House Energy and Commerce committee advances SCORE Act after contentious markup over athlete protections and antitrust language

The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to report H.R. 4312, the SCORE Act, after a full‑committee markup that featured sharp debate over athlete protections, antitrust liability and the scope of state law preemption.

The SCORE Act aims to set a national framework for name, image and likeness (NIL) policy and to create an Interstate Intercollegiate Athletic Association (IIAA) to govern aspects of transfers, eligibility and revenue sharing. Chairman Brett Guthrie, speaking as the markup opened, said without clear federal standards “student athletes will be left to fend for themselves against bad actors” and framed the bill as delivering “student athlete benefits, stability, and transparency.”

Committee Democrats and a number of Republicans pushed back, saying the measure as written shields the NCAA and conferences from accountability and leaves athletes with weak or legally unenforceable protections. Ranking Member Frank Pallone called the bill “nothing more than a major giveaway to the National Collegiate Athletic Association,” saying it “fails to offer meaningful protections to college athletes.” Representative Lori Trahan and others said the committee rushed the markup and pressed for further changes before final passage.

Most significant points

- Antitrust exemption and scope: Democrats repeatedly criticized language that would limit antitrust liability for associations and conferences that comply with the SCORE Act. Trahan, Clark and others offered amendments to narrow or remove antitrust protections; those amendments did not carry. Republicans and some supporters argued a narrowly tailored antitrust protection was necessary to provide “clarity to the current ecosystem” and to permit the IIAA to set consistent rules across states.

- State preemption: Members debated the bill’s preemption of state NIL laws and whether federal law should create a floor or a ceiling. Opponents warned that broad preemption could override state protections for health, sexual‑violence statutes and other state laws; supporters said a patchwork of state rules was untenable and would create competitive inequities.

- Enforcement: Democrats pressed for stronger enforcement mechanisms, including a federal enforcement role or a private right of action so athletes can sue if their rights under the statute are violated. Representative Jimmy Panetta and others argued that limited reliance on state attorneys general left enforcement uneven; Representative Troy Carter proposed an amendment to give the Federal Trade Commission joint enforcement authority, which was rejected by the committee.

- Athlete representation and governance: Debate also centered on how athletes are represented in the new IIAA governance structure. Some members urged a larger athlete voice on IIAA boards; others argued the bill’s proposed governance offered a path for smaller and mid‑sized institutions to participate.

Key factual details from the markup

- The draft included a cap on agent fees at 5% for certain transactions and said student‑athlete contracts could include transparency requirements and termination rights if athletes leave institutions.

- Sponsors cited a settlement from recent litigation and said the measure is designed to provide national stability after court decisions and state legislation produced inconsistent rules.

- Members repeatedly invoked Title IX concerns, and the committee record notes there are parallel jurisdictional discussions with the House Education and Workforce Committee about language addressing Title IX compliance.

Votes and procedure

- The committee considered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4312 offered by Rep. Gus Bilirakis and moved through the amendatory process. Several Democratic amendments to limit antitrust protection and to add additional enforcement tools were offered and rejected during roll calls.

- At the conclusion of the markup the committee voted to report H.R. 4312 as amended. The committee reported the bill favorably by recorded vote (final committee tally recorded during the markup at the time of the vote: committee agreed to report the bill; see provenance for the reporting vote). The measure will proceed to the House floor for further consideration.

Why it matters

Congressional action would replace the current patchwork of state rules, litigation and private contracts with a single federal framework that would shape athlete compensation, transfer rules and the governance of college athletics for years to come. The bill’s combination of preemption and limited private enforcement, plus a conditional antitrust safe harbor, prompted bipartisan concern that the legislation could entrench power with the NCAA and conferences unless revised.

What’s next

Sponsors said they will continue negotiations during the upcoming district work period and aim to address remaining Democratic concerns, including Title IX language being developed in parallel in the Education and Workforce Committee. Members on both sides said they would keep working on athlete representation, enforcement mechanisms and narrow technical clarifications.

"We need to act now," Chairman Guthrie said during his opening remarks, while several Democrats urged additional time and amendments to protect athletes’ health, safety and legal rights.