HR-9137-119
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)
What it does
This bill would create federal rules governing college athletes' rights to earn money from their name, image, and likeness (NIL), require agent registration and disclosure of NIL deals, mandate medical coverage and safety standards for student athletes, and establish protections like an ombudsman office, academic protections, and transfer rules. It would also amend the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, set broadcasting requirements for college sports media rights, and create a Commission on the Future of College Athletics, while limiting certain conference mergers and setting a revenue share cap tied to a federal court settlement.
Who benefits
Student athletes at Division I (and some other division) institutions gain enforceable NIL rights, health coverage, disclosure protections, and a private right of action against agents; athlete agents who comply gain a clearer registration system; institutions and conferences gain a uniform national standard replacing a patchwork of state NIL laws; smaller-revenue athletic programs may benefit from the shared catastrophic injury fund; broadcasters and conferences gain defined media-rights rules.
Who is hurt
Institutions and athletic associations bear new compliance, disclosure, medical-coverage, and reporting costs; larger conferences and associations face limits on mergers/acquisitions and revenue-sharing caps that may restrict their business flexibility; athlete agents face new registration, fee caps, and liability exposure; collectives and boosters face new registration and disclosure obligations; state governments lose the ability to set their own differing NIL standards for schools within their borders.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current patchwork of 30+ state NIL laws creates confusion and competitive imbalance, and that a single federal standard would protect athletes from exploitation by agents while guaranteeing baseline health coverage, including a $60 million annual fund for catastrophic injuries and long-term conditions like CTE. They contend the private right of action and mandatory disclosures give athletes real enforcement tools against bad-faith agents and unfair grant-in-aid revocations that current NCAA rules do not reliably provide.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a one-size-fits-all federal scheme could override state laws that already give athletes stronger protections in some states, and that provisions capping agent fees at 5% and restricting conference mergers may constitute government interference in private contracts and business decisions beyond Congress's constitutional authority. They contend the compliance burden — mandatory disclosures, databases, ombudsman offices, and health funds — could strain smaller athletic departments and ultimately reduce the resources available for non-revenue sports.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) given the interstate nature of college sports, broadcasting, and NIL contracts, similar to the aggregation reasoning in Wickard v. Filburn (1942); the bill's preemption of differing state NIL laws also raises Tenth Amendment federalism questions about the limits of that power, though it does not compel state legislative action in the manner barred by Murphy v. NCAA (2018).
Checks and balances
Congress would set binding national rules for a previously state-and-association-governed area, with federal courts (not agencies) empowered to enforce private rights of action, limiting the risk of unchecked administrative rulemaking.
Historical precedent
Numerous individual states have enacted NIL laws since 2021 following the Supreme Court's NCAA v. Alston (2021) decision, but this would be the first comprehensive federal NIL statute to preempt that state-by-state patchwork.