H.R. 9568

H.R. 9568: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish name, image, and likeness investment accounts for student-athletes, and for other purposes.

Introduced W. Steube (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9568 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code to create special investment accounts for student-athletes that would allow them to manage income earned from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). This legislation aims to provide a financial framework for student-athletes to invest their earnings responsibly.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9568 have praised the bill for empowering student-athletes by providing them with tools to manage their NIL earnings. Media outlets have highlighted the potential for these investment accounts to promote financial literacy among young athletes, encouraging them to make informed financial decisions and secure their futures.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9568 have raised concerns about the complexities of establishing investment accounts for student-athletes, arguing that it may lead to financial exploitation or mismanagement. Some media reports suggest that the bill could create disparities among athletes based on their marketability, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities in college sports.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
3/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$0
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Taxation

The bill H.R. 9568 aims to establish name, image, and likeness investment accounts for student-athletes, a topic that does not directly overlap with the top donor industries of sponsor W. Steube. The top donor industries do not appear to have a vested interest in the financial mechanisms or regulatory frameworks surrounding student-athletes' rights to their name, image, and likeness. While there is significant lobbying activity in this policy area, the disclosed amounts from specific lobbying firms do not indicate a direct financial influence on the bill's outcomes. For instance, the Crypto Council for Innovation has contributed $310,000, but its relevance to student-athletes' investment accounts remains unclear. Overall, the absence of direct industry overlaps suggests a low risk of conflict of interest.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
CRYPTO COUNCIL FOR INNOVATION CRYPTO COUNCIL FOR INNOVATION $310,000
ASCENSUS SPECIALTIES LLC SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS $130,000
ENERGY MARKETERS OF AMERICA SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS $30,000
2LIFE COMMUNITIES MG HOUSING STRATEGIES LLC $22,500
LA MAESTRA FOUNDATION ON BEHALF OF LA MAESTRA FAMILY CLINIC, INC. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS $20,000
JEFFERSON PARISH CORONER'S OFFICE ADAMS AND REESE, LLP $20,000
GREENVILLE WATER SYSTEM ADAMS AND REESE, LLP $20,000
GRAND BAY WATER WORKS BOARD, INC. ADAMS AND REESE, LLP $20,000
RADIATRIC, INC. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. $20,000
BELLEFAIRE JCB THE CJR GROUP, INC. $10,000
MEAB SAL SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS undisclosed
M1 GROUP SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS undisclosed
US-INDIA STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP FORUM, INC. US-INDIA STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP FORUM, INC. undisclosed
H CYCLE, LLC SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS undisclosed
ESCAMBIA COUNTY HEALTHCARE AUTHORITY ADAMS AND REESE, LLP undisclosed

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us