Concerns Surround SCORE Act Delay

The SCORE Act is on the table, aiming to provide a limited antitrust exemption to the NCAA to shield it from lawsuits related to eligibility rules. However, it also seeks to restrict athletes from being classified as school employees.

Just before a scheduled vote on the SCORE Act, House leaders chose to pull it from consideration on Wednesday. This decision raised questions about whether House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) had enough support for it to pass.

In the wake of the delay, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (New York) voiced his worries regarding the disarray that seemed to sabotage the bill’s progress.

Jeffries highlighted a fundamental question: who inspired Mike Johnson and Steve Scalise to push for this bill? His speculation leaned toward possible influence from significant donors connected to LSU. He argued that this legislation wouldn’t benefit college athletes; rather, it would diminish their protections, eroding their antitrust immunity and limiting state legislation aimed at enhancing student welfare.

Labor Opposition

Jeffries pointed out that labor unions nationwide opposed the bill, contending it would eliminate college athletes’ rights to seek redress, and weaken their bargaining power. He emphasized that even players’ unions, including the NFL Players Association, found the bill harmful to college players.

In a light-hearted jab, Jeffries rebranded the SCORE Act as the “Lane-Kiffin Protection Act,” implying it predominantly favors certain coaches rather than athletes.

He questioned why Johnson and Scalise thought bringing this bill forward was a wise move, arguing it would serve coaches like Lane Kiffin—who notably left a team mid-playoffs for a lucrative contract with LSU—rather than the athletes themselves.

Amid an ongoing affordability crisis, Jeffries pondered why this bill was prioritized over pressing issues facing the nation.

The bill did manage to pass through a tight 210-209 procedural vote in the House.

According to the SCORE Act, schools would need to share up to 22 percent of their revenue, capping it at a minimum based on the financials of the top 70 income-generating schools in college sports. It would also prevent schools from using student fees to fund NIL payments.

Supporters argue this Act could introduce much-needed regulation and stability into college sports, while critics caution it may restore excessive power to the NCAA and violative institutions.