According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1319 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill, which proposes to cap the number of athletic scholarships awarded to foreign students by public institutions of higher education at 25% per athletic program, is anticipated to be implemented without requiring new appropriations or additional funding. The LBB assumes that any administrative or compliance costs incurred by public universities or the Higher Education Coordinating Board can be absorbed within existing resources.

Similarly, no significant fiscal implications are expected for local government units. Public universities are assumed to manage the scholarship cap internally, with no forecasted need for additional staffing, systems, or external resources to monitor and enforce compliance with the cap. While the bill may result in changes to recruitment strategies or shifts in scholarship allocations, those adjustments are not projected to materially impact institutional budgets or state appropriations.

The fiscal note references feedback from several state higher education systems, including the University of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and others, none of which identified significant costs or budgetary disruptions associated with the proposed policy change. As a result, the fiscal implication of SB 1319 is considered negligible at both the state and local levels.

SB 1319 proposes to limit the number of athletic scholarships that public institutions of higher education in Texas may award to foreign students. Specifically, no more than 25% of a team’s athletic scholarships could be awarded to students who are not U.S. citizens. The stated intent is to preserve more opportunities for American students and ensure public resources are used primarily for their benefit. However, this approach raises serious concerns regarding fairness, liberty, and institutional autonomy.

Fundamentally, the bill would enforce a form of segregation of opportunity, dividing scholarship access not by merit or qualification, but by citizenship status. Such a policy treats equally qualified international students as less deserving of opportunity simply because of their national origin. Rather than expanding access to education, it limits it arbitrarily, which undermines the core principles of equal treatment and individual liberty. This blanket restriction would also interfere with universities’ ability to build competitive athletic programs and attract the best talent, regardless of background.

While the bill presents no significant fiscal cost to the state, it reflects an unnecessary expansion of government authority into the operational decisions of public universities. It imposes a one-size-fits-all rule that restricts local control and disregards the diverse needs of athletic programs across institutions. In attempting to support one group of students, it does so by excluding another, reinforcing a barrier that is neither necessary nor consistent with the values of free enterprise or a limited, merit-based public education system.

For these reasons, and in light of the exclusionary nature of the policy, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1319.

• Individual Liberty: This bill restricts the ability of individuals, specifically foreign student-athletes, to freely compete for athletic scholarships at Texas public universities based solely on their citizenship status, not their talent, merit, or academic achievement. By capping foreign recipients at 25%, the bill introduces discrimination into what should be an open, merit-based process. This infringes on individual liberty by treating equally qualified individuals unequally, solely because of where they were born.
• Personal Responsibility: In a merit-based system, personal responsibility is rewarded: student-athletes earn scholarships through their hard work, discipline, and talent. However, this bill diminishes the weight of individual achievement by imposing a fixed quota, regardless of a student’s qualifications. It undermines the principle that opportunities should follow effort, not nationality.
• Free Enterprise: College athletic departments operate competitively, seeking the best talent to enhance team performance, school reputation, and revenue. Limiting scholarship decisions interferes with institutions' freedom to recruit and invest in the best athletes, regardless of origin. This kind of constraint mimics anti-competitive practices by limiting who universities can “hire” (i.e., grant scholarships to), reducing their ability to operate freely in a competitive environment.
• Private Property Rights: While the bill does not target private property directly, it restricts how institutions use scholarship funds and resources. Athletic programs, although publicly funded, are often run with a degree of operational independence. This bill reduces that autonomy.
• Limited Government: The bill expands government control over public university operations by micromanaging the distribution of scholarships, which are typically handled by coaches and administrators using institutional criteria. It imposes a one-size-fits-all mandate, ignoring differences between schools and programs. This type of prescriptive regulation runs counter to the principle that government should remain limited and defer to local or institutional discretion whenever possible.

• HB 3100 (Same As)