Trouble With The SCORE Act
Many expected a House floor vote next week. That is no longer expected.
Trouble With The SCORE Act
Let’s get right into it: The SCORE Act — the proposed college sports legislation that I wrote a lot about this summer — has stalled before reaching a vote on the House floor, at least on the expected timeline. Brandon Marcello, an ace reporter for CBS Sports, had the scoop Thursday.
For more than a month, people all over Capitol Hill have been telling me that vote would likely happen next week. Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA), the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate’s commerce committee, even said as much in a letter to fellow committee members Wednesday. So, uh, what happened?
That’s a complex question. Answering it in full will take more than one post, and between this newsletter and The Washington Post, I will have more on it all in the future. But for starters, a few top-line developments (and if you need a refresher on what this act aims to do, click on any of the in-text links above):
The Vote Math. Though the bill has a small handful of Democratic co-sponsors, it has been Republican-led from the start, with some powerful House Rs working closely with the SEC, Big Ten, NCAA and other conferences (and their extremely well-paid lobbyists). All along, since the House is a simple majority chamber, the bill could have passed on a straight party-line vote, no Democrats needed, to say nothing of its chances in the Senate. Republicans hold the House majority by six members. But if those powerful House Rs — Steve Scalise (LA), Gus Bilirakis (FL), Brett Guthrie (KY), Jim Jordan (OH), Tim Walberg (MI), Lisa McClain (MI) — were confident they had the votes to pass this thing as written, this newsletter would not exist. Marcello wouldn’t have had a scoop.
Ahead of the deadline to schedule a vote for next week, which was noon Thursday, Republicans and Democratic co-sponsors were still discussing possible amendments, hoping to rally more support among House Ds. One aide told me some reps were still talking until about 11:20 a.m., the deadline 40 minutes away. To me, that shows they still have an appetite for working off the version that advanced with a few partisan votes this summer, not throwing the SCORE Act out altogether. If that feels like an obvious point, seeing that they devised the legislation in the first place, I mention it to note that you may not be finished hearing the words “SCORE Act,” even if you wish you were.
But while this has been sold as a bipartisan bill, there has also been bipartisan pushback, which has only grown in recent days. The most vocal Republican opponent has been Rep. Michael Baumgartner (WA), who is staunchly against the bill’s attempt to codify much of the House settlement with a federal law, mostly because he believes it will lead to even more stratification between the SEC and Big Ten and everyone else. Baumgartner is still bitter about how much realignment screwed Washington State, which is in Pullman, which is in his district. Then on Sunday night, four House Republicans from Texas came out against the SCORE Act. They included Wesley Hunt, Chip Roy, Nathaniel Moran and Lance Gooden, who had even been a co-sponsor of the bill. In turn, the back-of-the-napkin math started to shift away from whoever wanted this version of the SCORE Act passed.
Why in the world, you may be wondering, did four Texas Rs share this sentiment at almost the exact same time? That brings us to …
Cody Campbell. Since the NCAA and its conferences have been lobbying for a federal bill, asking for antitrust protection, among other big items, they have faced a handful of staunch opponents in Congress. Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA), for example, has been in it for the long haul, opposing those efforts whenever she can. In the Senate, Cantwell, positioned across from Ted Cruz (R-Tex) in the commerce committee, has been especially active in recent weeks. But then came Cody Campbell, a billionaire Texas Tech booster who is also close to Donald Trump.
There’s been a lot written about Campbell this summer. I particularly enjoyed this breakdown of his influence and ideas from Amanda Christovich, my buddy over at Front Office Sports. Campbell is a worst-case scenario for those pushing the SCORE Act. He has the president’s ear, recently being named to his council for sports, fitness and nutrition. He has extremely deep pockets, evidenced by how much he’s already spent on lobbying for his version of college sports reform (amending the Sports Broadcasting Act to pool media rights money, having Congress establish a new body to run college sports, etc.). And maybe most importantly, he’s made it very clear that he is not going away.
Hunt, Roy, Moran and Gooden breaking from the SCORE Act? That’s directly related to Campbell’s involvement. Another example: Earlier this week, Scalise, the House majority leader, went on CNN to stump for the SCORE Act. Toward the end, the anchor noted that the White House had declined to comment on whether it supported the legislation. On that, one aide told me: “The majority leader is doing a three-minute segment on CNN while the White House doesn’t publicly support the bill? That’s because Cody is there. If Cody was not telling Trump that the bill isn’t good, you’d have to think the White House would be behind it. Or at least there’s a way higher chance they would be behind it.”
This probably won’t be the last time I write about Campbell. But that’s a quick, narrow look at how he fits into the events of this week. (He also chimed in with a long tweet Thursday evening, which provided a peek at what he wants to happen next.).
An odd interlude. Right after Marcello reported the vote wouldn’t happen next week, aides from five (!) different offices texted me about Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL). Moskowitz, they said, had signed on as an another Democratic co-sponsor of the bill on Wednesday, then reversed course and removed his name Thursday, right as momentum was clearly shifting. I did a quick thread about this on social media. Then, in an odd twist, Moskowitz’s official account tweeted at me to say his name had been added without his office’s consent. Apparently this happens sometimes. Quite the thing.
Icarus? You know, the guy in Greek mythology who flew too close to the sun? In this case, Icarus is not one person. But there’s a good argument, especially now, that those who devised the SCORE Act overplayed their hand. Time will tell, of course, since the outlook could shift with some amendments, should the same group of reps keep working off the initial version. With that version, though, they reached for so much — blanket antitrust protection with no sunset clause; a pre-emption of state name, image and likeness (NIL) laws; a ban on athletes ever becoming employees; an essential enshrinement of the House settlement — that it became easy for the opponents to build a coalition. One lobbyist, working against the SCORE Act, told me: “It was like shooting fish in a barrel in recent weeks. Calling a flippable Republican? They are taking away states’ rights! Calling a moderate Democrat in a labor-friendly state? Have you read the employment section?! There was really something for everyone.”
And that, as they say, was that. The story is far from over. This chapter, however, gets a small pin here before I keep texting around.