"Institutional Interference" Is Doing All the Heavy Lifting — And the Bill Doesn't Define It

The phrase "restricts institutional interference in athlete compensation" is where this legislation either has teeth or collapses entirely — and right now, I can't tell which. Under current §409A and state NIL frameworks, the line between permissible institutional "guidance" and unlawful interference is already a compliance minefield. Schools are actively structuring booster collective arrangements, revenue-sharing pools, and third-party licensing deals that walk right up to that line daily. Without a statutory definition of "interference," you've handed every compliance officer and general counsel in Division I athletics a blank canvas. Does a school steering an athlete toward a preferred NIL collective constitute interference? What about withholding facilities access? Conditioning scholarship renewals on compensation choices? These aren't hypotheticals — they're happening right now across at least 23 states with active NIL statutes, each with different enforcement postures. Further, without coordination with IRC rules governing education-related compensation exclusions, athletes and institutions face overlapping federal and state tax exposure with zero safe harbor clarity. The question I'd put directly to the bill's sponsors: What is the precise, enforceable definition of 'institutional interference,' and which federal agency holds enforcement authority?