The Protect College Sports Act would set federal rules for athlete pay, transfers and eligibility, but it faces an uncertain path in a divided House and opposition from Black lawmakers, labor groups and some athletes.
 |
| A college basketball game played in an outdoor arena. The Protect College Sports Act would set federal rules on athlete pay, transfers and eligibility. |
The Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act on Monday night by a vote of 77-22, sending Congress's first comprehensive college sports bill to a full floor vote in either chamber on to the House. The margin was bipartisan, though the bill drew sharp criticism from several Democrats.
The House is not expected to return to Washington until after the November midterm elections. That leaves only the lame-duck session to take up the measure before the current Congress ends in mid-December. If the House does not act by then, lawmakers would have to start over next year.
What the bill would do
Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) sponsored the bill. It would create national rules on name, image and likeness (NIL) payments, revenue sharing, transfers and eligibility. Since 2021, court rulings and state laws have opened the door for athletes to be paid, and the resulting patchwork of rules has been hard to follow and easy to exploit.
The bill would write into federal law an athlete's right to earn money from their personal brand and to receive a share of athletic-department revenue. It would also carry forward the revenue-sharing system created by the House v. NCAA settlement, a 2025 deal that let schools begin paying athletes directly. Under that framework, schools can share roughly $21.6 million with athletes in the 2026-27 school year, along with a retention fund of an additional $22.5 million per institution. The bill would allow schools to exceed the settlement's cap through a separate fund meant to keep current players from leaving, with extra room if some of the money goes to athletes in women's, Olympic and other lower-revenue sports.
Athletes could keep signing outside NIL deals, but those deals would need a legitimate business purpose and reflect the athlete's market value. Schools, boosters and NIL collectives could not use sham endorsements to disguise recruiting payments. Deals worth more than $600 would have to be reported, and agent fees would be capped at 5%.
Other provisions include:
- Division I and II athletes would generally get five calendar years to compete.
- Athletes could transfer once without losing eligibility. A second transfer would usually require sitting out a season, with exceptions for events such as a coaching change, a program being cut or sexual harassment.
- Schools could not reduce or revoke scholarships over poor performance, injury or roster decisions.
- Division I athletes would get coverage for out-of-pocket medical costs related to their sport for five years after their last competition.
- Former athletes would generally have 10 years to return and finish their degrees with scholarship support.
- The bill would set national standards on concussions, heat illness, abuse and other health and safety issues.
Why supporters want it
Backers say college sports cannot keep running on a mix of state laws, court decisions and NCAA policies. They argue that real endorsement deals are now hard to tell apart from recruiting inducements, and that unchecked spending could force smaller programs to cut nonrevenue sports.
Cruz said the current system is unsustainable and pointed to athletes transferring several times and professionals trying to compete against college students. "Real NIL is not the same as a disguised recruiting payment," he said. Cantwell called the bill's recognition of revenue-sharing rights "a historic first," noting that the settlement that made the payments possible could expire.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune praised the bill as the product of years of work with input from coaches, athletic directors and athletes. The Big Ten and SEC have backed it, as has the White House. President Donald Trump has urged Congress to act, warning that the current system could lead to "bankruptcies and disaster for many Colleges."
Where the opposition comes from
The main objection is that the bill would give the NCAA, conferences and schools limited protection from antitrust lawsuits when they enforce its rules on revenue sharing, NIL, eligibility and transfers. It would also override state laws in many of those areas. Athletes have won many of their biggest gains through such lawsuits, which argued that limits on pay and movement were illegal collusion.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said the bill protects "a system of exploitation" and accused the industry of asking Congress to make challenged conduct "magically legal." Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a former college football player, urged colleagues to delay the vote and argued that athletes earned their NIL rights in court and do not need Congress to grant them. Cruz has said the bill provides legal certainty, not blanket immunity.
Labor concerns are separate. Athlete advocates have long pushed to classify college athletes as employees, which would let them unionize and bargain over pay and working conditions. The bill does not do that. It would instead create a commission to study the issue and make recommendations. The AFL-CIO and several labor groups object to letting schools jointly limit compensation and mobility without negotiating with athletes.
Some current athletes and advocacy groups say they were not meaningfully included in the talks that shaped the bill. Oluchi Okananwa, a Maryland basketball player and interim president of the United College Athletes Association, said there is "an important difference between being heard and having power."
The Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP also oppose the legislation. The caucus has said the bill fails to meaningfully incorporate the perspectives of Black athletes, coaches, agents and historically Black colleges and universities. Critics add that the bill's protections for women's and Olympic sports do not permanently cover every school, and that its HBCU funding is only authorized, meaning Congress would still need to appropriate the money.
What happens next
The Congressional Black Caucus, a potentially important bloc in the closely divided House, has said it cannot support the bill in its current form. House lawmakers have worked on their own college sports legislation but have struggled to gather enough votes. To become law, the House would have to pass the Senate's text or negotiate a compromise with the Senate before Congress adjourns in December.
Trump's support makes a presidential signature unlikely to be the obstacle. The open question is whether the bipartisan coalition that carried the bill through the Senate can hold together in a more divided House with a crowded post-election calendar.