Congress is facing another round of challenges regarding the regulation of name, image, and likeness (NIL) in college sports. As it stands, lawmakers missed an opportunity to address this issue during their recent sessions, leaving athletes and schools navigating a complex and inconsistent landscape.
NIL allows college athletes to profit from their personal brand, but this freedom has created disparities among institutions. Notably, athletes at large programs, like those in the Big Ten or SEC, can secure far more lucrative deals than their counterparts at smaller schools. With bowl games and the College Football Playoff looming, discussions surrounding fairness and competitive balance are reigniting, particularly for programs like James Madison University, which grapples with the imbalance.
Unfortunately, the NCAA has shown a lack of initiative to impose nationwide regulations on NIL, prompting Congress to step in. However, a recent attempt to advance a bill fell into political chaos. The Democratic opposition combined with defections from some Republicans led to the bill’s withdrawal, leaving lawmakers scrambling as they grapple with misaligned priorities and optics. As noted by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, suspicion arose regarding the timing of the bill’s introduction, especially as it coincided with a high-profile coaching change that would benefit a rival school.
In this heated political environment, the stage is set for attempts to revisit NIL regulation in early 2026. Some lawmakers, such as House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, advocate for swift action and a clear framework that would enforce fairness in college sports. Rep. Debbie Dingell echoed similar sentiments, stressing the need for regulations that would ensure transparency and equal opportunity in NIL deals.
The legislation on the table, the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act, proposes to limit the amount athletic programs can dedicate to paying athletes. Many Republicans back the bill, believing it will stabilize the financial dynamics in college sports. Conversely, Democrats raise concerns, questioning whether it does enough for athletes and labor rights.
Debate intensifies around whether student-athletes should even be considered employees of their universities. Sen. Cynthia Lummis expressed skepticism about extending employee status to athletes, pointing to the unique nature of their roles, which differ vastly from traditional university staff. This sentiment reflects a broader uncertainty about Congress’s place in shaping policies for collegiate athletics.
Some lawmakers, like Rep. Chip Roy, call for broader reforms to enhance governance in college sports, criticizing the current system that allows for exorbitant coach buyouts while athletes struggle for fair compensation. Meanwhile, Sen. Josh Hawley pushes for a more expansive approach to NIL regulation, advocating for universal rights that extend beyond athletes to all Americans.
As lawmakers gear up to revisit this issue, they’ll be faced with a packed legislative agenda, including healthcare subsidies and government funding matters that threaten to overshadow the NIL discussions. With pressing issues demanding attention, the prospect of achieving significant reforms in college sports remains precarious.
As time ticks toward the next chance for Congress to act on NIL, it seems athletes and schools will continue to navigate a murky regulatory landscape. Failure to address the complexities of NIL could leave lawmakers with little more than an attempt to say they made progress… a college try, indeed.
"*" indicates required fields
