of its authorities—for now. These developments will likely extend the current status quo, along with key regulatory uncertainty, as bipartisan discussions in the Senate become the new focal point for legislative action.

This LawFlash examines the recent parallel efforts considered by the House of Representatives and the White House, the legal and operational implications of the current status quo for stakeholders, and where “reformers” may go from here.

BACKGROUND

The SCORE Act, introduced in July 2025, has been the most comprehensive attempt to address the rapidly evolving NIL landscape in collegiate sports in the 119th Congress. The legislation emerged in response to the ongoing transformation of college sports, spurred by the House settlement, among other changes, and aimed to provide federal regulatory certainty for student athletes’ Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, clarify their employment status, and establish national standards for agent regulation and institutional obligations.

Ultimately, SCORE, like many bills, may have fallen victim to the extremely thin Republican majority in the House, as leadership was unable to offset key Republican defections with sufficient Democratic support. However, SCORE’s inability to clear the floor also highlights the enormous political complexities at the heart of the issue, whether they be core partisan “ideological” differences on labor issues, for instance, or more parochial concerns about “winners and losers” in the new era of college sports.

WHAT WAS SCORE TRYING TO DO?

The SCORE Act was introduced in the US House of Representatives by Gus Bilirakis (R-FL). The bill was reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Committee on Education and Workforce following committee consideration and amendment. The SCORE Act aims to reaffirm the student-first model while standardizing NIL practices and promoting fairness.

If enacted, the SCORE Act would provide student-athletes with a federally protected right to enter into NIL agreements and establish a national NIL framework amid the growing number of disparate state laws. Championed by its supporters as protecting student-athletes from exploitation, the act provides measures to ensure NIL agreements are fair, prohibit institutional interference with NIL deals, and safeguard student-athletes’ ability to secure agent representation without restriction.

Key provisions protecting student-athlete interests include the following:

• Clear Contractual Terms and Transparency: The SCORE Act would require that the vast majority of NIL deals be written contracts with clear terms, including provisions naming all parties, specifying the term, and outlining student-athletes’ obligations, compensation, and termination rights.
• Institutional Interference: Colleges and conferences would only be able to interfere with a student-athlete’s NIL agreements in limited circumstances, such as when they conflict with a college’s code of conduct or existing contracts where the college or conference is a party.
• Regulations on Agent Conduct: Agent conduct would be strictly regulated, with the act imposing agent fee caps of 5% of the total compensation of an NIL agreement and requiring disclosure of an agent’s registration status.
• Improper payments and “pay-for-play”: The SCORE Act targets unchecked “pay-for-play” schemes by including a provision that would void NIL agreements involving “prohibited compensation.” The act defines “prohibited compensation,” in part, as payment made to a student-athlete from an entity or individual associated with the school where the student-athlete is enrolled for NIL, unless the payments are made for legitimate business purposes. Thus, creating restrictions on entities like boosters and NIL cooperatives that have become a growing source of NIL funds.

While the SCORE Act provides clear protections for student-athletes and their ability to pursue NIL deals, significant regulatory authority would remain in the hands of colleges, conferences, and the NCAA. These organizations would be authorized to establish and enforce rules on NIL disclosure, dispute resolution, recruitment, transfer eligibility, pool limits for direct payments, and agent registration.

Further, the act grants these organizations a limited antitrust exemption, insulating the organizations from challenges to their conduct as a result of complying with the act. Such exemptions would be much to the chagrin of student-athletes, who would no longer have recourse for any alleged anticompetitive behavior by colleges and the NCAA as a result of the act’s grant of regulatory power.

The SCORE Act would represent a landmark federal intervention by setting national standards for NIL rights and agreements in college sports. But the act’s promise of stability and legal certainty has been met with criticism due to its broad state law preemption clause and the limited scope of its protections.

Critics contend that the act prioritizes the interests of colleges and athletic associations and returns excessive regulatory authority to the NCAA without providing avenues for student-athletes to seek remedies for abuses of that authority. Opponents also argue that the act forecloses stronger NIL protections for student-athletes. The broad state law preemption clause prohibits enforcement of laws conflicting with the act’s NIL provisions including those relating to compensation and benefits. Further, the act categorically prohibits student-athletes from being classified as employees, thereby barring access to federal labor protections like collective bargaining and workers’ compensation.

The SCORE Act’s failure to advance underscores the political and legal complexity surrounding college sports reform. Although lawmakers across the aisle generally agree that the current NIL environment lacks consistency and predictability, consensus broke down over fundamental questions involving labor rights, antitrust protections, federal preemption, and the appropriate role of the NCAA and conferences in regulating student-athlete compensation. The bill also exposed competing institutional interests across conferences, universities, collectives, and athlete advocates, making coalition-building particularly difficult in a narrowly divided House.

WHAT WAS THE WHITE HOUSE DOING ON COLLEGE SPORTS?

While House Republicans struggled to advance the SCORE Act, the White House pursued a parallel executive-branch strategy. On April 3, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14400, Urgent National Action to Save College Sports. The order followed the administration’s earlier college-sports executive action and addressed many of the same issues as the SCORE Act: fragmented NIL rules, revenue sharing, transfer-portal instability, eligibility standards, and perceived threats to women’s and Olympic sports.

While Executive Order 14400 is significant, it is not a substitute for legislation. It does not give the NCAA or conferences antitrust immunity, create a private right of action, or automatically preempt state laws. Instead, it directs federal agencies to use existing authority over grants, contracts, reporting, consumer protection, and litigation to support a more uniform national framework. Key provisions are scheduled to take effect on August 1, 2026.

The order applies most directly to federally funded higher education institutions that generate at least $20 million in annual athletics revenue. It also calls on the relevant national intercollegiate athletic governing body, consistent with applicable law and court orders, to revise or clarify rules governing eligibility, transfers, compensation, and student-athlete protections.

Key provisions include the following:

• Eligibility and transfers: The executive order encourages rules limiting college athletics participation to a five-year period, subject to limited exceptions, and barring professional athletes from returning to college competition. It also supports one transfer with immediate eligibility, plus a second immediate-eligibility transfer after the student-athlete earns a four-year degree.
• NIL, revenue sharing, and improper financial activity: The order targets fraudulent NIL arrangements, including payments above fair market value that function as disguised pay-for-play. It also prohibits federally funded colleges from using federal funds for NIL payments, revenue-sharing payments, or coaching and athletic-management compensation. Legitimate third-party NIL deals remain permissible where they serve a valid business purpose, reflect fair market value, and are not tied to attendance at or participation for a particular school.
• Protection of women’s and Olympic sports: The order calls for revenue-sharing rules that preserve or expand scholarships and participation opportunities in women’s and Olympic sports, reflecting concern that increased spending on football and men’s basketball could divert resources from other programs.
• Federal enforcement and state law challenges: Federal grantmaking and contracting agencies are directed to consider violations of lawful athletic-governing-body rules when evaluating institutional responsibility. The attorney general may also support challenges to conflicting state laws that burden interstate commerce, impair contracts, or violate federal law.
• Reporting and agent oversight: The order directs agencies to consider new reporting requirements for roster spots and athletic aid by gender and calls for a national student-athlete agent registry, limits on excessive commissions, and Federal Trade Commission enforcement against unfair or deceptive agent practices.

For colleges, universities, collectives, and NIL partners, the order should prompt review of NIL, revenue-sharing, transfer, eligibility, agent, and federal-funds policies. Institutions should be prepared to document fair-market-value NIL arrangements, business purposes for sponsorships, and segregation of federal funds from prohibited athletic compensation.

Even so, the order is an interim measure. It binds executive agencies within existing legal limits, may face legal challenges, and could be amended or rescinded by a future administration. Without congressional action, college athletics will remain governed by a patchwork of NCAA and conference rules, settlement obligations, state laws, federal guidance, and litigation risk.

IMPLICATIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS

The withdrawal of the SCORE Act has immediate and far-reaching consequences for institutions, athletes, and other stakeholders:

• Attention Shifts to the Senate: Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have reportedly been quietly working on a bipartisan Senate Commerce Committee bill. However, the window to get something done by the midterms, let alone the commencement of the 2026–2027 athletic calendar, is extremely narrow. Without bill text, and wide bipartisan support from the outset, Senate efforts will likely extend into the 120th Congress next year.
• Eligibility could be a near-term point of friction: The NCAA continues to face legal challenges due to the uncertainty surrounding eligibility requirements. Post-House, student-athletes’ eligibility (or ineligibility) can have serious financial consequences for athletes pursuing NIL opportunities.
• Expect continued regulatory fragmentation: In the absence of federal legislation, institutions and NIL stakeholders must continue navigating overlapping NCAA rules, conference requirements, state NIL laws, settlement obligations, and ongoing litigation risk.
• Review NIL compliance and documentation practices: Institutions, collectives, and sponsors should ensure NIL agreements are supported by legitimate business purposes, fair-market-value analyses, and appropriate contractual documentation.
• Evaluate governance and oversight structures: Universities and athletic departments should reassess internal controls governing athlete compensation, booster involvement, agent interactions, and transfer-related recruiting practices.
• Monitor federal funding and revenue-sharing issues: Colleges receiving federal funds should closely track evolving guidance regarding the permissible use of institutional resources in connection with athlete compensation and revenue-sharing arrangements.
• Prepare for continued litigation-driven change: Even without new legislation, court decisions and settlement implementation may continue reshaping athlete eligibility, employment-status questions, antitrust exposure, and compensation models.

CONCLUSION

As legislative initiative shifts to the Senate, stakeholders should remain proactively engaged while monitoring both state actions and federal legislative developments to ensure effective compliance and risk management.