NCAA Overhaul Bill Narrowly Advances During House Panel Vote (1)

A House subcommittee on Tuesday advanced legislation that would cement a landmark NCAA settlement with student-athletes and reshape the future of college sports by granting the organization antitrust protections and overriding state pay rules.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers argued during a markup over an antitrust exemption in the “SCORE Act” (H.R. 4312) that would shield the NCAA from future lawsuits. The House Energy Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade approved the bill in a 12–11 party-line vote.

A full committee markup could come next week on the bill, which would define how college sports function nationwide. The bill has also been referred to the House Education and Workforce Committee.

Some Democratic lawmakers warned the bill would shield the NCAA from future legal challenges while offering athletes little recourse if the terms of the $2.8 billion court settlement over name, image, likeness, and student-athlete pay are violated.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.) and backed by seven Republicans and two Democrats, seeks to codify student-athletes’ rights to make name, image, and likeness agreements following the settlement. The deal is currently facing several appeals from objectors, some of whom say it violates Title IX and harms female athletes.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, and Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) called the bill a “power grab” by the wealthiest college conferences, in a letter sent Monday to Bilirakis urging him to pull the bill. The pair, wary of how the Pac-12 conference collapsed, warned the bill would further entrench inequality in college sports by financially straining smaller schools.

The bill would also preempt state laws on athlete NIL rights and prohibit college athletes from being classified as employees. The bill’s backers argued it’s necessary to bring uniformity to a fractured landscape and protect the long-term viability of college sports.

Subcommittee Democrats also pushed back on provisions that would offer the NCAA broad legal protections.

“There is no enforcement mechanism, there is no recourse right now for states or for individuals,” Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) said during the hearing. “It doesn’t feel pro-player to me, it doesn’t feel like this is an extension of athletes’ rights, it feels like we’re putting a couple of modest player protections into a bill.”

Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.) said during the markup that the antitrust exemption in the bill is conditional on compliance with the rest of the bill’s provisions and “is necessary to provide stability and clarity for the athletic ecosystem.” If schools face constant litigation, their budgets might shift and lead to cuts in non-revenue generating sports, Fry said.

He added that the preemption clause in the bill will prevent a patchwork of state laws on the issue, which he called “unsustainable.”

Bilirakis said the conditional nature of the antitrust exemption for individual schools is “an enforcement mechanism, as far as I’m concerned.”

Several Democratic amendments aimed at scaling back the antitrust shield or narrowing preemption were defeated or withdrawn for further discussion.