Beyond NIL: How the SCORE Act Encapsulates the Future Contest Over College Athlete Rights and Market Freedom

Opening Analysis

The recent surge of support from over 20 conservative organizations for the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act highlights a pivotal moment in the ongoing national debate over Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights in college athletics. This legislation proposes decidedly market-oriented reforms intended to preserve the traditional structure of collegiate sports while responding to the disruptive legal and economic pressures unleashed by the NCAA v. Alston Supreme Court decision. But beyond its surface, the SCORE Act represents a clash between competing visions of amateurism, athlete compensation, and government intervention in what is arguably one of the most lucrative and culturally significant domains in American sports.

The Bigger Picture

The debate over NIL compensation is rooted in decades of NCAA policies that tightly restricted athletes’ commercial rights, justified by the supposed ideal of amateurism in college sports. However, mounting legal challenges culminating in the 2021 Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v. Alston significantly loosened these restrictions by affirming the rights of athletes to receive education-related benefits. This ruling has undercut the NCAA’s near-monopoly on athlete compensation rules and sparked a cascade of state laws granting NIL rights, creating a patchwork system that many stakeholders view as chaotic and uneven.

Against this backdrop, Congress faces intense pressure to enact a federal framework to rationalize NIL regulations, establish clear parameters, and prevent interstate legal conflicts. The SCORE Act emerges as a conservative response to this challenge, advocating limited government involvement, antitrust protections for the NCAA, and the conceptualization of athletes as independent entrepreneurs rather than employees or unionized workers.

What This Really Means

At its core, the SCORE Act advances a free-market, limited government approach to NIL reform that distinctly contrasts with the competing Student Athlete Fairness and Enforcement (SAFE) Act, which is backed primarily by Democrats and labor advocates. By granting the NCAA a narrow antitrust exemption and prohibiting classification of athletes as employees, SCORE seeks to protect existing collegiate sports financial ecosystems from disruption by unions and class-action litigation.

This approach reflects broader ideological tensions over labor rights, government regulation, and market freedom. Supporters argue it safeguards opportunities for athletes to monetize their NIL independently—framing them as small business owners—while preserving competitive balance and the traditional amateur model. Critics caution that it risks entrenching power inequalities, limiting direct athlete bargaining power, and allowing institutions to maintain disproportionate control over revenue distribution.

Additionally, SCORE’s provision that a revenue share pool should amount to at least 22% of average annual college sports revenue introduces a quantitative baseline for athlete earnings—a noteworthy attempt at balancing financial fairness with institutional protections. However, its prohibition on using student fees for NIL payments reveals a commitment to directing funds from commercial revenue streams rather than broader student bodies, which may generate debate on funding equity.

Expert Perspectives

Legal analysts like Christopher W. Sanchirico, a professor of law and economics, have emphasized that Congressional NIL reform will likely reshape the collegiate athlete’s legal and economic position more fundamentally than previously anticipated. He notes, “The antitrust exemption sought in the SCORE Act protects the NCAA’s ability to structure competition but may limit athletes’ leverage to negotiate collectively.”

Sports economists, including Michael Leeds from Temple University, observe, “The fragmented state laws created instability; uniform federal reforms are essential. However, the debate between the SCORE and SAFE Acts mirrors a national struggle over labor rights versus market freedoms, with significant implications for sports governance.”

From a labor perspective, union advocates warn that classifying athletes as independent contractors, as the SCORE Act does, undermines possibilities for collective representation and long-term rights protections for athletes facing injuries or career volatility.

Data & Evidence

According to the NCAA’s own financial reports, the average annual revenue of the 70 highest-earning schools often surpasses $100 million, meaning a mandated 22% revenue-sharing pool could total over $20 million per institution annually dedicated to athlete NIL compensation. Yet, disparities exist as many Division I schools below the top tier generate dramatically less revenue, raising questions about how universal or equitable this percentage-based approach will be in practice.

Since 2021, over 30 Division I conferences, representing a broad spectrum from large Power Five schools to HBCUs, have publicly endorsed the SCORE Act, indicating substantial institutional support. Meanwhile, ongoing legal challenges have seen an uptick in lawsuits by trial lawyers questioning NIL rules, fueling concerns about litigation risks that SCORE’s antitrust exemption aims to mitigate.

Looking Ahead

The battle between the SCORE and SAFE Acts offers a glimpse into the future governance of college sports, with implications far beyond NIL rights. Should SCORE prevail, it may entrench a decentralized market-driven athlete compensation model that limits government regulatory reach, preserves NCAA authority, and prioritizes individual athlete entrepreneurship. This could set a precedent for how amateur sports negotiate labor rights and commercialization nationally.

Conversely, if SAFE gains traction, athletes could see expanded collective bargaining rights, broader revenue sharing through federally regulated media contracts, and potentially unionization, fundamentally transforming the power dynamics in collegiate sports.

Policymakers and stakeholders should also monitor how these reforms impact athlete welfare, competitive balance, diversity and inclusion—especially relating to HBCUs—and the sustainability of athletic programs at smaller institutions.

The Bottom Line

The conservative-backed SCORE Act represents a strategic effort to standardize NIL rules in college sports through market-friendly reforms that protect NCAA authority, curtail litigation, and recognize athletes as independent entrepreneurs rather than employees. It stands in sharp contrast to alternative proposals emphasizing government oversight and athlete collective rights. The legislation’s passage or defeat will define the trajectory of athlete compensation, labor relations, and governance in collegiate athletics for years to come.