Congress Debates Competing Bills to Reform College Sports

Efforts to reform college sports in the United States face significant hurdles as Congress grapples with two competing bills, the SCORE Act and the SAFE Act. Both proposals aim to address critical issues affecting college athletes and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), but they diverge in their approaches and priorities.

The SCORE Act, introduced in July 2023, seeks to provide the NCAA with a limited antitrust exemption. This measure is designed to protect the organization from lawsuits related to eligibility rules, while also preventing athletes from being classified as employees of their respective schools. Advocates of the bill argue that it is essential for maintaining the status quo in college athletics, where eligibility rules have historically allowed athletes five years to complete four seasons of competition. The NCAA has faced numerous lawsuits in different courts, prompting the need for this legislative protection.

In contrast, the SAFE Act was proposed by Democratic lawmakers in August 2023, focusing on enabling conferences to pool their broadcasting rights. Proponents assert that this could generate billions in revenue for college sports, particularly as schools transition to a model where they can pay athletes. The legislation aims to preempt state laws concerning name, image, and likeness (NIL) payments, which have varied widely since their introduction in July 2021. Southeastern Conference (SEC) Commissioner Greg Sankey has emphasized that this provision is a “common-sense solution” that ensures all athletes compete under uniform rules, regardless of their state.

Both bills share similarities, including provisions that require schools to offer medical insurance to athletes after graduation. The SCORE Act proposes three years of coverage, while the SAFE Act extends this to five years. However, the two measures diverge sharply when it comes to the treatment of athletes. A significant majority of Democratic lawmakers oppose the notion of stripping athletes of their rights to sue the NCAA or to potentially form unions, which could lead to employee status. An NCAA executive described the concept of athletes becoming employees as the “budget-buster of the century,” citing surveys indicating that most athletes do not support it.

The financial implications of these bills are considerable, particularly concerning media deals. The NCAA has pointed to lucrative agreements, such as the reported $8 billion deal for the Big Ten and $3 billion for the SEC, as evidence of the potential for revenue generation. However, skepticism exists regarding the SAFE Act’s central proposal of pooling television rights, with the SEC and Big 12 expressing doubts about the guarantee of increased future earnings.

While both bills aim to address the challenges facing college athletics, the path forward remains uncertain. The SAFE Act has already attracted opposition, notably from Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee responsible for overseeing college sports. His influence could significantly impact the fate of any legislation that reaches the Senate floor, where a minimum of 60 votes is required for passage.

The SCORE Act appeared poised for a vote in the House, yet doubts among Republican lawmakers have cast uncertainty over its prospects. While the NCAA and various conferences have sought to regain momentum for their proposals, the ongoing government shutdown complicates the legislative landscape. A possible pathway for the SCORE Act could involve its attachment to essential legislation, creating a dilemma for Democrats who may need to choose between supporting the bill and addressing concerns over athletes’ rights.

As discussions unfold, the fate of college sports reform remains in the balance. The urgency of the situation may intensify if signs emerge indicating that the Olympic pipeline is at risk, as both bills acknowledge the importance of maintaining successful football and basketball programs to support non-revenue sports. The outcome of these legislative efforts could reshape the landscape of college athletics and the rights of athletes for years to come.