Tuesday, January 27, 2026

Congress and College Sports — Jan. 14 Session Recording and Resources

Case analysis

Sean Mcandrews

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Knight Commission <perko@knightcommission.org>
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 12:50 PM
Subject: Congress and College Sports — Jan. 14 Session Recording and Resources
To: <ncaacompliance@wvstateu.edu>

CONGRESS AND COLLEGE SPORTS: Pending Legislation and Lingering Questions
January 14 presentation at 2026 NCAA Convention

The Knight Commission recently released the video and additional resources from its January 14 session at the NCAA Convention, "Congress and College Sports: Pending Legislation and Lingering Questions." The session information page is accessible here.

Session Information & Resources

Legislative Scorecard

Video Recording

Slide Deck

KEY COMMENTS FROM EXPERT PANELISTS

On the possibility of federal legislation for college sports:

"I say yes, it can be done. In my mind, there are a lot of issues that can be compromised here because there are a lot of commonalities with the bills on different topics, but that negotiation is going to take a lot of work."

On whether there is something missing

from the proposals:

"If there's a proposal that adds more votes than it loses, it's worth discussing. But the process of combining these bills, narrowing the scope of issues, that really has to take place if (there is) a realistic chance of doing something."

On potential college agent regulation to recognize agent certification through existing pro sports certification systems:

"If you have some (agents) that have already gone through the process of becoming MLBPA certified, NFLPA certified, NBPA certified, NHLPA certified, I think there should be a benefit for that."

When asked what features of agent regulations he preferred from the proposed bills, Foster referenced a key feature of the SCORE Act that:

"only places the (agent) fee limits on the part of the contract that deals with the revenue sharing portion of the negotiation (between the team and athlete) and leaves the marketing contracts and the fees associated to the market. That more closely mimics what's already happening (in pro sports)."

On the potential for antitrust protection for the NCAA in legislation:

"There is a way to get stability without that broad antitrust exemption. You just can be more narrowly focused on the particular rule you want to implement."

On the SCORE Act's definition of the governing entities that could receive an antitrust exemption:

"(T)he way it defines an 'Interstate Intercollegiate Athletic Association' could be read to include two conferences that split off and agree to their own rules. So just something to note that if we take the SCORE Act and its definition and its exemption broadly, it might provide protection for a breakaway super conference that forms, not just to the entire NCAA."

On what's missing from proposed legislation to protect funding for opportunities, gender equity and education: "There's been more discussion about not only imposing cost controls on athlete compensation but imposing cost controls across the board… Maybe the limit should not just be on the athletes. Maybe we should think about the total amount that is being spent on college athletics, coaches, administrators, facilities."

CORRECTION IN PRESENTATION

The following is a correction to information presented at the 37:50 mark of the video recording to reflect an approved amendment to the proposed SCORE Act:

"As we look to how the federal bills address this concern, only the SCORE Act sets a minimum standard for the number of sports a school must provide. The bill specifies 16 varsity sports are required but only for institutions ~~that pay even one coach more than a $250,000 annual salary.~~ that generate at least $25 million through athletics. Other institutions that generate less than $25 million could maintain 14 sports if the institution sponsors only 14 on the date of the SCORE Act's enactment."