By: Morgan Rigual
Published: February 18, 2026
The landscape of college athletics has changed drastically in the past four years.[1] From the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alston v. NCAA, which overturned the longstanding ban on compensation to college athletes, to the recent House v. NCAA settlement, which awarded nearly three billion dollars in back payment of name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) money to former and current student athletes and authorized direct revenue sharing between universities and student athletes.[2] These changes have placed more power in the hands of the athletes;[3] however, this transformation has decreased the regulatory power of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (“NCAA”), has opened the floodgates for challenging the NCAA’s authority, and has spurred a push for structural changes in college athletics.[4]
The Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act (“the Act”) is a bill aimed at protecting name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) rights of collegiate athletes and promoting fair competition in intercollegiate athletics.[5] As of July 23, 2025, the Act has passed through the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Committee on Education and the Workforce, allowing the bill to go to the House floor for a vote.[6] While its movement through House committees inspires optimism among its supporters, the Act’s lack of enthusiasm from House Democrats and public criticism by its adversaries provide obstacles for its passage.[7]
The Act aims to mitigate regulatory changes to the collegiate sports landscape while preserving NIL rights of student athletes.[8] There are three primary regulations the Act seeks to implement.[9] First, the Act provides the NCAA with an antitrust carveout, namely, giving the NCAA authority to make and enforce rules regarding NIL payments, recruitment, transferring between schools, eligibility, agent registration, and regular and post-season play.[10] Second, the Act addresses employment classification for athletes, enshrining collegiate athletes as students rather than employees.[11] Finally, the Act establishes federal preemption of NIL laws by creating uniform, national standards for NIL regulation.[12]
Since its creation in 1906, the NCAA has had the power to make and enforce rules for their athletes and member institutions.[13] The organization seeks to further the well-being of student athletes, but it’s ability to do so has been consistently challenged under antitrust laws.[14] Numerous lawsuits against the NCAA question its ability to govern its member institutions, citing the anti-competitive nature of its regulatory power.[15] Some of the NCAA’s power has been struck down, such as its former outright ban of NIL payments to collegiate athletes,[16] but much of its remaining authority continues to be litigated in courts.[17] With the volume of lawsuits and the inconsistent opinions of judges across the country, the strength of NCAA regulatory power remains to be determined.[18]
The Act seeks to address this uncertainty by carving out an express antitrust exemption for the NCAA.[19] This means that the NCAA will be permitted to regulate its 1,100 member schools without the risk of facing antitrust suits.[20] This will give the NCAA the power to make and enforce rules, but it will also work to protect student athletes by implementing clear, uniform standards.[21] Critics of the carveout insist that it puts the NCAA above the law, allows for continued collusion between the NCAA and wealthy schools and conferences, and offers no legal accountability for engaging in anticompetitive activity.[22]
Employment classification of student athletes is another controversial topic the Act seeks to resolve.[23] The Act, should it pass, explicitly states that college athletes cannot be regarded as employees of their institution, conference, or intercollegiate athletic association.[24] Advocates for employee status for college athletes insist that the high-revenue generating college athletes deserve to be compensated comparable to professional athletes due to the amount of money college athletes generate for their respective universities.[25] However, this model fails to consider the impact that employee status will have on non-revenue generating and Olympic sports, which make up the majority of the NCAA landscape.[26] Employee status will bring increase operational costs of universities, subject college athletes to federal and state employment and labor law, permit universities to revoke scholarships and “fire” athletes based on performance, allow benefits such as academic support, housing, and apparel to be taxable, and shift athlete’s focus away from their education.[27] While an employment model may have potential to benefit the few top earners in college athletics, it would come at the detriment of the majority—non-revenue generating sports.[28]
Finally, the Act includes a preemption section which will create uniform federal NIL laws.[29] The idea behind establishing a national framework governing NIL payments is to address the patchwork of state laws that have emerged since their ban was overruled.[30] Currently, each state has authority to enact NIL laws as they see fit.[31] Support for this model has stemmed from the notion that states should be allowed to govern their universities and students.[32] Conversely, a consequence of state regulated NIL laws is increased competitiveness in states wanting to attract athletes and students to their schools.[33] With states constantly looking to compete with varied NIL laws comes an increase in athlete transfers which, ultimately, may result in detrimental harms to a student-athlete’s education and increases risk of statutory noncompliance.[34]
The Act has yet to come before the House for a vote, but should it be enacted, it will be another benchmark change for college athletics.[35] Similar to the current landscape of college athletics, the fate of the Act is uncertain because the vote was delayed indefinitely by House Republicans due to lack of support.[36] Regardless of its status, the purpose of the Act stays the same—college athletics needs stability. While the Act may not be the perfect solution for some, it will likely help move college athletics out of its current state of chaos. The focus of reforming college athletics needs to remain routed in improving the system for the student athletes. Establishing uniform national standards and solidifying their status as students, rather than employees, is a huge step forward in creating a stable environment where college athletes can thrive without the stress of navigating an everchanging landscape.
[1] See Kyle Ritchie, The Evolving Landscape of College Student-Athlete Compensation, N.Y. State Bar Ass’n (Mar. 26, 2025) https://nysba.org/the-evolving-landscape-of-college-student-athlete-compensation/ (claiming the landscape of college athletics is at a time of change).
[2] See NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 35 (2021) (holding that it is an antitrust violation for the NCAA to restrict compensation directly to athletes); House v. NCAA, 545 F.Supp. 3d 804, 817-18 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (holding that restricting NIL payment to college athletes violates the Sherman Act).
[3] See NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 35 (2021) (holding that it is an antitrust violation for the NCAA to restrict compensation directly to athletes); House v. NCAA, 545 F.Supp. 3d 804, 817-18 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (holding that restricting NIL payment to college athletes violates the Sherman Act).
[4] See House, 545 F.Supp. at 804 (striking down the NCAA ban on NIL payments to college athletes); Dan Murphy, College athletes suing NCAA to extend eligibility to 5 seasons, ESPN (Sept. 2, 2025) https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/46141528/two-vanderbilt-players-suing-ncaa-extend-eligibility (describing various antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA).
[5] Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act, H.R. 4312, 119th Cong. § 1 (2025).
[6] See Ralph D. Russo, SCORE Act advances through committee, moving college sports reform closer to House floor, N.Y. Times: The Athletic (July 23, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6511289/2025/07/23/score-act-congress-college-sports/ (reporting the status of the SCORE Act).
[7] See id. (stating that there was uncertain Democratic support for the SCORE Act).
[8] See H.R. 4312 (describing the purpose of the Act).
[9] See id. at § 6, 8, 10 (2025) (proposing changes that will have the most significant impact on college athletics).
[10] Id. at § 6.
[11] Id. at § 8.
[12] Id. at § 10.
[13] See NCAA, History, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/4/history.aspx (last visited Sept. 11, 2025) (describing the history of NCAA regulations).
[14] See id. (describing the NCAA’s current mission and the changes it has undergone).
[15] See Dan Murphy, supra note 4 (describing current lawsuits against the NCAA).
[16] See House v. NCAA, 545 F.Supp. 3d 804 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (striking down the NCAA ban on NIL payments to college athletes).
[17] See Murphy, supra note 4 (describing eligibility lawsuits against the NCAA).
[18] See id. (demonstrating the inconsistencies in judicial decision making in eligibility cases against the NCAA).
[19] See Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act, H.R. 4312, 119th Cong. § 1 (2025).
[20] See id. at § 6 (allowing interstate intercollegiate athletic associations to establish and enforce rules).
[21] See id.
[22] See Ralph D. Russo, SCORE Act advances through committee, moving college sports reform closer to House floor, N.Y. Times: The Athletic (July 23, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6511289/2025/07/23/score-act-congress-college-sports/ (paraphrasing an opinion in opposition of the SCORE Act).
[23] H.R. 4312.
[24] Id.
[25] See Haley Lucas, Payment as Punishment: Establishing College Athletes as Employees to Safeguard Athlete Welfare in the “Super Conference” Era, Cornell. L. Rev. (Dec. 18. 2024), https://publications.lawschool.cornell.edu/lawreview/2024/12/18/payment-as-punishment-establishing-college-athletes-as-employees-to-safeguard-athlete-welfare-in-the-super-conference-era/ (arguing for athlete employee status).
[26] See Sally Jenkins, College athletes should think twice before asking to be employees, The Washington Post (June 16, 2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/06/16/college-sports-unionization-employees/ (describing the impact employee status would have on non-revenue generating sports).
[27] See id. (describing the consequences of employee status for athletes).
[28] See id. (articulating the overall negatives of employee status for athletes).
[29] Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act, H.R. 4312, 119th Cong. § 10 (2025).
[30] See Lesley Kennedy, College Athletics Face Uncertainty Amid NIL Policy Changes, NCSL (Sept. 8, 2025), https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/college-athletics-faces-uncertainty-amid-nil-policy-changes (discussing the variance in state NIL laws).
[31] See id. (indicating states have authority to make their own NIL laws).
[32] See id. (quoting state perspectives on NIL regulations).
[33] See id. (demonstrating different laws between states and why athletes may be attracted to different states).
[34] See id. (indicating if there are uniform federal laws it will preempt the varying state laws).
[35] See Ralph D. Russo, SCORE Act advances through committee, moving college sports reform closer to House floor, N.Y. Times: The Athletic (July 23, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6511289/2025/07/23/score-act-congress-college-sports/ (reporting the status of the SCORE Act).
[36] Amanda Christovich, House Republicans Delay SCORE Act Vote Tentatively Planned for Next Week, Front Office Sports (Sept. 11, 2025), https://frontofficesports.com/house-republicans-delay-score-act-vote-tentatively-planned-for-next-week/.