House subcommittee forwards SCORE Act after contentious debate over antitrust shield, state preemption and enforcement

The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee considered H.R. 4312, the SCORE Act, on Aug. 6 in a markup that featured sharp debate over whether the bill gives the NCAA and athletic conferences an undue antitrust shield, whether it would preempt state laws that currently protect college athletes, and how enforcement of athlete protections would work.

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Raukes opened the session by calling the markup and describing the SCORE Act as “a comprehensive bipartisan solution that upholds the integrity of college sports and strengthens protections for student athletes.” Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky responded that she was “concerned” the bill “is not the one that will actually do what we need to do to protect our athletes,” saying lawmakers should refocus the text on athlete protections rather than giving power back to governing bodies.

Why it matters: supporters said the bill creates a single federal framework to replace a fragmented patchwork of state laws and court rulings, while critics — including members of both parties — warned the legislation would limit athletes’ access to courts and state protections, broaden NCAA authority, and leave enforcement gaps if institutions fail to honor commitments.

Most important facts

- The subcommittee called up H.R. 4312 (the SCORE Act), dispensed with the first reading, and opened the bill to amendment.

- Members debated three central issues throughout the markup: (1) an antitrust-liability limitation that would treat compliance with the bill as lawful under antitrust law; (2) broad preemption language that would displace state laws “related to” compensation, payments, employment status or eligibility of student athletes; and (3) enforcement — whether the bill gives athletes, states, or federal agencies adequate tools to enforce the protections it creates.

- Representative Tim Pollone (ranking member of the full committee) criticized the markup as premature and argued courts and state action had already produced significant reforms. Pollone said the bill “shuts down [athletes’] ability to seek additional protection in the courts and state legislatures,” and highlighted a recent court-approved settlement that he said included a per-school cap (cited during debate as $20,500,000).

Key debate points and proposals

- Antitrust and preemption: Multiple members — including Reps. Katherine Clark, Nancy Trahan, and others — urged removing or narrowing the bill’s antitrust protection and the preemption clause, arguing those provisions would prevent athletes from using state law or federal antitrust law to challenge abusive practices. Supporters, including Rep. Bryan Frey, said the liability limitation and preemption are necessary to create national uniformity and to prevent a “Wild West” of conflicting state rules that could undermine nonrevenue sports and smaller programs.

- Enforcement: Representative Trahan offered an amendment (identified in the record as an enforcement amendment) that would have authorized the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the bill as an unfair or deceptive practice, allowed state attorneys general to sue on behalf of athletes in-state, and provided an individual private right of action if government enforcement lagged. That amendment failed on a roll-call vote (10 ayes, 13 nos).

- Agents and representation: Representatives Patrick Mullen and others pressed for stronger protections against predatory agents. Mullen’s amendment would have required agents to owe a fiduciary duty to the athletes they represent and directed the FTC to study an independent certification process for agents; he withdrew the amendment after the chairman committed to further work with members.

- Title IX, medical coverage and program preservation: Several Democrats emphasized Title IX and asked whether compensation schemes and revenue-sharing provisions would preserve gender equity and nonrevenue (Olympic and other varsity) sports. Committee counsel and members stated the sponsors’ intent is not to override Title IX and noted bill language requiring academic support, medical and mental-health benefits, and minimum program offerings (members cited a requirement to maintain roughly 16 varsity programs at many institutions as discussed during the markup).

Votes and formal actions

- Amendment on enforcement (offered by Rep. Trahan): Motion to add FTC enforcement, a state AG civil cause of action, and a private right of action. Result: Failed on recorded vote, 10 ayes, 13 nos.

- Point-of-order ruling on an amendment to strike the bill’s antitrust exemption and preemption language (offered by Rep. Trahan earlier in the markup): The chair sustained a point of order that the amendment was beyond the committee’s jurisdiction; the amendment was ruled out of order and therefore was not considered on its merits.

- Final committee action: The subcommittee voted on forwarding H.R. 4312 to the full committee. On the recorded vote the bill was approved to go forward (12 ayes, 11 nos). Staff was authorized to make technical and conforming changes.

What members asked staff to clarify

Members repeatedly pressed committee and counsel to clarify: (1) whether the preemption clause would bar state-law claims unrelated to compensation (for example, sexual assault, fraud, or other torts); (2) how compliance would be determined and who could enforce violations of institutional obligations (contracts, revenue-sharing promises, academic and medical support); and (3) whether a broader antitrust shield would include a sunset clause or narrow tailoring to the House settlement. Committee leaders committed to continued bipartisan engagement and additional drafting to address these questions before the measure moves further.

Context and background

The SCORE Act (H.R. 4312) is intended to provide a federal framework for the name, image and likeness (NIL) marketplace for college athletics following a series of state laws and a recent court-approved settlement between plaintiffs and the NCAA. Members used the markup to reconcile the interests of student athletes, universities, and athletic conferences while trying to preserve gender equity, medical protections, and the structure that supports nonrevenue sports.

What’s next

The subcommittee forwarded H.R. 4312 to the full committee with instructions for staff to make technical and conforming changes and with an explicit pledge from leadership to continue drafting with interested members to address enforcement, preemption scope, agent regulation and Title IX interaction.

Ending note

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle described the markup as the opening of further negotiations. Supporters argued the bill is necessary to avoid continued legal and regulatory fragmentation; critics said important checks and enforcement tools are missing and that certain exemptions should be narrowed or time-limited before Congress grants sweeping authority to the NCAA and conferences.