NIL and the SCORE Act: Good or Bad?

Originally posted on Substack. 

College sports aren’t just in the news for thrilling games anymore. They’re in the headlines for billion-dollar NIL payouts, booster-funded collectives, and Washington’s latest attempt to regulate it all through the SCORE Act. The proposal claims to protect student-athletes by creating national standards for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals. In reality, it hands the NCAA new antitrust protections and entrenches the very cartel that suppressed players for decades.

NIL: Freedom, but With Consequences

When the NCAA finally allowed NIL deals in July 2021, athletes gained the freedom to profit from their own names, images, and likenesses. That was what many consider to be a long-overdue correction to decades of “amateurism,” which funneled billions to universities and coaches while denying athletes similar funding.

But pair NIL with the transfer portal, and you get chaos. Players now bounce from school to school for the highest offer. The lifelong alma mater loyalty that once defined college football in Texas is evaporating. Fans (like me) used to watch Patrick Mahomes sling passes in Lubbock or Vince Young lead Texas to a national title, knowing those players were true fixtures. Today, rosters feel like revolving doors, more like NFL free agency than higher education.

And the money isn’t spread evenly. A Washington Post investigation of more than $125 million in NIL contracts found that over 80 percent of payouts went to men playing football and basketball, leaving Olympic sports and women’s teams largely sidelined.

What Athletes Already Received Before NIL

Let’s not pretend athletes were uncompensated before NIL. In reality, top Division I athletes were already receiving benefits that far exceeded what most academic high-achievers ever see.

• Full-ride scholarships at public four-year schools covered tuition, fees, room, board, and books—worth about $26,000–$30,000 annually for in-state students and $45,000–$50,000 for out-of-state. At private universities, the package could exceed $60,000 per year (College Board, Bankrate).
• Since 2015, “autonomy” conferences added cost-of-attendance stipends of $2,000–$6,000 in cash.
• Since 2014, athletes have had access to unlimited meals and snacks.
• Low-income players could qualify for federal Pell Grants of up to $7,395 annually.

By comparison, the average student who received grants or scholarships at a four-year college for academics received about $15,750 per year. Only 11% of students receive any scholarship at all, and fewer than 2% of high school athletes earn an athletic scholarship, with the average FBS football scholarship of about $36,000 per year.

Put it together, and a top football or basketball player at a place like UT, A&M, or Texas Tech—my own alma mater—could easily receive $30,000–$60,000+ annually in value. That’s often more than what top academic scholars get.

After NIL: A Billion-Dollar Marketplace

Once NIL was “legalized,” the floodgates opened. By 2023, athletes had signed nearly $1 billion worth of deals, with projections topping over $1.7 billion for 2024-25. At the University of Texas, the football team alone reported $20.8 million in NIL deals from 2021–2024, leading the nation. Texas A&M has become synonymous with massive booster-backed collectives. And at Texas Tech, Red Raider athletes are securing sponsorships through organized NIL programs.

As a Red Raider, I’m proud of the legacy of athletes like Patrick Mahomes, Wes Welker, Zach Thomas, Ronald Ross, Andre Emmett, Mac McClung, and many more. But I can’t ignore how quickly the system that built those traditions is being rewritten into a marketplace where loyalty is negotiable and education feels secondary.

The SCORE Act: Washington’s Wrong Fix

The SCORE Act would impose a federal NIL regime: agents registering with the NCAA, schools mandated to provide medical care and counseling, and universities forced to field at least 16 varsity teams. Most troubling, it gives the NCAA a sweeping antitrust exemption and allows it to cap revenue-sharing at about $20.5 million per school.

Texas Tech Regent Cody Campbell called out misleading ads claiming every Division I conference supports the bill. He’s right—many conferences oppose it, warning that it could harm women’s sports and smaller programs. His stance gained support from Texas Congressmen like Chip Roy and Wesley Hunt.

But the bigger issue is this: why should Congress reward the NCAA’s monopoly model with even more power, when it has already distorted the market for a century?

Education Is Still the Real Crisis

The United States doesn’t just face a sports debate—we face an education crisis. National test scores are sinking, and college student debt has climbed past $1.7 trillion. Yet in Texas, the highest-paid public employees aren’t professors—they’re football coaches. When athletics becomes the core business of government-funded universities, classrooms and research inevitably get crowded out.

This is classic economics. Subsidize demand through federal loans and grants, keep supply fixed, and costs rise. Layer on the billions funneled into athletics, and the price of higher education only climbs higher. Taxpayers and non-athlete students—who rarely see any benefit from NIL—are left paying the bill.

The Better Path for Higher Education in Texas & Beyond

Texas can set a different course. UT, A&M, and Texas Tech don’t need Washington’s bureaucracy to tell them how to run their programs. What they need is freedom and accountability.

• Put academics first by tying athletic eligibility to real progress in the classroom. For high school athletes, escrow large NIL deals until they turn 18.
• End subsidies that force taxpayers and students to bankroll athletic deficits. Publish athletic budgets in full.
• Separate the baskets by spinning off football and men’s basketball into privately funded entities. Treat them as professional sports businesses.
• Let markets work by protecting contracts and preventing fraud—without giving the NCAA new legal shields.

​Bottom Line

NIL was a step toward fairness, but it’s become gasoline on the fire of a broken, subsidized system. The SCORE Act would only make it worse, cementing NCAA power and fueling more spending while academics fall further behind.

We should lead with a better solution. Let athletes contract freely, but stop pretending multimillion-dollar sports programs belong inside taxpayer-funded universities. Put education back in the driver’s seat, privatize entertainment, and give families a real shot at affordable, quality schooling.

Because in the long run, strong schools and strong markets—not government mandates or subsidies—are what truly let people prosper.