Go behind-the-scenes of the NCAA's SCORE Act lobbying

Howdy! It’s Thursday. It’s FOIAball. We’re late. Sorry. Let’s have some fun :) 

But first, a big, heartfelt thank you to those of you who upgraded earlier this week. You know who you are. And I love you so much for it. 

Want to get your own earnest appreciation at the beginning of my next newsletter? Then you gotta click that upgrade button. 

Okay. Now, let’s have some fun.

I love a coincidence. Even if seemingly related matters only occurred simultaneously by chance, they can still be delightfully illuminating. 

Let me tell you about a fun one I found this week. 

On July 22, 2025, an NCAA staffer emailed officials at the University of Cincinnati and asked them to lean on Rep. Greg Landsman (D) over the SCORE Act, which faced a committee vote the next day.  

The very same day as that email, Landsman got a donation from a PAC. The PAC for Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. The firm the NCAA employed to lobby on its behalf on Capitol Hill. 

A coincidence, probably. But it’s also illustrative of something I think people forget about lobbying. 

Most vaguely understand lobbying as a corporation handing over a bag of cash to a man in a seersucker suit, who then sweet-talks a congressperson. 

But to get in the door, well, members of Congress, they like money. To earn that kind of face time, lobbying firms have PACs to spread donations around. These PACs are distinct entities, separate from the firm’s lobbying activities. 

The money doesn’t technically come from clients like the NCAA, which paid Brownstein Farber Hyatt Schreck $360,000 last year. It just comes from the lobbying firm’s employees… whose salaries are paid by clients. An important distinction. 

So, again, the timing of the Landsman donation was probably coincidental. Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck is a big firm. They have lots of clients. The House’s Energy and Commerce Committee, which was weighing the SCORE Act, handles lots of different matters. 

Which means it’s probably also a coincidence that other Democrats on the committee—Reps. Diana DeGette, Jake Auchincloss, Rob Menendez, and Scott Peters—also got money from the PAC that week, too.

The donations weren’t huge. Just $1,000 each. All those Democrats still voted “No.”

That’s okay, because this story actually isn’t about Brownstein Hyatt Farber OR Schreck. Mostly because I don’t want to keep writing that long name out. I just like diving into FEC filings. 

No, this story is about how the NCAA tried to get schools to help push the SCORE Act through Congress. An effort that, as you can tell from the state of affairs, wasn’t successful. 

Still, let me take you behind-the-scenes. If you want, you can view the documents we got from Cincinnati, UNLV, VCU, and Sacramento State by clicking those links.

In early June, the NCAA’s Office of Government Relations sent out an alert flagging a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing where the SCORE Act was first being touted by its sponsors. 

A few days later, VCU’s athletics director reached out to Dawn Buth, the NCAA managing director of government relations, noting that Richmond-based Rep. Rob Wittman (R) was considering becoming a co-sponsor and wanted VCU’s feedback

“Hi, Dawn. Hope all is well with you. Have y'all endorsed this bill or are you still in the fact-finding phase of it? Just curious. One of our alumni, Rep. Wittman, has talked about becoming a co-sponsor and asked for my opinion.” 

It took a week for him to hear back. Buth responded that basically, yes, the NCAA was on board with it. So long as the organization got limited liability protection, which would shield it from lawsuits filed around NIL and other matters. 

“The SCORE Act is still in draft form and still missing the Judiciary text on limited liability,” Buth wrote. “But we understand the intent is to include limited antitrust protections for schools, conferences, and the Association. Both bills essentially codify the existing DI core guarantees as a way to bring on Dems.”

The bill wasn’t formally introduced until July 10. Then, it moved quickly. So did the NCAA. The day before the subcommittee hearing, it sent out another blast, calling on schools to support it. 

“We urge all student-athletes, schools and conferences to call or write to their respective House members urging their support for this bill, as well as any amendments you suggest.”

The act passed out of the subcommittee along party lines on July 15. Eight days later, a markup for the bill with the full Energy and Commerce Committee was held. 

The day before that, July 22, was when the NCAA reached out to Cincinnati Athletics Director John Cunningham with a “Time Sensitive Request.” The email noted the ask was going to multiple universities. 

“I’m personally reaching out to schools like yours to see if you’d be willing to call or send a brief email today to Rep. Landsman—who is on the Energy & Commerce Committee and I believe represents your all’s district—and urge him to advance the bill as well any amendments you’d like to see.”

The sample letter attached for the Bearcats to send was rather formulaic and… well, sort of sloppy. It presupposed that the congresspeople the NCAA wanted written to were unaware of the SCORE Act. It also had a typo. 

“<Leg Director Name>,

My name is <Name> and I am the <Title> at <School/Conference Name>.

I wanted to make you aware of a fast-fast moving bipartisan bill, the SCORE Act (H.R. 4312), that our <school/conference> supports. The bill passed out of subcommittee last week and we understand it could come before the full House Energy & Commerce and Education & Workforce Committees as early as this week.”

The language in it highlighted the key aspects of the bill the NCAA backed. 

“This proposal creates stability for college sports, ensures a level-playing field for SAs, and addresses a priority concern from Division II schools by ensuring student-athletes are not considered employees of their schools.”

It also said that “the bill is also supported by National Division I, II, and III student-athlete leaders.”

Though the SCORE Act has student detractors, particularly around the employment issue, when asked by FOIAball about student-athlete support, the organization flagged the endorsement of the bill by the Student-Athlete Advisory Committees for all three divisions. 

The email was forwarded to Cincinnati’s head of government relations, who revealed that the school and the Big 12’s lobbying firm had already been in direct contact with Landsman’s team. 

Landsman, like a lot of Democrats on the committee, was against the bill, given the party’s stance on the employment rights of student-athletes.  

“As you can imagine, we are following closely. George and I are in close contact as well,” the school’s head of government relations wrote. “I spoke with [Landsman’s legislative director] just this past Friday. As you know, Congressman Landsman signed the Trahan letter. He remains concerned about the employee component to the bill. They are open to more conversation, but their ask was to examine protections afforded to student-athletes.”

The Trahan letter was a memo sent that same day by the Democratic Women’s Caucus, covering how the SCORE Act ignored Title IX protections for women's sports.

The NCAA’s efforts to flip Landsman and other Democrats failed. But the bill still passed, moving to a potential House vote. 

In an email to schools, the NCAA praised the bill’s passage and thanked schools for acting.

“Last week was a milestone for our efforts on Capitol Hill … Thank you to all the schools, conferences, and student-athletes who contacted their legislators in favor of the bill.”

In September, the NCAA again contacted schools, this time urging them to send another sample letter. This one went deeper into exactly what the NCAA liked about the SCORE Act.  

“The bill effectively tackles our three priorities: ensuring student-athletes are not employees of schools, preempting patchwork of state laws, providing liability protection—priorities student-athlete leaders from all three divisions are advocating for. Together with the NCAA’s internal reforms, the SCORE Act provides student-athletes with unprecedented representation and benefits including comprehensive health and safety protections, NIL contract rights, and protections against predatory agents.”

Emails obtained by FOIAball from UNLV show the NCAA was hosting individual calls with the school’s AD and government affairs staff, trying to rally them to pull for the SCORE Act. In the emails, which said how critical it was for schools to show support, it revealed that UNLV seemed to be on the fence about the bill. 

“We see passage in the House as an important next step in building momentum. We've heard from the sponsors that a brief statement of support for the bill from schools and conferences would be useful, so if you all would be willing to amend your white paper to reflect support for the bill and urge your delegation to do the same, it would be incredibly helpful. If you have remaining concerns, I’d love to learn more about these.”

But the NCAA’s arm-wringing didn’t end with the athletic director. A separate email revealed that NCAA President Charlie Baker sat down with UNLV’s president and chancellor to get them onboard.

Whether UNLV flipped its position in that call is unclear, but after, the NCAA provided the school’s leadership with talking points to use in discussions with their representatives, asking them to put the onus for reform on the legislature.

“Only Congress can address the remaining issues to create stability in college sports and protect opportunities for the hundreds and thousands of current and future student-athletes.”

The email ended by suggesting officials should tell their representatives that they wanted them to both “cosponsor and vote yes for the SCORE Act.”

The bill, though, did not come up for a vote in the House, dying an ignominious death in December. 

If you’d like a full recap of that saga, please give Jesse Dougherty’s great explanation a read here. And please subscribe to his Substack. 

But while the SCORE Act is dead, replacements are being floated by members of Congress. When those do get introduced, now you know how the NCAA will be working to get them passed. 

Hey! You! Still down here? After all that? Well, then, it’s time to get your upgrade on.

U.S. Capitol via Flickr/ keithreifsnyder, CC BY 2.0; Remix by FOIAball