The future of college sports is at a crossroads, and the question on everyone's mind is: Who will step up to bring order and clarity? Will it be Congress, with its proposed legislation, or the White House, through executive action?
Since the landmark House v. NCAA settlement, the federal government has put forward three regulatory responses to shape the future of college athletics. These include the SCORE Act, the SAFE Act, and President Trump's executive order. Each aims to define athlete compensation, protect non-revenue sports, and establish federal oversight, but none has made significant headway yet.
The Current Landscape: A Race Against Time
Universities have been scrambling to implement the House settlement since July, but it's been a challenging journey. Legal battles, uncertainty over revenue sharing, and unresolved questions about athlete employment status have created a complex and unstable environment.
The newly formed College Sports Commission (CSC) has been overwhelmed with the volume of athlete deals submitted for approval. With only a fraction of deals approved so far, the process is causing delays, impacting both universities and athletes. Some collectives have even resorted to circumventing the approval process, highlighting the urgent need for a streamlined system.
The SCORE Act: A Bipartisan Effort, but Controversial
In July 2025, a bipartisan group of U.S. House Representatives introduced the SCORE Act, aiming to bring order to the chaotic world of college sports. However, it has faced criticism from both sides of the political aisle.
The Act grants limited antitrust protection to the NCAA and athletic conferences, shields them from lawsuits, and bars college athletes from being classified as employees. Critics argue it disproportionately benefits the Power Five conferences and fails to protect smaller schools and women's athletics.
Athletes.org, representing thousands of college athletes, has condemned the bill, pointing to restrictions on NIL monetization, capped school payments, and the denial of labor protections. They argue that athlete voices are being silenced, and legislation should be developed in partnership with athletes.
The SAFE Act: Prioritizing Athlete Welfare
While the SCORE Act is stalled, Senate Democrats introduced the SAFE Act, which focuses on athlete welfare and non-revenue sports. It consolidates media rights, protects Olympic sports, and enhances athlete mobility and support. It also regulates athlete agents and establishes a committee to oversee revenue distribution.
The SAFE Act stands in contrast to the SCORE Act, offering stronger athlete protections, supporting non-revenue sports, and avoiding the antitrust shield and employment classification issues.
Initial feedback shows support from athlete advocacy groups and smaller schools, while the NCAA and Power Five conferences remain skeptical. The SAFE Act's omission of antitrust protection and its approach to athlete employment status are likely to face opposition from these powerful entities.
The Executive Order: A White House Initiative
President Trump's executive order, "Saving College Sports," calls for a national solution to protect collegiate athletics, particularly women's and non-revenue sports. It requires revenue-sharing models, prohibits third-party pay-for-play, and sets scholarship and roster requirements.
While the order lacks the force of legislation, it signals the White House's policy priorities. Its focus on women's and non-revenue sports aligns more with the SAFE Act than the SCORE Act's institutional protections.
A Step Towards Clarity?
If federal agencies provide consistent guidance, universities may gain some clarity on House compliance and the evolving legal landscape. Legislative reform efforts are not new, but the SAFE Act has gained more support than previous proposals.
The SCORE Act, too, may receive bipartisan backing. Either way, these post-House measures could provide much-needed direction for universities and stakeholders navigating the future of college athlete compensation.
So, who will ultimately bring order to college sports? Will it be Congress, with its legislative might, or the White House, through executive action? The debate continues, and the future of college athletics hangs in the balance.
