WASHINGTON—Senators are holding up a federal college athletics bill, knowing President Trump prioritizes a national standard for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals. The current patchwork of 31 state laws and varying court rulings has created an uneven landscape for universities and athletes. The White House seeks to stabilize this system with federal legislation, offering lawmakers a clear path to extract concessions on unrelated legislative items.
A federal NIL bill would consolidate power away from individual states and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), directly benefiting major athletic conferences and top recruits seeking uniform rules. The Power Five conferences, including the SEC and Big Ten, have increased their lobbying efforts, spending more than $3 million on NIL issues with Congress since 2023. These efforts aim to shape a federal framework that protects their revenue streams and recruitment advantages. Smaller schools and state athletic commissions, which currently enjoy more autonomy, face potential losses under a national system.
Lawmakers like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) have previously introduced competing NIL proposals, reflecting the bipartisan but divergent views on federal oversight. The Trump administration has signaled a desire for a bill protecting the amateur status of college athletes while allowing them to profit from their brand. However, the Senate's Democratic majority and a fractured Republican caucus mean any bill will require horse-trading, potentially involving judicial appointments, appropriations for unrelated sectors or specific language on antitrust exemptions for the NCAA.
The college sports industry generates an estimated $16 billion annually, with NIL deals now a central component of athlete recruitment and retention. Companies like Opendorse and NIL Collectives, which facilitate athlete endorsements, stand to gain from a clearer, more consistent regulatory environment. These platforms connect athletes with brands, streamlining transactions that totaled more than $1.2 billion in 2024. Conversely, universities that have built robust in-house NIL compliance programs may face disruption and new federal reporting requirements, adding operational costs.
States with less restrictive NIL laws, such as California and Florida, could see their competitive advantages eroded by a federal standard. Athletic departments across the country, already grappling with budget pressures, face uncertainty over future revenue sharing mandates and compliance costs. The power struggle over this bill reflects a larger battle for control over a lucrative sector.
