Michigan congressional caucus split on SCORE Act, agree on need for federal intervention

The Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act — better known as the SCORE Act — is a piece of federal legislation currently working its way through the United States House of Representatives and would, if passed and signed into law, be a major move in shaping the future of college athletics. 

The bill, introduced last summer by Florida rep and Republican Gus Bilirakis, is still moving through the phases of the legislative process in the House. A vote was originally set for December but the Republican majority punted on it, a sign that the measure might’ve failed. A new full House vote to advance the bill to the Senate — where getting 60 votes would be a challenge — has yet to be set. 

In short, the SCORE Act would enshrine into federal law the current status quo of athletes having rights to earn NIL (name, image and likeness) endorsement money while granting the NCAA’s — AKA the schools — premise that college athletes aren’t employees, offering wide latitude to control the business model of college athletics coupled with an antitrust exemption.

That exemption would let the governing body set the rules around eligibility and transfers, which have been challenged repeatedly in federal courts (where the NCAA has, largely, fared poorly.) The bill would also preempt state laws around NIL and athlete compensation, creating a “national standard” that legislators and college athletics leaders have sought and caped for in countless soundbites. 

Given this piece of major federal legislation is looming over the various colleges with athletic programs in Michigan, Mitten Football asked Michigan’s 13 elected representatives in the House and two Senators a set of basic questions about the SCORE Act, their potential support for the bill, and the need for federal intervention in the business of college sports. 

Mitten Football got responses from the offices of eight of the 13 House reps, and on the record responses from six reps: Hillary Scholten (3rd district), Tim Walberg (5th), Debbie Dingell (6th), Lisa McClain (9th), Haley Stevens (11th) and Shri Thanedar (13th). 

The offices for reps John Moolenar (2nd), Bill Huizenga (4th), Tom Barrett (7th), Kristen McDonald Rivet (8th) and Rashida Tlaib (12th) did not respond to requests for this story. 

As for Michigan’s two senators, Mitten Football didn’t get a response from Senator Elissa Slotkin’s office to repeated requests and Senator Gary Peters office declined to offer a response on the record. 

Here’s what the House reps who responded had to say (listed in order by district number). 

Hillary Scholten (D MI-3)

Scholten’s office didn’t provide responses to the specific questions Mitten Football sent, but did point to the representative’s support of a separate piece of legislation that she is a co-sponsor of, the College Athletics Reform Act, which is aimed to “stabilize college sports, protect athletes’ rights, and create a sustainable system for all schools and sports.”

The College Athletics Reform Act, which is in many ways a Democratic response to the GOP-coded SCORE Act (which does have a handful of bipartisan co-sponsors), got introduced days prior to the initially scheduled December vote on the SCORE Act, and is still in the committee phase of the early legislative process. 

Tim Walberg (R MI-5)

Walberg is a co-sponsor of the SCORE Act, and evidently an expected yes vote if the measure comes before the full House for a vote. 

Walberg also chairs the House committee on education and the workforce, which has spearheaded advancing the SCORE Act.

Walberg’s office provided a statement signaling his support for the SCORE Act.

“The absence of uniform NIL regulations across states, coupled with ongoing antitrust litigation, has created regulatory chaos and puts academic and athletic opportunities for thousands of student-athletes at risk if we stay on this path,” Walberg said. “The SCORE Act is bipartisan legislation that replaces this disarray with a clear national framework, empowers student-athletes with strong NIL rights, and protects the educational mission and future of college sports. I am proud to be the Chairman of the committee spearheading this issue and urge my colleagues to support these reforms that preserve the uniqueness of American college sports.”

Debbie Dingell (D MI-6)

Dingell, in detailed responses to several of Mitten Football’s questions sent via her office, signaled her opposition to the SCORE Act as currently written, but is supportive of a bipartisan federal law to bring college athletics to a place of greater equity and stability. 

Dingell’s responses repeatedly highlighted the importance of prioritizing the athletes this legislation will affect. 

“College sports are at a point of no return, and the NIL era has created a patchwork system with no clear rules,” said Dingell, whose district includes the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University. “We urgently need a national framework so that athletes, schools, and conferences know the rules of the road. If we don’t act thoughtfully, it’s student-athletes who will pay the price.”

As to the SCORE Act, specifically, Dingell called out the broad antitrust exemptions and the concentrating of power amidst the schools and conferences while athletes are seemingly left out of the picture in shaping the business of college sports. 

“I cannot support the SCORE Act in its current form. I remain in active conversations with my colleagues and with stakeholders, and I’ve heard that changes are being discussed, but as it stands today, the bill falls short,” Dingell said. 

She continued: “To earn my support, we need a bill that delivers real athlete representation, enforceable protections, clear accountability, strong Title IX compliance, meaningful guardrails in NIL, and protections for non-revenue and Olympic sports.”

Dingell also pointed out the SCORE Act as lacking protecting the future of Olympic and non-revenue sports and broad-based athletics programs as so much focus turns to football and men’s basketball, the main revenue drivers for most athletic departments. 

“I support Congress stepping in, because a federal framework can help bring stability,” Dingell said. “But the SCORE Act, as currently written, does not strike the right balance. Any solution must keep student-athletes at the center. That means real protections for their education, well-being, and NIL revenue generation, and for non-revenue programs that are too often left behind in a system increasingly driven by football and basketball revenue.”

Lisa McClain (R MI-9)

McClain, like Walberg, is a co-sponsor of the SCORE Act and has been one of its more vocal public proponents. 

In a statement shared via her office, McClain signaled further support for the bill and the creation of a national ruleset for the business of college sports. 

“College athletics are facing a real problem,” McClain said. “The lack of consistent national rules has created a chaotic and unfair system, especially around NIL and athlete compensation. The SCORE Act is an important step forward. It sets a national standard and adds protections for student athletes while preserving the educational mission of college sports. There is still more work ahead, but this bill finally brings structure and stability to a system that has been out of control.”

Haley Stevens (D MI-11)

Stevens, who is currently campaigning to replace the retiring Peters as one of Michigan’s Senators, is a member of the House education and workforce committee that originally marked up the bill. 

Stevens voted against it then and would again in the full House in its current form, per responses her office sent to questions from Mitten Football. 

“I believe it gives far too much power to the NCAA at the expense of student-athletes,” Stevens said. “To earn my support, legislation must give student-athletes a real seat at the table in shaping the future of college sports. It should also establish clear guardrails on how universities manage athletics revenue and limit the influence of outside investors. Any reform must prioritize fairness, transparency, and the long-term integrity of college athletics."

Stevens has met with Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti, she said, alongside then-Michigan State linebacker Sam Edwards, who served on various NCAA student-athlete governance bodies. 

Stevens shares many of the same sentiments as Dingell, namely that the bill gives too much power to the NCAA, schools and conferences to dictate terms of the business to college athletes. She also singled out the antitrust exemption.

“After decades of a model where everyone from coaches to media executives profited while athletes were shut out, the NCAA should not be given a sweeping legal shield to act in its own interest,” Stevens said.

Stevens also pointed out another issue: Private equity. 

"College sports face two urgent challenges,” Stevens said in a response to one of Mitten Football’s questions. “First, building a sustainable model that ensures student-athletes share fairly in the billions they help generate. Second, preserving strong university control and governance as money floods the system. We’re already seeing troubling efforts by private equity and outside investors to buy stakes in conference and university revenue streams. Congress must act to protect the public mission of universities and ensure institutional control isn’t handed over to outside investors.”

Much like Dingell, it’s evident that Stevens would need the bill to be significantly less favorable to the NCAA and other powers that be in order to garner her support. 

“The problem with the SCORE Act is that it grants far too much power to the NCAA, the institution most responsible for the challenges we are seeing in college sports today,” Stevens said. 

Shri Thanedar (D MI-13)

Thanedar, like several of his colleagues in Michigan’s Democratic caucus, is skeptical of the SCORE Act and handing much of the power to run college sports back to the NCAA. He’s in favor of providing a federal regulatory framework, but a different one than what is proposed in the SCORE Act.

In responses to Mitten Football’s questions via his office, Thanedar specifically cited the antitrust exemption as a hangup. 

“While the SCORE Act provides a regulatory framework for NIL in college sports, there are numerous concerns from the labor community about this bill's potential to limit collective bargaining rights for college athletes,” Thanedar said. “The right to collectively bargain is sacred for all workers, and striking workers who fight for better pay and benefits make all of our lives better off.”

Thanedar, like Scholten, pointed to the College Athletics Reform Act, introduced by Democrat Lori Trahan, a rep from Massachusetts who played college volleyball at Georgetown. 

In general, Thanedar would like to see a better deal for the athletes on the ground floor of college athletics. 

“While I appreciate the desire for a clear regulatory framework for college sports (which in the current era of NIL is very important), I am very concerned about the potential of the SCORE Act to significantly limit the ability of college athletes to organize or collectively bargain,” Thanedar said. “It’s why numerous labor organizations oppose this bill.”