House Vote on SCORE Act Canceled Amid Controversy
In a surprising turn of events, a scheduled House vote on the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act was abruptly canceled just hours before it was set to take place. The bill, which aims to regulate name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals for college athletes, had narrowly passed a preliminary vote on Tuesday by a margin of 210-209. Despite receiving a formal endorsement from the White House, which described the legislation as “a crucial step toward enacting legislation that will preserve and strengthen this institution that is central to American culture and success,” the final vote was pulled from the schedule in the early afternoon, reflecting the contentious and divided opinions surrounding the proposed regulations.
The controversy surrounding the SCORE Act cuts across traditional party lines, with three Republican representatives—Byron Donalds of Florida, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Chip Roy of Texas—joining Democrats in opposing the measure. Representative Roy publicly explained his position on social media, stating that while the act was “well-intended,” it ultimately “falls short and is not ready for prime time.” He also expressed frustration with the legislative process, noting that representatives “should have been able to amend” the bill before a final vote. This unusual coalition highlights the complex nature of collegiate sports regulation and suggests that traditional partisan politics may not be the defining factor in determining the future of college athletics.
The SCORE Act would provide significant protections for the NCAA by granting a limited antitrust exemption, which would shield the organization from potential lawsuits regarding eligibility rules. Perhaps most controversially, the legislation would explicitly prohibit athletes from becoming employees of their schools, a provision that has drawn sharp criticism from various groups, including the Congressional Black Caucus. In their statement opposing the bill, the CBC argued that the act “would permanently strip college athletes of labor and employment rights, including the right to unionize,” and “prevent them from challenging harmful or anticompetitive conduct.” The caucus further emphasized that the human impact must not be overlooked, particularly for Black student-athletes who “may not come from sizable financial means” yet generate substantial profits for universities and coaches.
The debate over the SCORE Act illuminates the broader tensions within collegiate athletics, where the traditional amateur model increasingly clashes with the economic realities of modern sports. The White House statement supporting the bill highlighted that collegiate athletics “provides life-changing educational and leadership-development opportunities to more than 500,000 student-athletes through almost $4 billion in scholarships each year,” while also noting that “the future of college sports, and especially the future of Olympic and non-revenue sports, is threatened by significant legal and financial uncertainty.” This perspective suggests that some form of federal regulation may be necessary to preserve the collegiate athletic system as it currently exists, though there is significant disagreement about what that regulation should entail.
The cancellation of the vote doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the SCORE Act, as Republicans may attempt to bring the legislation to the floor as early as Thursday. However, the delay signals the difficult path ahead for any comprehensive federal regulation of NIL and collegiate athletics. The sharp divisions on this issue extend beyond Congress, with former President Donald Trump having signed an executive order to “save college sports” in July, indicating that collegiate athletics regulation could become an increasingly significant political issue as we approach the November elections. The uncertainty surrounding federal legislation also leaves colleges, conferences, and student-athletes in a precarious position as they navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of collegiate sports.
At its core, this debate centers on fundamental questions about fairness, opportunity, and compensation in college athletics. As the Congressional Black Caucus pointed out, “College athletes too often report struggling with injuries, food insecurity, poverty, and homelessness,” while universities and coaches profit enormously from their labor. Yet proponents of the current system worry that dramatic changes could undermine the educational mission of collegiate athletics and threaten the sustainability of less profitable sports programs. Finding a solution that balances the legitimate interests of student-athletes with the preservation of collegiate athletics as a unique American institution remains an elusive goal, as evidenced by the last-minute cancellation of what would have been a significant step toward federal regulation of name, image, and likeness in college sports.
