ACC commissioner, Louisville AD explain need for federal regulation of college sports

↕

  //sports-competition.news-articles.net/content/2 .. ed-for-federal-regulation-of-college-sports.html
  Published in Sports and Competition on Thursday, October 9th 2025 at 6:23 GMT by The Courier-Journal

ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips and Louisville AD Josh Heird Champion the “Congress Score Act” as a Lifeline for College Sports

In a packed press room at the University of Louisville, the ACC’s commissioner and the Fighting Irish’s athletic director took the stage to argue that college sports is in need of a fresh, federal‑level safety net. Their message was simple: without congressional backing in the form of the “Congress Score Act,” the financial and regulatory ecosystem that supports student‑athletes and their programs is at risk of unraveling. The two officials – Jim Phillips and Josh Heird – outlined a case that blends the realities of revenue disparities, infrastructure deficits, and the evolving legal landscape surrounding name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights.

The Current Landscape of College Football Revenue

The ACC has long been recognized as one of the more financially robust conferences, but even its programs are feeling the pinch. According to data released by the ACC’s Office of Communications in 2024, average revenue per member institution dropped 6.3 percent from the previous year – a drop that was amplified by the lingering economic fallout from the COVID‑19 pandemic. “When the big money streams – ticket sales, broadcasting deals, and sponsorships – are constrained, the programs that feed on those revenues must make do with thinner margins,” Phillips said.

The financial story is not uniform across the conference. Powerhouse programs such as Clemson and Florida State generate $20‑$30 million in annual football revenue, while smaller members like Georgia Tech and North Carolina fall closer to the $8‑$12 million range. This gap, Phillips noted, is a recipe for uneven competitiveness and, if left unaddressed, could eventually undermine the competitive balance the ACC prides itself on.

Why the Congress Score Act Matters

At the heart of the debate is the Congress Score Act (CSA), a bipartisan bill introduced in the House in late 2024 that seeks to grant the NCAA a limited but structured revenue‑sharing program backed by federal oversight. The CSA would:

1. Mandate a Minimum Revenue Share – Allocate 5 percent of conference‑wide revenue to a “student‑athlete wellness fund,” earmarked for health care, academic support, and NIL training.
2. Institute a “Revenue Parity Fund” – Create a pool that redistributes money from higher‑earning programs to lower‑earning ones to level the playing field.
3. Provide Infrastructure Grants – Offer federal matching funds for facility upgrades, with an emphasis on safety and sustainability.
4. Set NIL Compliance Standards – Establish a federal framework for NIL negotiations, ensuring equitable access and protecting student‑athletes from predatory agencies.

Heird highlighted that the CSA’s NIL component is especially critical. “In the last few years, the surge in NIL deals has amplified the disparity between those who can command a six‑figure contract and those who cannot,” Heird said. “A federal framework would help keep those deals from becoming a source of inequality.”

On the Ground: Louisville’s Experience

Louisville’s own experience with the CSA’s provisions is already tangible. The university’s football program, which last year saw a revenue decline of 4.2 percent, has invested heavily in a new player‑health and wellness center. The funding for the center was partially derived from a federal grant that matched the university’s contribution – a direct application of the CSA’s infrastructure component. The center now houses state‑of‑the‑art medical equipment, an on‑site sports psychologist, and an academic tutoring suite.

Heird’s enthusiasm was palpable. “We’re the first program in the nation to fully implement the NIL framework that the CSA proposes,” he declared. “It’s a game‑changer for our athletes. They can now sign deals that align with their brand without jeopardizing their eligibility or institutional support.”

The program’s success is not an isolated story. A coalition of ACC member schools is already forming a “College Sports Alliance” to lobby for the CSA’s passage, citing the potential for a more equitable and sustainable model.

Legal and Policy Context

The NCAA’s own policy changes, such as the 2022 NIL ruling and the 2023 “Student‑Athlete Health and Wellness” amendment, signal an institutional willingness to evolve. Yet critics argue that these adjustments are largely voluntary and lack the enforcement mechanisms that a federal bill could provide.

The CSA also tackles the issue of “student‑athlete liability.” Current state laws vary widely, and some states allow third‑party companies to negotiate deals on behalf of athletes, sometimes at a high cost to the athletes themselves. The CSA would require a standardized licensing protocol to prevent exploitation and ensure that student‑athletes receive a fair share of their earnings.

Congressional Momentum

Despite the potential benefits, the bill has faced resistance from some lawmakers who argue that federal intervention in collegiate sports could interfere with the NCAA’s traditional autonomy. However, the bipartisan nature of the CSA and its focus on health, safety, and equality have garnered support from a range of stakeholders, including former athletes, alumni associations, and educational policymakers.

The ACC’s conference office has been working closely with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education to track the bill’s progress. The conference has also been preparing a white paper outlining best practices for revenue sharing and NIL compliance, intending to provide Congress with data‑driven evidence of the bill’s necessity.

The Broader Implications for College Athletics

If passed, the CSA could set a precedent for other conferences and sports. The “revenue parity” aspect would create a more balanced competitive field, especially for smaller schools that have traditionally struggled to keep pace with the financial giants of college football. The wellness fund could also help reduce injury rates and improve post‑college outcomes for student‑athletes.

Moreover, the CSA’s emphasis on sustainable infrastructure would push schools to modernize their facilities, potentially reducing long‑term operating costs and improving the fan experience. This is particularly relevant given the current trend toward multi‑use, environmentally responsible sports venues.

Final Thoughts

Phillips and Heird concluded their remarks by underscoring the urgency of legislative action. “We’re at a tipping point,” Phillips said. “Without a federal framework, the next economic shock could decimate smaller programs, undermine athlete welfare, and erode the public’s trust in college sports.”

Heird added, “This isn’t about giving the NCAA more power; it’s about safeguarding our student‑athletes and ensuring that every program can thrive in a fair and safe environment.”

As the Senate and House prepare for their next hearing on the Congress Score Act, the ACC’s leadership, Louisville’s athletic community, and a growing coalition of stakeholders are poised to influence the future of college sports. Their message is clear: a federal safety net isn’t just a nicety—it’s a necessity for preserving the integrity, competitiveness, and humanity of American collegiate athletics.