Last week, both Congress and President Trump took steps that could reshape how labor and employment laws apply to student athletes in higher education. While neither action will have immediate legal effect, together they signal a coordinated federal effort to prevent unionization and override state laws that expand the rights of student athletes.
Colleges and universities, along with athletic conferences and other interested parties, should pay close attention to what happens next.
The SCORE Bill
On July 23, 2025, two House committees approved the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Bill (SCORE). If enacted, the SCORE bill would end a long-running push by labor advocates to unionize student athletes by excluding them from the definition of “employees” under federal law and preempting states from taking contrary action. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), individuals who are not employees generally cannot unionize and lack protection if they engage in other protected concerted activities.
The SCORE bill’s ban is broad. Its key provision says, in part: “no individual may be considered an employee of an institution, a conference, or an interstate intercollegiate athletic association based on the participation of such individual on a varsity sports team or in an intercollegiate athletic competition as a student athlete.”
In addition, the bill blocks states from enforcing any law that “governs or regulates the compensation, payment, benefits, employment status, or eligibility of a student athlete (including a prospective student athlete) with respect to participation in intercollegiate athletics.” It specifically blocks any state law that “relates to the right of a student athlete to receive compensation or other payments or benefits directly or indirectly from any institution, associated entity or individual, conference, or interstate intercollegiate athletic association.”
Given its broad scope, the SCORE bill would also remove student athletes from coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which establishes standards for wages and overtime pay.
Impact on NLRB Decisions
The SCORE bill’s exclusion of student athletes from NLRA coverage would alter the impact of two important decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
First, it would effectively narrow the NLRB’s 2016 decision in Columbia University, which said the test of a college student’s employee status hinges on the control a school exercises over the student and the compensation it provides for the student’s services. This test provided NLRA coverage to most students who perform services for universities, whereas the bill would deny coverage to student athletes. (Importantly, the bill would not appear to impact Columbia University’s broad NLRA coverage of students who perform duties for colleges in roles other than athletes, such as graduate or undergraduate teaching, research, and residence assistants. Practically speaking, this means that these assistants are generally considered employees and have the right to form a union without retaliation, and the SCORE bill would not disturb this state of affairs.)
Second, the bill would effectively extend the 2015 decision in Northwestern University. In that case, the NLRB declined jurisdiction over student football players where the bargaining unit was just one private university (Northwestern University) that was part of a conference in which state-run universities competed. The SCORE bill would extend that holding to prohibit NLRB jurisdiction over student athletes at all private universities.
Northwestern University was viewed by some as a narrow decision that left the door open to greater organizing in college sports. In February 2024, an NLRB Regional Director found that basketball players at Dartmouth College — unlike the football players at Northwestern University — were employees and therefore eligible to form a union. Ultimately, however, in December 2024, the union at Dartmouth College withdrew its petition for representation. During the Biden Administration, the NLRB General Counsel took the same approach as the Regional Director in Dartmouth College, arguing in a memo that student athletes are employees. But earlier this year President Trump appointed an Acting General Counsel who rescinded the memo.
Trump’s Executive Order
One day after the House committees approved the SCORE bill, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Saving College Sports” that calls for several actions related to student athletes. Notably, the order directs the NLRB and the Department of Labor (DOL) to “determine and implement the appropriate measures with respect to clarifying the status of collegiate athletes … that will maximize the educational benefits and opportunities provided by higher education institutions through athletics.”
The White House appears to be pressing the NLRB to remove student athletes from coverage. The EO notes that it is “common sense that college sports are not, and should not be, professional sports.” Professional athletes, of course, are generally considered employees under the NLRA and, indeed, most are in unions.
If the NLRB were to exclude student athletes from the definition of employee, the result would be consistent with the SCORE bill, which would prohibit them from being considered employees for purposes of all federal laws, not just the NLRA. Currently, the NLRB lacks a quorum of members and cannot issue decisions. However, President Trump made two board member appointments earlier this month — Scott Mayer and James Murphy — who could take this matter up if they are confirmed by the Senate. In addition, Crystal Carey, the President’s nominee for NLRB General Counsel, could tee up the matter for the NLRB’s review by arguing for the exclusion of student athletes from NLRA coverage in a future case, if she is confirmed by the Senate.
Similar to the SCORE bill, the EO could prompt changes to the FLSA and other employment laws with respect to student athletes. DOL could make such changes by proposing new statutory interpretations in a regulation.
Uncertain Odds and Changing Executive Policy
The Republican-led SCORE bill, should it pass the House, would face uncertain odds in the Senate. These dynamics may have prompted the White House to take executive action on the student athlete issue in case the legislative action fails.
The executive order is significant not only for its position on college athletics but for requiring the NLRB to take a particular policy action.
Presidents have rarely, if ever, made particular policy commands to the NLRB since its creation in 1935 given that the board operates as a so-called “independent” agency, especially with respect to its function in issuing adjudicatory decisions.
However, the Trump Administration appears to be challenging the NLRB’s historic independence from the White House, given that earlier this year the President challenged the constitutionality of the statutory prohibition on dismissals when he fired Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, who is contesting her firing in court.
Broader Developments in College Sports
According to the executive order, recent changes in college sports have created a patchwork of rules — some of which are unrelated to the definition of “employee” —that demand a standardized, national solution.
For example, the EO states that after the Supreme Court issued an antitrust decision in 2021, the NCAA changed its rules to allow student athletes to receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness (NIL) from third parties, and some of these transactions have operated as “pay-for-play inducements.” The EO also notes that more than 30 states have approved their own NIL legislation. According to the EO, these and other developments have spawned an “oligarchy of teams that can simply buy the best players,” and guardrails are needed “to stop the madness.”[1]
Next Steps
For now, neither the SCORE bill nor the Saving College Sports EO have changed the scope of federal labor law coverage for student athletes. Accordingly, unionization of athletes in higher education is likely to continue, at least in the near term. Universities should keep apprised of actions by the NLRB, DOL and other agencies that could alter the landscape in response to the White House and congressional proposals.
[1] Although the EO seeks to address some of these issues, the scope of this article is focused not on those provisions but on the ones that potentially impact labor and employment laws.
[View source.]
