USOPC Pushes Back to Protect Olympic Sports from College Funding Cuts
As Washington debates college sports reform, the U.S. Olympic Committee warns that new laws may enable schools to drain resources from vital Olympic programs—jeopardizing America’s athletic future and national pride.
In a time when American values of fairness and opportunity often clash with entrenched interests, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) is sounding the alarm on a critical flaw in pending legislation reshaping college sports. While the SCORE Act promises reforms, its current provisions threaten to starve the very Olympic programs that fuel our nation’s global athletic dominance.
Why Would Congress Allow Schools to Starve Non-Revenue Sports?
The SCORE Act mandates schools sponsor at least 16 teams—a number aligned with existing NCAA requirements for Power Four conferences. On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But look deeper: USOPC CEO Sarah Hirshland warns this bare minimum offers no real incentive for schools to maintain or grow funding for Olympic sports like swimming, gymnastics, or track & field. In fact, it could encourage cuts.
Consider this sobering reality: Nearly all Power Four institutions currently sponsor more than 16 sports, averaging over 21 teams each. Yet under this bill, nothing prevents them from slashing budgets for most of these programs while funneling resources solely into football and basketball—the cash cows dominating NIL payouts now capped at $20.5 million annually.
This isn’t just about budgets—it’s about preserving an American tradition of excellence built through collegiate competition. At last year’s Paris Olympics, a stunning 75% of U.S. Olympians had ties to college sports. If lawmakers allow these programs to wither under financial strain, how will America continue producing world-class athletes? How long before our global rivals surpass us on the medal count?
Where Is Washington’s Accountability for Protecting National Athletic Heritage?
The USOPC leaders have urged Congress to add language that would require colleges not only to sponsor a minimum number of teams but also maintain spending levels on Olympic sports proportional to current investments. Without such safeguards, the bill simply ‘‘makes it too easy for a school to starve 15 programs and invest in one,’’ Hirshland warns.
This raises a crucial question: Why is Capitol Hill willing to risk undermining national sovereignty over our athletic future by allowing shortsighted financial decisions? The bill aims at tidying up federal regulations around name, image, likeness rights—a worthy goal—but sacrificing core principles of fairness and opportunity within our collegiate system is misguided.
Additionally, some provisions prevent athletes from becoming employees of their universities—a sticking point delaying Senate progress—yet USOPC remains focused on protecting Olympic sports first and foremost.
The path forward demands accountability from Washington: Any legislation must reinforce economic support for non-revenue Olympic disciplines that embody American values of hard work and perseverance beyond commercial success alone.
For hardworking families watching costs spiral alongside inflation, losing these programs would be yet another blow—eroding community pride and stunting youth aspirations nationwide.
Will Congress listen before it’s too late? Or will bureaucratic inertia let corporate interests overshadow America’s true champions?