A bill that would help regulate college sports and how athletes are compensated by schools made it through a House committee on Wednesday — a notable step on the way to it conceivably being put to a vote — while public criticism of the potential legislation also mounted.

After years of lobbying for help from Congress by college sports leaders, the SCORE Act is the first bill to move through committees in either chamber. The House Energy and Commerce committee and the Committee on Education and the Workforce both approved the bill with only Republican votes and no Democratic support.

That clears the way for the bill to go to the floor of the House for a vote, but the soonest that could happen is in the fall Congressional session starting in September, with summer recess looming.

Before either hearing was held, attorneys general from Florida, Ohio, New York, Tennessee and the District of Columbia sent a letter to six committee chairs and ranking members of Congress, detailing their strong opposition to the bill.

“The SCORE Act is a misguided effort that will enshrine in federal law the arbitrary and biased authority of the NCAA at its worst,” the letter said.

The proposed legislation from seven Republican and two Democratic sponsors prevents athletes from obtaining employment status and mirrors many of the terms of the recent House v. NCAA settlement. It would officially end most administrative restrictions on athletes’ name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation, but it allows schools and conferences to establish what is and isn’t permissible. Should it pass, it would override current NIL laws, which vary from state to state, and grant antitrust protections to the NCAA and conferences.

Critics say the bill is too deferential to the NCAA and power conferences, who have led the efforts to push for a federal law.

Even if the SCORE Act passes a House vote on partisan lines with Republicans in control, it faces a much higher bar in the Senate. The bill would need 60 votes to pass in the Senate, including seven Democrats.

One of those Democrats, Sen. Maria Cantwell, has already voiced opposition to the SCORE Act, calling it the “national championship of all heists.” The players’ associations of several professional sports leagues also came out with a joint statement, encouraging lawmakers to reject the bill.

Big West commissioner Dan Butterly wrote in a letter to Rep. Michael Baumgartner (D-Wash.), another SCORE Act critic, that too many of the bill’s provisions are skewed toward what would work for schools in the wealthiest conferences rather than the majority of Division I schools.

“Institutions within The Big West are proud to offer meaningful educational and competitive experiences to student-athletes. But without financial safeguards, structural flexibility and inclusive policymaking, reforms like the SCORE Act may unintentionally harm the very programs they seek to protect,” Butterly wrote.

As written, the SCORE Act probably has little chance of garnering enough support to pass the Senate, if it gets there.

Still, the progress is meaningful. For the first time, lawmakers have prioritized the need to help college sports sort out its issues enough for a bill to be debated in committee and possibly sent to the full body for consideration.

The next notable step out of Washington on college sports could be coming from the executive branch.

President Donald Trump has signaled his interest in getting involved in the issue, possibly by forming a commission to search for solutions or by signing an executive order.

A draft of “Saving College Sports,” obtained by The Athletic, directs the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board to address the debate over the employment status of college athletes.

It also calls for members of Trump’s cabinet and other political officials to pursue policy and protections in a number of other areas related to college sports, including rules that could be challenged by antitrust complaints and continued opportunity for scholarships and roster spots, along with preventing “unqualified or unscrupulous agents from representing athletes.”

— Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams contributed reporting.

(Photo: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

1 College Spent More Than $50 Million On NIL Payments In 2024-25 originally appeared on The Spun.

Some SEC money is just different and that’s certainly the case in the state of Texas.

With NIL being the name of the game in this current era of college athletics, some universities are willing to pay whatever it takes to be competitive on a national scale — as evidenced by the checks written by the Texas A&M Aggies.

Advertisement

Per an open records request by reporter Alex Miller, fans were able to learn just how much the Aggies spent on NIL alone the last calendar year; which was upwards of $50 million.

In an article written in The Bryan-College Station Eagle, Miller revealed the Power Four school spent $51.4 million on NIL payments in both men’s and women’s sports from July 2024 to June 2025 — a roughly $19 million increase from the previous year.

Of the $51.4 million, $49.2 million was invested in A&M’s men’s sports, while just $2.2 million was divided up amongst its women athletes.

Advertisement

Following last month’s landmark House settlement, money schools can directly give to their players will be capped at $20.5 million this year, with the annual pot expected to grow to around $32 million over the next decade or so.

The new revenue-sharing model doesn’t seem to account for name, image, likeness payments outside of what each program is allotted, however. So it’s fair to assume that teams will work their way around it by outsourcing that spending to the boosters and businesses that are already supporting their athletes behind the scenes.

Advertisement

Still though, $50 million on NIL payments is a pretty shocking number. Especially when you consider where college sports were not even 10 years ago.

Related: NFL Quarterback Suffers Season-Ending Injury Before Training Camp

1 College Spent More Than $50 Million On NIL Payments In 2024-25 first appeared on The Spun on Jul 22, 2025

This story was originally reported by The Spun on Jul 22, 2025, where it first appeared.

College basketball is witnessing a surge of international talent, with over 70 foreign players expected to join power-conference programs for the 2025 signing class. This growth is driven by lucrative NIL opportunities, positioning NCAA Division I basketball as a highly attractive option for young players worldwide. However, impending revenue-sharing regulations may deter future international prospects by limiting financial incentives and altering recruiting dynamics. Experts warn that if strict enforcement of these regulations occurs, it could lead to a significant decline in the influx of European players, ultimately reshaping the talent landscape in college basketball.

By the Numbers

• 38 foreign players joined power-conference programs in the previous year.
• Over 70 international prospects expected to sign in 2025-26.

Yes, But

The potential decline in international prospects stems from the new revenue-sharing regulations, which may limit budgets for basketball programs and shift focus back to domestic talent. This could affect not just high-majors but lower-tier schools that rely on attractive compensation to recruit effectively.

State of Play

• High-major programs are currently spending heavily to attract top-tier international talent.
• The introduction of the College Sports Commission could enforce stricter NIL regulations impacting recruitment strategies.

What’s Next

If enforced, new budget caps could compel schools to limit spending under $5 million for rosters, potentially decreasing player compensation. This change may drive high-caliber international players to remain in Europe for more lucrative opportunities, reshaping the recruiting landscape in college basketball.

Bottom Line

The evolving financial and regulatory environment in college basketball could lead to a drastic reduction in international talent influx, challenging the sport’s competitive balance and growth in diversity. Programs must adapt quickly to these changes to maintain their global appeal.