The Protect College Sports Act: What’s in the Senate’s NCAA Bill

By Ryan Paster

The Protect College Sports Act is a recent Senate proposal that would govern many disputed facets of the NCAA and College Sports. Led by a bipartisan coalition of Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the bill proposes regulations surrounding eligibility, NIL, revenue sharing, and much more. Spurred by landmark cases like Alston and House, which unlocked Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) pay and paved the way for direct university revenue-sharing, alongside more than 77 active lawsuits over player eligibility and nearly 27,000 students in the transfer portal, college athletics is in a state of chaos and demands immediate intervention. Cruz and Cantwell believed that change needed to come through direct legislation from the United States government, no longer believing the NCAA could manage on its own. After nearly a six-hour debate on Monday, September 28, the Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act in a 77-22 vote. The bill is set to be sent to the House of Representatives for further consideration, and it is officially the first college sports bill to receive a vote in Congress.

The bill’s goal is to set clear guidelines for college athletes and the NCAA, with arguably the most important being compensation. The bill would enact into law the decision from House v. NCAA, which allows schools to directly pay athletes, providing additional funding for women’s sports, Olympic sports, and other low-revenue teams. All athletes will also be officially able to profit from their personal brand without any fear of NCAA interference. However, these earnings must be publicly declared and will count toward a share of the revenue cap – the portion of earnings designated for the athletes. This bill increases that cap by over $27 million from current guidelines, up to $48.8 million. This change is due to a new “retention pool” aimed at keeping current players from transferring schools and maintaining continuity. Additionally, to protect the student-athletes, agents’ fees are capped at 5%. It is important to remember throughout this debate that in the end, most student-athletes affected by this are still young college students; capping agent fees is a key way to protect these students from getting exploited. Beyond the compensation changes, the bill requires five years of post-graduate healthcare and allows former athletes up to 10 years to return to school and complete their degrees with scholarship support. Additionally, there would be a one-time transfer rule. Each athlete is allowed one free transfer between schools, but each additional transfer requires the player to sit out for a full year. There are limited exceptions, however, such as when a coach leaves, a sport is disbanded at the school, or due to sexual harassment. The last big change is with conference realignment. If any Power 4 school wants to realign to another Power 4 conference, it requires a three-year waiting period as an independent. This rule change would prevent the Big 10 and SEC from poaching ACC schools to their conference with no repercussions, avoiding a similar fate to the Pac-12.  

Despite all the possible benefits of genuine order in college athletics, the Protect College Sports Act has received plenty of criticism. The most common critique is that all the power is going back to the NCAA and the institution, limiting athletes’ rights. The bill provides legal protection to the NCAA, blocking athletes from suing the Association on revenue sharing, NIL, eligibility, and transferring. In doing so, the NCAA would be granted exemption from antitrust law. Following Alston v. NCAA, in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that NCAA regulations breached antitrust law, many consider granting such immunity to be a regressive move. The Protect College Sports Act purposely does not classify the athletes as employees and therefore gives them no collective bargaining rights. Although treated like employees in terms of day-to-day life, without the legal classification, they lose many rights. Senator Chris Murphy responded to this idea by saying, “What this bill does, at its core, is to protect a system of exploitation.” Beyond this, the Congressional Black Caucus and NAACP have also opposed the legislation. They believe that the proposed bill does not fairly include black athletes, coaches, and HBCUs. Additionally, they highlight that some schools with a majority-white student body profit off of black athletes while still trying to restrict their revenue. Critics also believe that the Protect College Sports Act is not meaningfully considering women’s and Olympic sports. The bill’s supposed protections for these teams do not permanently cover every school, and Congress still needs to appropriate the money in a fair way.

Although the bill passed the Senate, it may still be a while until we get a resolution. The House of Representatives is not expected to convene until after the November midterm elections. There, it could get passed and enacted into law with no modifications, though that seems unlikely. The other possibilities are a flat-out rejection or proposed changes that get sent back to the Senate. The House previously attempted to pass a college sports bill in 2025 with the SCORE Act, yet that saw no success. Although the results of the midterm could change the outcome of this vote, the legislation has received criticism from both sides of the aisle. Some Republicans believe that the bill does not offer proper antitrust protection for the NCAA, while others believe that intervening in college athletics represents an improper government overreach. Some Democrats are also against the bill, with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries publicly voicing his concerns. President Trump is urging Congress to pass this bill, which may contribute to its potential struggle in the House. The bill would need at least some democratic votes to pass, and Trump’s presence may challenge that. Overarching this entire partisan debate is the question of whether or not student athletes should be considered employees. Members from all parties plan to debate this when Congress reunites after the midterms.

If the bill does not make it out of Congress, other options are still available. Student athletes could work with the NCAA to create a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Although this would have great benefits, it is much more difficult in practice. Each school treats its sports differently, and finding proper guidelines for low-revenue sports complicates it further. Another option is a form of self-governance method for each conference. However, this would not be able to stop the countless lawsuits and would make the defendants the conferences, not just the NCAA. Furthermore, each conference having its own bylaws would also complicate transfer regulations. As it stands, the Protect College Sports Act is the closest the NCAA has gotten to setting guidelines and regulations. Despite the overwhelming vote in the Senate, opposition remains, and it is up to the House to see if this bill is the end to the madness of college athletics.

Editor: Brooklyn Haddad