After House v. NCAA: Will Congress Or The White House Bring Order To College Sports?

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:

1. 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.
2. Federal Preemption of State Laws: Overrides the patchwork of state NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) laws, which have created inconsistent rules across the country.
3. 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.