The SCORE Act (H.R.4312) establishes a federal baseline for student‑athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights: institutions, conferences, and interstate athletic associations may not bar athletes from entering into NIL deals (subject to narrow exceptions), and agreements above $600 must meet specified written‑contract requirements or are void. The bill amends the federal Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act to require agent disclosures, conditions agent assistance on consent if the agent is not registered, and caps agent compensation for endorsement deals at 5 percent.
Beyond individual deals, the bill creates a governance regime for interstate intercollegiate athletic associations: it authorizes associations to set rules on prohibited compensation, calculate an annual “pool limit” (with a floor tied to at least 22 percent of a revenue benchmark), register agents, and collect anonymized NIL data — and it provides an antitrust safe harbor for rules adopted under that authority. It also imposes compliance, medical, and degree‑completion obligations on higher‑revenue programs and puts new transparency and student‑fee limits on institutions with large media‑rights income.
State attorneys general may sue to enforce key provisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill guarantees student athletes a federal right to enter into NIL agreements, requires written disclosure for deals over $600, and amends agent rules (disclosure, parental consent for minors, and a 5% fee cap for endorsements). It authorizes interstate athletic associations to set and enforce rules — including a pool limit tied to college sports revenue — and shields such association rules from antitrust liability.
Who It Affects
Student athletes and prospective recruits; athlete agents (must disclose registration and obtain consent if unregistered); conferences and interstate intercollegiate athletic associations (new rulemaking power and governance requirements); institutions that meet revenue or coaching‑salary thresholds (new medical, degree‑completion, and team‑size obligations); donors and associated entities whose direct payments to athletes may be restricted.
Why It Matters
This is a federal attempt to reconcile athlete commercial freedom with competitive fairness: it preempts conflicting state laws, creates an antitrust safe harbor to enable coordinated compensation limits, and changes where money can flow (for example, restricting student fees at very high media‑rights programs). The bill reassigns significant policy authority from states and individual schools to interstate athletic associations and federal enforcement by state attorneys general.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The SCORE Act sets a national floor for how college athletics handle athlete commercial deals and agent relationships. It makes clear that institutions, conferences, and multi‑state associations generally may not prohibit student athletes from signing name, image, and likeness agreements; but it also defines “prohibited compensation,” which blocks certain payments from institution‑affiliated donors or from institutional funds that would push an institution past an association‑calculated pool limit.
The bill requires written, transparent terms for any NIL agreement paying over $600 and gives athletes an explicit 6‑month post‑enrollment termination right for agreements and agency contracts. State attorneys general can sue to enforce many of these protections.
On agents and representation, the bill tightens protections: it amends the federal Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act to require that agents disclose whether they are registered with an interstate athletic association and, if not registered, obtain written consent from the athlete (or parent/guardian for minors) before assisting on endorsement contracts. It also caps an agent’s commission for endorsement contracts at 5 percent and requires agency contracts to include a post‑enrollment termination clause.The measure gives interstate intercollegiate athletic associations explicit authority to write and enforce detailed rules on NIL disclosure, anonymized data collection, prohibited compensation, recruiting windows, transfers, eligibility windows, season length and time demands, and a new agent‑registration system.
Associations must follow governance rules (board composition quotas for former athletes and representation for lower‑revenue institutions) to exercise that authority. The bill also includes an antitrust safe harbor for rules adopted under this framework, preserving coordinated rulemaking that might otherwise collide with the antitrust laws.For institutions above certain thresholds, the bill requires comprehensive athlete supports: multi‑year post‑enrollment medical coverage for injuries, mental‑health services, independent medical decision structures, degree‑completion assistance for former athletes (financial aid tied to their average grant‑in‑aid for remaining degree work within a capped window), and maintenance of a minimum number of varsity teams.
Finally, it tightens transparency around student athletic fees and prevents institutions with very high media‑rights revenues from using student fees to subsidize athletics in the subsequent year, while ordering FTC and GAO studies and recurring reports to Congress to monitor compliance and impacts.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Any NIL agreement that pays an athlete more than $600 is void from inception unless it is written and includes specified terms: parties, services, duration, compensation, termination for nonperformance, a 6‑month post‑enrollment athlete termination right, and a signature (parent/guardian if under 18).
The bill amends the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act to limit endorsement‑deal agent commissions to no more than 5 percent of the compensation paid to the student athlete and requires agents to disclose registration status with interstate athletic associations.
Interstate intercollegiate athletic associations may set a member institution’s annual ‘pool limit’ for athlete compensation; the pool limit must be calculated under association rules and be at least 22 percent of an average college‑sports‑revenue benchmark tied to the association’s highest‑earning members.
Institutions meeting high‑revenue or high coaching‑salary thresholds must provide specified supports — including medical care covering injuries for at least three years post‑graduation or separation, mental‑health services, independent medical decisionmaking structures, degree‑completion financial aid tied to prior grant‑in‑aid levels, and maintenance of at least 16 varsity teams by July 1, 2027.
Starting in academic year 2028–2029, an institution with an average annual media‑rights revenue of $50 million or more (measured as an average of prior years per the bill) may not use student fees to support intercollegiate athletics for the following academic year.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope
This section defines core terms the bill uses throughout: student athlete, prospective student athlete, associated entity or individual (a broad category that captures entities/donors with meaningful ties to an institution), college sports revenue, pool limit, prohibited compensation, and more. Practically, the definition of ‘prohibited compensation’ is the linchpin: it restricts payments from institution‑affiliated actors unless the payment serves a valid public commercial endorsement purpose and is commensurate with market rates, and it also prohibits institutional payments that push an institution past the pool limit.
NIL rights, privacy, and transparent agreements
This section creates a federal right for student athletes to enter into NIL agreements and to obtain agents, subject to narrow exceptions: institutions can still enforce codes of conduct and contracts that conflict with institutional obligations, and prohibited compensation remains off limits. The bill adds several transparency and consumer‑protection mechanics: NIL deals over $600 must be written and include enumerated contract terms or they are void; athletes have an express post‑enrollment termination right; and institutions, conferences, and associations cannot release NIL deal information without the athlete’s express written consent. State attorneys general get parens patriae enforcement authority for these protections.
Agent regulation and disclosure (amendments to SARTA)
The bill modifies the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act to change the notice language, add explicit agent duties for NIL endorsement deals, and require agents to disclose in writing whether they are registered with an interstate intercollegiate athletic association (and whether they are registered with the athlete’s institution’s association). If an agent is unregistered, the agent may only assist with endorsement deals after the athlete (or parent/guardian) signs written consent. The bill also caps agent commissions for endorsement deals at 5 percent of the athlete’s compensation and requires agency contracts to include a 6‑month post‑enrollment termination right.
Institutional obligations for higher‑revenue programs
Institutions meeting the bill’s applicability thresholds must supply a menu of athlete supports: comprehensive academic and career counseling (including NIL and tax/legal guidance), medical coverage for injuries incurred in athletics that continues for at least three years after graduation/separation, mental‑health services, independent medical decision structures, degree‑completion assistance for former athletes (financial aid tied to prior grant‑in‑aid amounts and subject to academic progress and conduct requirements), and a requirement to maintain a minimum number of varsity sports (with a July 1, 2027 deadline to have at least 16 teams). The bill provides that institutions may partner with conferences or associations to meet these duties.
Authority and governance rules for interstate athletic associations
The bill authorizes interstate intercollegiate athletic associations (entities with members across states) to adopt rules on NIL disclosure, anonymized data collection, prohibited compensation standards, dispute resolution that preserves athlete eligibility while disputes proceed, transfer and eligibility parameters (including at least one immediate‑eligibility transfer opportunity), a process to calculate and monitor pool limits, season and time‑demand rules, and an agent‑registration system. To exercise these powers the associations must meet governance conditions: decision‑making bodies must include a floor of former/current student‑athlete representatives (gender balanced and sport diverse) and representation for lower‑revenue member institutions, and the associations must create a council that includes representatives from each member conference.
Antitrust safe harbor and employment standing
The bill provides that rules adopted under the interstate association authority — and related adoption or enforcement actions — are lawful under the antitrust laws (implicit safe harbor), while expressly stating that the safe harbor does not limit other federal, state, or common‑law obligations. Separately, the legislation clarifies that a student athlete’s participation in varsity sports does not by itself create employee status for institutions, conferences, or associations, a provision that will bear on labor claims and related employment law disputes.
Student‑fee transparency and limits, preemption, and reporting
The bill amends Higher Education Act reporting to require institutions to publish how much student fees support athletics and to provide a breakout of fee uses. It also bars institutions with average annual media‑rights revenue at or above $50 million (measured via a prior‑years average) from using student fees to subsidize athletics for the following year (effective 2028–2029). The Act preempts conflicting state laws on student‑athlete compensation and NIL licensing. Finally, the bill orders studies and recurring reports: an FTC study on certifying/regulating agents, biennial reports from associations to Congress on compliance, GAO compliance reviews every five years, and a GAO study on impacts to Olympic sports.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Student athletes — Gain an explicit federal right to sign NIL deals, written‑agreement protections (voidability for noncompliant deals over $600), privacy over disclosure, and access to expanded medical, mental‑health, NIL/legal, and degree‑completion supports for athletes at covered institutions.
- Interstate intercollegiate athletic associations and conferences — Receive statutory rulemaking authority over NIL, transfers, agent registration, and pool limits plus an antitrust safe harbor to implement coordinated compensation and eligibility policies.
- Former student athletes who did not graduate — Receive a defined degree‑completion pathway and financial aid tied to their historical grant‑in‑aid, potentially improving educational outcomes and institutional accountability.
- Regulatory actors and consumers of data — The public, researchers, and policymakers benefit from mandated anonymized NIL data collection and institutional disclosures on student fees and athletics spending, enabling better oversight and study.
- Registered agents and compliant service providers — Agents who comply with registration and disclosure rules gain clearer standards to operate under, and legal certainty around permitted conduct when working with student athletes.
Who Bears the Cost
- High‑revenue institutions and conferences — Face new compliance costs (medical coverage, degree‑completion programs, governance changes) and may lose the ability to use student fees if they meet the media‑rights revenue trigger; they also face new limits on payments tied to pool limits.
- Associated entities and major donors closely tied to institutions — Payments channeled through boosters, affiliated entities, or donors may be captured by the ‘prohibited compensation’ definition and thus curtailed unless they meet the bill’s narrow ‘valid business purpose’ test.
- Athlete agents — Face downward pressure from the 5 percent commission cap on endorsement deals and new administrative burdens from disclosure, consent, and registration rules; some may lose informal revenue streams or be pushed to non‑endorsement compensation structures.
- Smaller institutions and nonprofit programs — Although the bill includes representational protections, associations’ rulemaking and pool limits could shift competitive balance; smaller schools may bear indirect costs if conferences centralize compensation and scheduling decisions.
- State governments and attorneys general — Charged with enforcement authority, state AGs will incur investigative and litigation costs; enforcement could be uneven across states depending on resources and priorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing individual athlete freedom and protection with structural limits designed to preserve competitive balance and institutional integrity: the bill expands athletes’ commercial rights and consumer protections while empowering associations to set coordination mechanisms (pool limits, agent registration, transfer rules) that necessarily constrain how money flows — a trade‑off that hands significant shaping power to associations and regulators whose rule choices will determine whether the reforms widen opportunity or entrench existing power asymmetries.
The SCORE Act attempts to solve multiple problems at once — athlete autonomy, competitive fairness, donor influence, agent misconduct, and long‑term athlete welfare — but does so with a mix of top‑down federal rules and significant delegation to interstate athletic associations. That hybrid creates implementation friction.
The bill contains detailed thresholds and procedural safeguards, but several of those thresholds and obligations appear in multiple, slightly different formulations within the reported text (for example, alternative formulations tying institutional obligations either to coaching‑salary triggers or to revenue triggers). Absent clarification, institutions and associations will face legal uncertainty about which applicability tests control.
Operationally, the pool‑limit mechanism raises valuation problems: associations are asked to compute a dollar cap based on college sports revenue and to ensure institutions do not exceed that cap in aggregate compensation to athletes. That requires consistent, audited revenue reporting and clear rules about what counts as compensation — a complex accounting exercise open to dispute.
The antitrust safe harbor eases legal risk for association rulemaking but also concentrates power at the association level, which could entrench dominant conferences and create governance capture risks unless the governance quotas and transparency mechanisms are robustly enforced. Finally, the bill tightens athlete privacy for deal disclosure to third parties yet simultaneously mandates data collection and public disclosures by institutions and associations — a tension whose resolution depends on rulemaking details about what data gets anonymized and how.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.