Seyfarth Shaw LLP are most popular:
- within Compliance, Consumer Protection, Government and Public Sector topic(s)
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Business & Consumer Services and Retail & Leisure industries
Since the House v. NCAA settlement went into effect in
July 2025, the federal government has proposed three regulatory
responses to concerns surrounding the future of college sports: the
SCORE Act, the newly introduced SAFE Act, and President Trump’s
“Saving College Sports” Executive Order. Each seeks to
define the future of athlete compensation, protect non-revenue
sports, and establish the role of federal oversight. Yet, despite
their ambitious aims, none of these measures has made meaningful
progress, leaving universities without the clarity and stability
they urgently need to navigate this post-House
landscape.
Current Status of the House Settlement
Since July, universities across the country have raced to
implement the requirements of the House settlement
(discussed in more detail here). Those efforts, however, have faced
significant obstacles – including legal challenges to roster
limits, uncertainty over how revenue sharing complies with Title
IX, the looming unresolved question of student-athlete employment
status pending in Johnson v. NCAA, and the logistical
complexity of managing direct athlete compensation.
Implementation has been further complicated by the
settlement’s mandate that all athlete deals be disclosed to
– and approved by – the newly formed College Sports
Commission (CSC)(discussed here). The CSC has struggled to keep pace with
the sheer volume of submissions. Between June 11, 2025 and August
31, 2025, universities submitted 8,539 deals (valued at
approximately $80 million; as of September only 6,090 (valued at
$35.42 million) had been approved1. Approvals have been
reported as taking several weeks or more. With college football
season in full swing, and basketball season approaching, delayed
deal approval can mean lost opportunity for both universities and
athletes. Several news outlets have reported that some collectives
have begun circumventing the approval process entirely, paying
athletes before their deals have cleared the system.
The SCORE Act
In July 2025, anticipating the challenges and unresolved legal
issues following House, a bipartisan group of U.S. House
Representatives introduced the Student Compensation and Opportunity
through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act. Despite initially
passing through committee in the House of Representatives, the
SCORE Act is currently stalled. A full House vote has been
repeatedly delayed.
The SCORE Act seeks to bring uniformity and legal clarity to the
chaotic and rapidly evolving world of college sports. It addresses
three major concerns that have plagued the NCAA and its member
institutions:
- Antitrust Protection: Grants the NCAA and
athletic conferences a limited exemption from antitrust suits,
shielding them from the wave of lawsuits that have challenged their
authority and practices. - Federal Preemption of State Laws: Overrides
the patchwork of state NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) laws, which
have created inconsistent rules across the country. - Preserving Amateur Status: Bars college
athletes from being classified as employees, thereby excluding them
from labor protections and collective bargaining rights.
While the bill has bipartisan support, it has also drawn
criticism from both ends of the political spectrum. Key figures
like Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) and Sen. Maria Cantwell
(D-Wash.) argue that the bill disproportionately benefits the Power
Five conferences and fails to protect smaller schools, Olympic
sports, and women’s athletics. Athletes.org, a players
association representing thousands of college athletes, has
condemned the bill as a “grave step in the wrong
direction,”2 pointing to provisions that:
- Limit athletes’ ability to monetize their NIL by imposing
subjective restrictions; - Cap school payments without athlete input;
- Restrict transfer rights, contrary to recent court rulings;
and - Prohibit athletes from being classified as employees, denying
them labor protections.
In a joint statement, Athletes.org and other players
associations warned that the bill entrenches institutional power
while silencing athlete voices. They argue that legislation
governing college sports should be developed in partnership with
athletes—not imposed unilaterally from the top
down.3
The SAFE Act
On September 29, 2025, while the SCORE Act is currently stalled,
Senate Democrats introduced the Student Athlete Fairness and
Enforcement (“SAFE”) Act. The bill seeks to stabilize
college athletics by prioritizing athlete welfare and protecting
nonrevenue sports. Its notable provisions include:
- Media Rights Consolidation: Amends the Sports
Broadcasting Act to allow conferences to pool broadcasting rights,
enabling collective media deals that boost revenue and sustain
Olympic and nonrevenue sports. - Protection for Olympic Sports: Requires
schools to maintain scholarship and roster spots for Olympic sports
at 2023–24 levels, safeguarding programs often cut during
budget shortfalls. - Athlete Mobility and Support: Permits athletes
to transfer twice without penalty, guarantees scholarships and
medical coverage post-eligibility, and allows international
athletes to be compensated without jeopardizing their visa
status. - Agent Regulation: Creates a registry for
athlete agents and caps agent fees to reduce exploitation. - Revenue Distribution Oversight: Established a
new committee to pool and distribute media rights and revenues to
schools, enforced by the Federal Trade Commission and state
attorneys general.
SAFE Act vs. SCORE Act: Key Differences
The SAFE Act stands in stark contrast to the SCORE Act in
several areas:
- Athlete Protections: The SAFE Act offers
stronger protections for athletes, including post-eligibility
benefits and transfer flexibility. The SCORE Act imposes tighter
restrictions on NIL and transfers. - Support for Nonrevenue Sports: The SAFE Act
explicitly protects Olympic and women’s sports, while critics
argue the SCORE Act risks cutting them due to funding
constraints. - No Antitrust Shield: The SAFE Act does not
offer an antitrust shield for the NCAA or conferences, while the
SCORE Act does. - No Employment Classification Clause: The SAFE
Act avoids addressing whether athletes should be considered
employees, leaving the door open to future legal and legislative
developments. The SCORE Act expressly bars athletes from being
classified as employees.
Initial feedback on the SAFE Act reveals support from athlete
advocacy groups and smaller schools, while the NCAA and Power Five
conferences remain skeptical. The NCAA and major conferences are
likely to oppose the bill because it omits their top priorities:
antitrust protection and an explicit bar on athlete employee
status. Leaders in the SEC and Big Ten have also criticized the
proposal to consolidate media rights, warning it could weaken their
individual bargaining power and revenue streams.
The “Saving College Sports” Executive Order
In July 2025, President Trump issued the “Saving College
Sports” executive order, calling for a national solution to
protect collegiate athletics – especially women’s and
non-revenue sports vulnerable to cuts. The order:
- Requires revenue-sharing models to preserve or expand
scholarships and opportunities in women’s and non-revenue
sports. - Prohibits third-party pay-for-play payments.
- Sets scholarship and roster requirements for the 2025–26
season, tied to athletic department revenues.
It also established agency deadlines:
- August 23, 2025: The Secretary of Education,
with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS), and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), was tasked with developing a regulatory and enforcement
plan. - September 22, 2025: The Attorney General and
FTC were directed to propose litigation strategies and policy
guidelines. - Ongoing: The Department of Labor (DOL) and the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were instructed to clarify
athlete employment status.
As of the date of this article, no federal guidance has been
published. The DOL and NLRB, in particular, remain silent –
the latter unable to act since January 27, 2025 when it lost quorum
and could no longer issue decisions.
Steps In The Right Direction
While the executive order lacks the force of legislation like
the SAFE or SCORE Acts, it signals the White House’s policy
priorities. It focus on preserving women’s and non-revenue
sports and opposing third-party pay-for-play aligns more closely
with the SAFE Act than with the SCORE Act’s institutional
protections. If federal agencies follow through with consistent
guidance, universities may gain some near-term clarity on
House compliance and the evolving legal landscape
governing college sports.
More broadly, legislative reform efforts in this space are not
new, but the SAFE Act has made more progress towards gaining
necessary support than other previously proposed legislation, and
current publicized response to the SCORE Act suggests that it, too,
may receive bipartisan support. If implemented, any of these
post-House measures would provide the critical direction
to universities and other stakeholders navigating the future of
college athlete compensation.
Footnotes
1. Updated NIL Deal Flow Report, dated Sept. 5, 2025,
available at
https://assets.tina.io/29b83311-e587-42b1-861e-87ebde9aa253/NIL%20Deal%20Flow%20Report%209.5.25.pdf
2.
https://www.athletes.org/news/college-athletes-speak-out-against-the-score-act-unite-as-athletes-org-executive-committee/
3.
https://www.athletes.org/news/the-score-act-is-detrimental-to-all-college-athletes-and-all-college-sports-athletes-org-details-why/
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.