WESTPORT, CT — December 1, 2025. Kassandra Ramsey, President of The Drake Group (TDG), a 501(c)(4) non-profit academic think tank working to further the education of the U.S. Congress and higher education policymakers about critical issues in intercollegiate athletics, issued the following statements concerning two bills being considered by Congress.

Statement Opposing H.R. 4312 the “Student Compensation and Opportunity

through Rights and Endorsements Act” (“SCORE Act”) and asking Congress to consider the “College Athletics Reform Act” (“CARA”) as an Alternative

The SCORE Act is Flawed

The SCORE Act, as currently written, provides institutions, conferences, and the NCAA with an antitrust exemption, preemption of state laws, and classification of college athletes as non-employees, effectively codifying the House v. NCAA (and Power Five Conferences) settlement. Congress should consider this purpose highly questionable, given that approval of the settlement is now on appeal, and the lawsuit has never been litigated on its merits.

We are particularly concerned about the impact of this legislation on athletes from lower socio-economic groups, a population in which athletes of color are overrepresented and more likely to be educationally exploited by their institutions, economically exploited by uncertified agents, and who are now being subject to onerous contract terms by their institutions as a condition of engaging in revenue sharing now permitted in the settlement and by the Act.

In addition to significant protection against antitrust and state law litigation, the bill gives the NCAA almost total control of college athletics in perpetuity in return for college athletes giving up employee rights, receiving limited economic benefits, and getting insufficient health, athletic injury, transfer rights, and other protections. The granting of 20% of the voting power to college athletes on NCAA boards and committees is a false flag, when 40% is necessary for any minority group to have sufficient power to effect system change.

The institution’s payments from the SCORE Act “revenue pool” are being cloaked as “NIL payments” for promotion or publicity rights claimed in athlete agreements. On the contrary, they are recruiting or retention bonuses or payments based on the estimated value of the athlete to win games in sports that generate revenues. Thus, in reality, they are “pay for play.” These payments are both untethered to education expenses or purpose and unlimited in the amounts offered to individual athletes.

The bill establishes a cash-transaction recruiting and pay-for-play athletics culture that benefits primarily the 18,000 male football and basketball players, who represent a fraction of the 185,000 Division I athletes, and the highly paid Power Four coaches and administrators. The bill’s focus on cash benefits derived from revenues for performance will result in academic institutions treating these athletes as expendable ‘employees’ as opposed to students seeking academic degrees. The payments most likely will not be renewed if more talented athletes are available in the transfer pool.

Further, the bill undermines federal and state laws that require equitable treatment of female athletes by failing to incorporate guardrails for Title IX compliance.  Few institutions—especially low-resourced Division I schools—will have sufficient funds to support pay-for-play revenue sports, gender equity, and Olympic or other low-revenue-producing teams.

Lastly, the Act does nothing to control the cost of exorbitant coaches’ salaries, benefits, or exit pay-outs, which have already exceeded $200 million in the first three months of this academic year. Running average annual operating deficits of $15 to $20 million, only 20 to 25 of the 350 Division I schools break even on an operating basis, with all now seeking increased institutional subsidies, donor dollars, and private equity infusions to finance these deficits and raise the additional escalating $20.5 million PER YEAR permitted by the SCORE Act.  This bill does not stop the financial bleeding.

This cannot be how Congress wishes a non-profit educational entity to operate.  Congress can and must do better.  Thus, we urge members of Congress to oppose the adoption of H.R. 4312, the SCORE Act.

The College Athletics Reform Act (CARA) is a Better Alternative

A broad coalition of independent organizations representing athletes, legal experts, and advocates for fair competition has been working with Representative Lori Trahan (MA-03) on a preferred alternative to the SCORE Act. The bill addresses the most pressing athlete protection issues in college sports — the regulation of sports agents, the assurance of athletes’ NIL rights, and an enforcement system (FTC and state attorneys general) more likely to protect all athletes rather than the commercial interests of a few.

Importantly, it also provides a blueprint for moving forward with a bipartisan Congressional Commission that will have the time and data needed to develop solutions to those issues that have created the current legislative stalemate.

Supporters include professional athletes’ players associations, the National College Players Association, the College Basketball Players Association, the VOICEINSPORT Foundation, The Drake Group, the American Association for Justice, The Center for Law and Social Policy, and the Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws.

We understand that Representative Trahan will introduce the bill today as a substitute for the SCORE Act.

The Drake Group strongly endorses CARA and urges both sides of the aisle to come together to address what all can agree to now in the spirit of nonpartisan support. Then, we need to continue moving forward together over the next two years, assisted by experts who understand the complex issues involved in fixing our intercollegiate athletics system, so that college sports will better serve our athletes and higher education institutions.

READ THE DRAKE GROUP NOTES AND COMMENTS ON SCORE ACT PROVISIONS