The SCORE Act Under Fire: Why Lawmakers Say College Athletes Deserve Better

In a rare moment of bipartisan alignment, Representatives Chip Roy and Frank Pallone delivered strong criticism during a recent congressional hearing on the SCORE Act — legislation aimed at creating a national framework for how student-athletes are compensated for their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). While the bill promises clarity and uniform standards, opponents argue it may actually weaken student-athlete rights and cement existing inequities within college sports.

The SCORE Act (Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act) would prohibit colleges or athletic associations from limiting NIL deals, require major athletic programs to provide medical and counseling services, and preserve non-revenue sports by mandating at least 16 varsity teams for high-revenue schools. At first glance, it seems like a step toward fairness and stability in a chaotic NIL landscape.

But Roy and Pallone — along with a growing coalition of critics — warn that the bill has serious flaws. The biggest issue? It prevents student-athletes from being recognized as employees, meaning no labor protections, no collective bargaining, and no right to negotiate the true value of their work. With athletic departments and the NCAA generating billions, critics argue the bill protects institutions far more than the athletes who drive the revenue.

Another major concern is the broad antitrust immunity granted to organizations like the NCAA. Opponents fear this would allow restrictive rules on transfers, compensation, and eligibility — potentially recreating the very system that courts have ruled illegal in past antitrust cases. By preempting state NIL laws, the federal bill could also override stronger protections that several states have already given their student-athletes.

Supporters of the SCORE Act say it brings consistency and stability across all states, ensuring that schools can operate under one nationwide standard. Yet lawmakers like Roy and Pallone caution that the cost of that "stability" may be the rights and earning power of athletes.

As the legislation moves forward, the stakes are enormous. Will Congress choose to give student-athletes more freedom and protection — or solidify a system that keeps institutions in control?

One thing is clear: the future of college sports is changing fast, and this debate is far from over.