Coming Sooner or Later: Congress Considers Bills to Standardize Name, Image, and Likeness Rights

By Ryan J. Regula, Charlene A. Warner, Lilly M. Harris, and Thomas Williams

Both chambers of Congress are considering bills that would govern the name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights for intercollegiate student-athletes. First, the House introduced the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act (the SCORE Act) on July 10, 2025.¹ Shortly after, the Senate followed suit with its own bill, the Student Athlete Fairness and Enforcement Act (the SAFE Act) on September 29, 2025.² Both bills would preempt the fragmented web of state NIL laws — which have led to inconsistent rulings across the country — with a uniform federal law, but the bills diverge sharply on other issues, including the employment classification of student-athletes, support for non-revenue generating sports, antitrust protections for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and regulation of sports agents.

The SCORE Act

The SCORE Act would establish uniform NIL standards and centralize governance in interstate athletic associations. At its core, the bill preserves broad athlete NIL rights, empowers associations to set disclosure, recruiting, transfer, agent‑registration, and compensation “pool limit” rules, and provides a targeted antitrust safe harbor for rules adopted under that authority. It also clarifies that student-athletes are not employees based solely on varsity participation, preempts conflicting state laws, and adds financial transparency and institutional support obligations for higher‑revenue programs.

NIL Contract Reforms. The House’s SCORE Act would prohibit institutions, conferences, and interstate athletic associations from restricting student‑athletes from entering NIL agreements, subject to two narrow carve‑outs. An institution may prohibit agreements that constitute “prohibited compensation” and restrict deals that violate institutional codes of conduct or conflict with existing institutional contracts.³ Prohibited compensation includes certain arrangements funded by “associated” donors or collectives unless they reflect a bona fide business purpose at market rates, and institutional payments that would cause the institution to exceed the association‑set pool limit.⁴

The SCORE Act also codifies privacy and contract‑quality safeguards. Institutions and associations may not disclose NIL contract terms without the athlete’s consent, and any NIL contract providing more than $600 in compensation is void unless it is in writing and includes specified core terms, including a post‑enrollment termination right beginning six months after the athlete leaves school.⁵

Sports Agent Reform. The SCORE Act would also amend the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA) to cap athlete‑agent fees on endorsement contracts at five percent; require agents to disclose registration with the relevant interstate association; and require unregistered agents to obtain an athlete’s informed written consent before providing representation. State attorneys general receive explicit enforcement authority.⁶

Institutional Requirements. Institutions meeting defined revenue of over $20 million must deliver baseline supports including: comprehensive academic, career, mental‑health, and NIL‑literacy programs; independent and extended medical coverage for athletics injuries during enrollment and for at least three years post‑separation; continued grant‑in‑aid irrespective of injury, performance, or NIL income; degree‑completion aid for up to seven years, subject to academic progress and code of conduct; and, by July 1, 2027, a minimum of 16 varsity sports teams with Title IX compliance.⁷

NCAA Rulemaking Authority. The SCORE Act authorizes interstate intercollegiate athletic associations (e.g., the NCAA) to adopt and enforce rules governing NIL disclosures, the development of anonymized NIL data, prohibited‑compensation definitions with due‑process‑style dispute resolution that preserves eligibility during the pendency of disputes, recruiting parameters, and transfer rules guaranteeing at least one transfer with immediate eligibility for academically eligible athletes.⁸ It also authorizes associations to calculate a revenue‑based “pool limit” and to monitor payments related to that limit.⁹

Antitrust Provisions. The SCORE Act would explicitly exempt the NCAA and other intercollegiate associations for the adoption, compliance, and enforcement of rules promulgated under § 6 of the bill.¹⁰

Student-Athlete Employment. Finally, the SCORE Act provides student-athletes are not employees based on participation in a varsity sport or in an intercollegiate competition.¹¹

The SAFE Act

The SAFE Act takes a more student-athlete‑centered approach by providing several key protections, declines to provide antitrust immunity to the NCAA, and would amend the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 (the Sports Broadcasting Act) to authorize collective media‑rights arrangements for college sports, with related distribution and access requirements designed to sustain women’s and Olympic sports.¹²

NIL Contract Reform. The SAFE Act also imposes mandatory reporting of NIL contracts by enrolled Division I student-athletes and recruited athletes prior to signing a letter of intent.¹³ Endorsement contracts over $600 must be in writing and identify the parties, term, compensation, and deliverables, may not extend beyond the athlete’s eligibility, and are subject to a rescission right if the athlete becomes ineligible and the contract has at least one year remaining.¹⁴

Sports Agent Reforms. The SAFE Act also amends SPARTA by requiring agents to register with a state before representing a student‑athlete on an endorsement contract and certify registration to the governing athletic association; agent fees are capped at five percent; and student‑athletes receive a private right of action with pre‑dispute arbitration and joint‑action waivers rendered unenforceable.¹⁵

Other Student-Athlete Protections. Student-athletes are further protected under the SAFE Act with respect to transfers, professional drafts, and healthcare costs. Institutions, conferences, and athletic associations must permit two transfers without loss or delay of eligibility, with additional transfers allowed by mutual agreement or upon sport discontinuation or material under‑investment.¹⁶ In addition, if a student‑athlete declares for a professional draft but does not receive compensation from a professional league or team and timely declares their intent to resume college competition, institutions and associations may not penalize the athlete.¹⁷

Most notable are healthcare protections: institutions (or their associations) must provide post‑eligibility health coverage for five years for injuries or diseases incurred through varsity participation and adhere to specified national health and safety standards.¹⁸ With limited exceptions, institutions may not reduce or withdraw a grant‑in‑aid based on performance, injury, or roster management. Grant-in-aid is further preserved under the bill for up to ten years to allow degree completion.¹⁹

Reforms to the Sports Broadcasting Act. The SAFE Act would extend the Sports Broadcasting Act to college sports, establish a governance committee, require local outlet options for marquee events, and ensure meaningful streaming access for other sports.²⁰ Distribution of media rights revenue would ensure that each member institution receives more collective media rights revenue than in 2024 – 2025 and allow member institutions to maintain the same number of women’s and non-revenue generating sports.²¹

Key Differences Between the SCORE and SAFE Acts

Although both pieces of legislation would preempt conflicting state NIL regimes and impose national standards, they diverge sharply in three areas central to institutional risk and athlete leverage: antitrust, employment, and broadcasting.

Antitrust. The SCORE supplies a targeted antitrust safe harbor for interstate intercollegiate athletic association rules.²² In practice, this shields association rules on NIL disclosures, compensation, transfers, recruiting, pool‑limit calculations, and agents. The SAFE Act offers no comparable immunity and preserves full antitrust scrutiny for association conduct and instead relies on explicit statutory protections (for example, agent fee caps and contract standards) enforced by federal and state authorities and private litigants.²³

Employment. While the SCORE Act would foreclose classification of student‑athletes as employees based solely on varsity participation,²⁴ the SAFE Act is silent, preserving the status quo under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Act and leaving the question to courts and agencies.

Broadcasting and media rights. The SAFE Act would expand the Sports Broadcasting Act to cover college sports, authorize collective media‑rights agreements, create an NCAA committee to negotiate and distribute collective revenues, require local outlet options for football and basketball in home markets, and mandate streaming utilization for non‑revenue sports.²⁵ In contrast, the SCORE Act would not affect the Sports Broadcasting Act. Instead, it emphasizes NCAA rulemaking authority over NIL and transfers, a revenue‑based institutional pool limit, and financial transparency (including restrictions on student‑fee usage at very high media‑rights institutions).²⁶

The Upshot

At this time, no hearings have been scheduled regarding either the SAFE or the SCORE Act. Nevertheless, parties affected by either should consult legal counsel on the best means to ensure their concerns and ideas for legislation have been met. Participating through public comment ensures a party’s concern has been heard, and such participation may be achieved through either written submissions or hearing testimony.

Snell & Wilmer is adept at both the written and oral comment process and can assist any party or stakeholder with navigating this legislative arena to ensure the SAFE and the SCORE Act’s strengths and weaknesses are addressed appropriately. Failure to participate in the public comment process may forestall a stakeholder’s rights. Thus, early and active participation with experienced legal counsel is needed.