The Monday night release by the Senate Finance Committee of the core of the upper house’s version of the federal budget barely mentions sports. That could turn out to be a good thing.

The 549-page Senate proposal, which largely consists of proposed additions and deletions to the Internal Revenue Code, only addresses sports specifically in one instance, in which the Senate expands educator deductions for unreimbursed teaching expenses to include coaches and sports administrators, but only for non-athletic supplies. Beyond that, no other language appears to apply to franchises or college athletic departments.

That lack of attention to the industry by the Senate suggests that proposed changes to franchise ownership write-offs and collegiate licensing taxation may not make the final budget, saving owners and schools many millions of dollars in new levies.

By contrast, the House of Representatives’ version of the federal budget aims to raise potentially significant revenue by changing the favorable tax treatment franchise owners and universities receive.

The House budget seeks to cut down amortization team buyers would be able to deduct. In the proposed budget released in May, the government would cut amortization to 50%, from 100% as the law currently stands. Amortization is the term for the depreciation of intangible assets, which are also known as goodwill.

That’s a big deal, because sports team values by and large are intangible—that is, most of the sale price of a franchise isn’t justifiable by the value of assets such as stadiums and equipment.

For instance, based on the latest Sportico valuation, baseball’s Atlanta Braves are worth $3.71 billion, but the team’s property and equipment are worth $977 million, according to data compiled by S&P Global Market Intelligence. Under existing accounting (although simplifying for this example), a theoretical buyer of the Braves today would be able to amortize the $2.733 billion difference over 15 years. That would save around $38 million in annual taxes paid at current corporate rates. Those savings are significant enough that amortization is part of team buyer calculus, and one reason why franchise values have risen so quickly in recent years.

That language in the Senate budget doesn’t mean sports teams are in the clear—yet. The House and Senate need to hammer out their differences in reconciliation to get to a final document, so there remains a chance it may end up in the version that goes to the White House for Donald Trump’s signature.

Clay Grayson, a tax attorney who represents universities, booster groups and endowments, including at Clemson and the University of Kentucky, thinks limiting goodwill depreciation is politically palatable. “That’s not controversial,” he said on a phone call. “I think that will go through.”

Still, the attorney disagrees with the proposal. “There doesn’t appear to be any specific public policy as to why sports franchise owners are to be singled out,” he said in an email before the Senate budget was release “There isn’t any ill being addressed here.”

The House budget also suggests it would like to see college licensing deals treated as unrelated business income. Nonprofits such as colleges generally are exempt from federal taxes, but activities they conduct that are considered outside their tax-exempt purpose can be taxed. A proposal to tax collegiate licensing deals was cut from the final version of the House budget forwarded to the Senate, which suggests it is unlikely to reappear during the reconciliation process.

That’s another big bullet dodged by sports entities. The licensing tax as proposed last month has the potential for wide-reaching impact. For one, it would cost athletic departments millions of dollars in licensing revenue from caps, shirts, tchotchkes—everything that sells with a team or school logo on it. Moreover, the rule would also encompass a portion of media rights income, too, since contracts with representatives like Learfield and broadcasters like ESPN contain an underlying license of names and logos from universities. “It should be concerning to athletic departments that Congress is considering whether to tax this athletic revenue source,” Grayson said.

Even if the proposal remains on the cutting room floor for this year’s budget, being suggested once raises the specter of it being considered again later on.