Listen Here
By Erin Moran
morane@findlay.edu
College athletics could dramatically shift under the proposed Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act. Introduced in July 2025, the legislation would create a new framework for athletes to earn money based on their name, image, and likeness (NIL), as well as other compensation aspects of college athletics.
Derek Downs, the director of athletic compliance at the University of Findlay believes the national consistency provided in the bill could be beneficial for athletes and schools.
“Some level of structure or national consistency would be helpful,” Downs said in an email interview. “The challenge is finding a solution that provides stability while still protecting the rights and opportunities that student-athletes have gained in recent years. There are still a lot of questions about whether the SCORE Act fully accomplishes that balance.”
The SCORE Act would establish a single framework for NIL rules, strictly define athletes as nonemployees to the school, and protect the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) from federal antitrust lawsuits. It would also allow the NCAA to regulate deals and transfers as they would have explicit legal power to enforce recruitment, transfer, and compliance rules in an effort to preserve amateurism in college sports.
While the bill was pulled from the scheduled vote in December 2025, due to internal debate, the push for change in the college athletic system is still present.
President Donald Trump hosted a “Saving College Sports” roundtable panel discussing the NCAA on March 6, arguing the system is broken and could result in the shutdown of colleges. Trump endorsed the SCORE Act and called for a return of the old scholarship system prior to 2021 NCAA v. Alston case, in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NCAA couldn’t restrict educational benefits for athletes under the antitrust law. This case started the movement for NIL expansion and opportunities across college athletics.
Shortly after this ruling, the NCAA adopted an interim policy that granted athletes the ability to profit from NIL deals, with each state making their own laws. Since then, the format of the NCAA system has changed and NIL sponsorships, endorsements, and partnerships have grown rapidly, along with legal disputes about compensation and regulations.
Supporters of the act argue that it would grant stability and transparency to the NCAA, but critics argue that the divide between divisions and schools of different sizes would widen, creating inequality.
At the University of Findlay, the impact of NIL is very minimal compared to larger programs, especially at the Division I level, where NIL deals are more common.
“From a Division II perspective, the NIL landscape has remained relatively stable. Most DII institutions simply do not operate in an NIL-driven environment the way some Division I programs do,” said Downs.
“I do think most people across college athletics would agree that the current system, specifically at the top of DI, is probably not sustainable long term,” Downs said. “I think the scale of NIL activity and the transfer portal environment has gotten out of hand and will reach a tipping point in the near future.”
Cat Graves, Student-Athlete Advisory Committee president and goalie for the women’s soccer team, noted the impact NIL has had on athletics and how a change might be necessary as athletes are now under so much pressure.
“Being able to make money outside of scholarships is really cool, but it also brings a lot of pressure, because it’s based on your name and performance,” said Graves. “I feel like we all play college sports because we love them, and sometimes it feels like the focus is shifting away from that.”
Graves shared how the SAAC representatives supported the idea of the bill and a change in framework, despite the limited impact it has on Findlay.
“A lot of us support it because it would give everyone the same NIL rules and kind of unify everything,” said Graves. “Having it be the same will be so helpful for everyone, but honestly, I don’t think it’s really going to change much for us because we are such a small school.”
University of Findlay’s Athletic Director Jim Givens is wary about the direction of college athletics.
“I certainly don’t believe that student athletes should be treated as employees,” said Givens. “In our landscape today, we are devaluing education by making it about the amount of revenue that every institution is making, every conference is making, and every student athlete potentially could make, or is already making. So, I have a hard time with NIL.”
“I’m really disappointed that education is being devalued,” said Givens.
“If you’re really good, you’re gonna make a lot of money and you’re going to get an opportunity at the next level,” noted Givens. “We are becoming a feeder system to be professional athletes in all of the sports, and it’s wrong.”
He noted the opportunities that can come from more limited regulations and the lessening extent of NIL in athletics.
“You’ve got someone that is in college sports for 6 years and they’re taking away opportunities from now for other student athletes that have done the right things, but because he wants to come back and make more money, they can’t. And you can’t blame the 6th year, it’s just the system now,” said Givens.
The University of Findlay is likely to not feel too much impact from the SCORE Act.
“If it were to pass I think that, in the next 5 years, the impact would not be large,” said Givens.
“When NIL does come into play at our level, it is often more about maintaining roster stability and preventing athletes from being recruited away rather than creating large compensation opportunities,” said Downs.
As updates occur about the legislation, college athletic programs will have to navigate rules and opportunities within an increasingly complex national system.
