A heated debate is unfolding in Congress as two bills, the SCORE Act and the SAFE Act, aim to reshape the future of college sports and the rights of its athletes. This battle is more than just a political squabble; it's a fight for the very soul of collegiate athletics.
As fall approaches, the future of college sports remains uncertain. Two comprehensive bills, each with its own unique vision, are struggling to gain enough support in Congress due to their contrasting priorities.
The SCORE Act, introduced with a glimmer of bipartisanship in July, proposes a limited antitrust exemption for the NCAA. This exemption is designed to protect the organization from potential lawsuits regarding eligibility rules. Additionally, the Act aims to prevent athletes from becoming employees of their schools.
On the other hand, the SAFE Act, introduced by Democratic lawmakers, focuses on allowing conferences to pool their broadcast rights. Proponents argue that this move could inject billions into the industry, providing much-needed funds for a new era where schools can compensate their players.
But here's where it gets controversial: the two bills have stark differences when it comes to athlete rights.
A vast majority of Democrats stand firmly against stripping athletes of their rights, whether it's the right to sue the NCAA or the potential to form unions and become employees. An NCAA executive has labeled the idea of athletes becoming employees as the "budget-buster of the century," citing surveys that suggest most athletes don't support this notion.
The NCAA justifies its request for limited anti-trust protection by arguing that it wants to prevent situations like the current one, where they face over a dozen lawsuits in various courts, mostly related to eligibility rules that have traditionally allowed athletes five years to complete four seasons of eligibility.
Meanwhile, the SEC and Big 12 have stated that the key proposal of the SAFE Act - pooling TV rights - is not a guaranteed path to increased revenue. A supporter of this measure, Texas Tech's head of regents, Cody Campbell, has run TV ads claiming that such an arrangement could bring in an additional $4 to $7 billion.
However, neither side has provided specific details on how they arrived at these conclusions. Media deals from the Big Ten are reportedly worth $8 billion, while those of the SEC, which operates in smaller markets, are valued at $3 billion. This raises questions about whether these leagues would benefit from joining forces.
And this is the part most people miss: the potential impact on the Olympics.
Politicians often use the Olympics as a symbol of American pride, and the consequences for Team USA could be a point of compromise. There's a general consensus that football and basketball must succeed at the college level, as they ultimately fund the "non-revenue" sports that feed the Olympic pipeline.
Both SCORE and SAFE acknowledge this reality, but their approaches differ. SCORE would establish a minimum number of sports that schools of a certain size must offer, while SAFE proposes using increased proceeds from potential new TV deals to maintain participation levels in women's and Olympic sports at 2023-24 levels.
If there are signs that the Olympic pipeline is truly at risk, it could create a sense of urgency for compromise. While some programs have been cut, the NCAA argues that scholarship dollars and participation levels are at record highs following the House settlement.
"It's also fair to say that there's a lot going right," NCAA vice president Tim Buckley stated.
So, what are the chances either of these bills will pass?
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has spoken out against the SAFE Act almost immediately after its proposal. As the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee overseeing college sports, Cruz's influence could be significant in determining whether the bill reaches the Senate floor, where it would need 60 votes to pass.
The SCORE Act seemed headed for a vote in the House, but there were too many Republican skeptics to guarantee its passage.
The NCAA and conferences have been quietly trying to rebuild momentum, but with the government shutdown, college sports is not a top priority.
If House Republicans rally behind the SCORE Act and attach it to a "must-pass" legislation, it could put Democrats in a tough spot, forcing them to choose between rejecting a bill they support due to its impact on college sports or accepting it with its controversial provisions. As long as Senate Democrats see SCORE as trampling on athletes' rights, it's unlikely to pass without significant amendments.
What do you think? Should athletes have the right to unionize and become employees of their schools? Or is the NCAA's limited anti-trust protection necessary to prevent legal chaos? Let us know in the comments!
