TAKE ONE: The SCORE Act would give athletes rights with one hand and take leverage with the other
There is a difference between creating order and deciding who gets to control the order.
That might be the central issue with the SCORE Act, the latest congressional attempt to create a national framework for college athletics. On paper, it does some things that sound reasonable. It protects the right of college athletes to enter into name, image and likeness agreements. It gives athletes the right to obtain representation. It requires written NIL contracts above $600. It includes medical, mental health, academic support and degree-completion provisions for certain athletic departments. Those things matter and should not be dismissed. The problem is that the bill also appears to protect the system more than it protects the athletes who now sit at the center of that system.
The question is not whether college sports needs structure. It clearly does. The House settlement created a new world in which schools can directly compensate athletes, with the NCAA saying the first-year cap would be about $20.5 million, or 22.5% of certain revenues. That came after years of antitrust pressure and after the Supreme Court’s Alston decision made it clear that the NCAA’s compensation restrictions were not entitled to special treatment simply because they were dressed in the language of amateurism.
That is what makes the SCORE Act so significant. It does not merely regulate the current system. It tries to freeze pieces of it into federal law.
The bill says
