Why Congress’ Failed College Sports Bill Reveals Power Levers in NCAA Control
The fight over the SCORE Act in the U.S. House exposes how regulatory power is the true prize behind college sports reforms. Congress recently delayed a vote on a bill pushed by the NCAA, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and the White House to regulate athlete payments.
Opponents argue this bill hands sweeping authority, including antitrust protections and employment classification, to the NCAA and the most powerful conferences. But the gridlock reveals deeper structural stakes beyond player pay.
Understanding this standoff means seeing the NCAA’s control mechanisms as a system locking in leverage over a $ billion industry without constant legislative oversight.
“The control factor of the NCAA and major conferences is not what it used to be,” said GOP Rep. Byron Donalds, highlighting the core leverage tension.
Why college sports regulation is not just about fairness or athletes’ rights
Conventional wisdom views the SCORE Act as a straightforward federal fix to clarify and codify athlete pay rules after the multibillion-dollar lawsuit settlement. But that misses how the bill’s provisions serve as a mechanism to lock in power.
The bill grants the NCAA broad antitrust exemptions and preempts state laws, ensuring that the most powerful conferences maintain tight control over the sport’s financial ecosystem. This is a classic case of constraint repositioning, where federal regulation acts as a structural moat rather than a neutral framework.
Unlike other industries where government intervention dissolves monopolistic control, here it institutionalizes it.
The real mechanism: systematizing control with legal immunities
The SCORE Act’s protection against classifying college athletes as employees consolidates power under the NCAA and major conferences by removing labor union leverage. AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler calls this “union-busting policy in action.”
Supporters argue this stability preserves collegiate sports, but critics warn it entrenches incumbent power, limiting innovation in athlete compensation systems.
Unlike states that have passed variable pay laws, the bill would preempt these initiatives, creating a federal system that standardizes payments on terms favorable to the established conferences. This drops the risk of fragmented state-level reforms that could undermine NCAA dominance.
Compare this to tech platforms like OpenAI, which scale by decentralizing access, whereas the NCAA uses federal law to centralize control.
Why Republican hesitation signals a shifting political leverage dynamic
House Republican leaders abruptly delayed the bill after procedural votes nearly failed and dissent grew. Members like Rep. Anna Paulina Luna moved from support to undecided, citing priority conflicts and unresolved issues.
This political hesitation signals that the perceived leverage advantage for NCAA-aligned groups is no longer guaranteed. Congress’s packed agenda and intraparty differences expose the fragility of coalition power.
In this light, the legislative gridlock is less about the bill’s content and more about who wields leverage in the broader sports ecosystem and federal policymaking.
This political standoff echoes patterns described in why political constraints shift market leverage, where timing and coalition building reshape outcomes.
What changes next: the evolving leverage terrain in college sports governance
The key constraint shifting is Congress’s willingness to grant the NCAA and top conferences legal monopolies over athlete payment systems. Delaying the SCORE Act extends the policy uncertainty, forcing all participants to navigate a fragmented landscape.
Operators in sports management, legal teams, and state governments must watch how this regulatory impasse drives alternative compensation mechanisms and conference realignments.
Other states could replicate or counteract the NCAA’s leverage moves, complicating the ecosystem further.
“We’re in the infancy of what college athletics is because of the changes in NIL,” said Rep. Donalds. Leverage will come to those who can control these evolving rules, not just the game on the field.
For a broader look at how constraints shape market outcomes, see why 2024 tech layoffs expose structural leverage failures and why salespeople underuse LinkedIn profiles for closing deals.
Related Tools & Resources
For organizations navigating the complexities of college sports governance, effective communication is key. Brevo's all-in-one marketing platform can streamline your messaging and outreach efforts, ensuring that your voice is heard in the ongoing discussions around regulatory frameworks and athlete rights. Learn more about Brevo →
Full Transparency: Some links in this article are affiliate partnerships. If you find value in the tools we recommend and decide to try them, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. We only recommend tools that align with the strategic thinking we share here. Think of it as supporting independent business analysis while discovering leverage in your own operations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the SCORE Act and why did Congress delay it?
The SCORE Act is a bill intended to regulate athlete payments and grant the NCAA broad antitrust exemptions. Congress delayed the vote in 2025 due to political hesitation and concerns over sweeping authority granted to the NCAA and major conferences.
How does the SCORE Act affect college athletes' employment status?
The bill protects against classifying college athletes as employees, removing labor union leverage. This consolidation under the NCAA limits athlete rights to collectively bargain and maintains power with established conferences.
Why do opponents view the SCORE Act as reinforcing NCAA control?
Opponents argue the bill hands the NCAA and powerful conferences sweeping control including antitrust protections and preempts state laws, effectively locking in a federal system favorable to incumbent powers rather than promoting innovation.
What role do state laws currently play in athlete compensation?
Some states have passed variable pay laws for college athletes. The SCORE Act would preempt these state initiatives, creating a unified federal system that standardizes payments controlled by the NCAA and major conferences.
Who are the main supporters and opponents of the SCORE Act?
The NCAA, U.S. Olympic Committee, and the White House support the bill, while some House Republicans and labor union leaders like AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler oppose it, citing concerns about union busting and concentrated power.
How did Republican hesitation impact the SCORE Act’s progress?
Republican leaders delayed the bill after procedural votes nearly failed and some members changed from support to undecided, signaling shifting political leverage and coalition fragility in 2025.
What are the implications of the SCORE Act’s delay on college sports governance?
The delay extends policy uncertainty, driving fragmented athlete compensation mechanisms and potential state-level counteractions, complicating NCAA’s leverage over the multibillion-dollar college sports industry.
How does the NCAA’s control compare to tech platforms like OpenAI?
Unlike tech platforms that decentralize access to scale, the NCAA uses federal law to centralize control over athlete payments and regulatory frameworks, institutionalizing monopolistic power in college sports.