WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1520

An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, in intercollegiate athletics, further providing for definitions and providing for rights of parties, for prohibitions on institutions, for athletic associations, conferences and organizations with authority over intercollegiate sports, for NIL agreements, for athlete agents and upfront payments, for athletic program structure, for protections and right to adjudicate, for private civil action, for settlements and for severability.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Aerion Abney and 10 co-sponsors

Pennsylvania bill establishes state oversight of college athletic NIL agreements, athlete agents, and institutional conduct with private litigation rights for students.

Referred to Education
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1520

Legislative bill overview

HB 1520 is a comprehensive amendment to Pennsylvania's Public School Code that establishes a regulatory framework for intercollegiate athletics. The bill addresses name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements, athlete agents, institutional responsibilities, and dispute resolution mechanisms for college sports programs.

Why is this important

College athletics have undergone significant disruption since the NCAA's NIL restrictions were lifted, creating a largely unregulated market that affects student-athletes, institutions, and athletic conferences. This bill attempts to bring state-level structure to athlete compensation, agent conduct, and institutional accountability—issues that currently lack consistent national standards and have generated disputes over fairness and athlete protections.

Potential points of contention

  • Scope of state regulation: Federal courts have questioned whether states can regulate college athletics independently; this bill's authority could face legal challenges from NCAA or competing regulatory bodies
  • NIL agreement standards: Defining what constitutes proper NIL agreements and enforcement mechanisms may create conflicts with existing institutional, conference, or national policies
  • Athlete agent oversight: Imposing state licensing or conduct requirements on agents could conflict with federal regulations or create compliance burdens for multistate representation
  • Private civil action provisions: Creating private causes of action gives athletes direct legal recourse but could expose institutions to significant litigation liability
  • Institutional compliance costs: Schools may incur substantial administrative expenses implementing these requirements, potentially affecting program budgets

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.