For the past five years, university leaders have repeatedly urged Congress to intervene in the increasingly chaotic college sports landscape—specifically by establishing a national framework for NIL compensation and limiting additional labor rights for college athletes.
But on Monday, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)—the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation—reversed the ball. In a letter sent to presidents, chancellors and regents at 350 Division I schools, she voiced strong opposition to what is widely seen as the most viable piece of college sports reform legislation to date: the SCORE Act.
In her letter, Cantwell criticized the Republican-backed bill, which aims to codify the House v. NCAA settlement into federal law while granting antitrust immunity to governing bodies and conferences in college sports. She argued that the legislation would exacerbate existing inequalities among NCAA member institutions by consolidating power within the SEC and Big Ten. Cantwell also warned that it would entrench the ongoing “arms race” in college football, jeopardize funding for women’s and Olympic sports, and roll back recent legal advancements that have strengthened the rights of all college athletes.
Cantwell, a prominent liberal voice, cited conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in NCAA v. Alston, in which he wrote: “Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate.”
She also noted that under the SCORE Act, the bill would preempt state laws granting athletes NIL rights related to media distribution once the House settlement expires in 10 years. This, she argued, would effectively strip athletes of any future right to control or receive compensation for the use of their NIL in game broadcasts and media coverage.
However, Cantwell primarily sought to appeal to the interests of the schools themselves, particularly those outside the SEC and Big Ten, whose voices she says have been sidelined by the SCORE Act’s legislative process.
Her letter contends that, contrary to popular belief, the SCORE Act—if enacted in its current form—would effectively repeal the 22% revenue-sharing cap established in the House settlement, potentially triggering what she describes as “runaway spending.” The bill authorizes interstate collegiate athletic associations to set a new revenue-sharing limit, provided it meets or exceeds the 22% threshold.
The SCORE Act’s main sponsor, Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.)—chairman of the House Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee—said the bill “provides the rulemaking authority to actually create and enforce a cap. That’s why we have widespread support from big and small universities who want strong, sustainable athletic programs.”
Last month, the legislation cleared two key House committees—Education and Workforce, and Energy and Commerce—paving the way for a possible floor vote as early as right after Labor Day. Although the bill could pass the House without Democratic support, Republicans are aiming to signal bipartisan momentum. So far, two House Democrats—Reps. Janelle Bynum (Ore.) and Shomari Figures (Ala.)—have signed on as co-sponsors.
Its prospects in the Senate, however, are far less certain. Overcoming a potential Democratic filibuster would require 60 votes, meaning at least seven Democrats would need to join the 53 Republicans—a scenario that currently appears unlikely. In April, Yahoo Sports reported that Democratic Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.), Chris Coons (Del.) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) had been engaged in “serious negotiations” with Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Jerry Moran (Kan.) on related legislation concerning college athlete compensation. That effort followed a previous round of bipartisan talks the year before, which ultimately went nowhere.
Since that Yahoo Sports report, there have been no public signs that this year’s discussions have gained traction. After the bill advanced out of committee last month, Booker sharply criticized the SCORE Act, arguing that it “falls short on health, safety, education, oversight, enforcement and more.”
(This story has been updated in the fifth-to-last paragraph to better clarify what was stated in the letter. This story has also been updated in the fourth-to-last paragraph to add comment from Bilirakis.)
