The Protect College Sports Act: Bipartisan Bill to Stabilize College Athletics Passes the Senate — What’s Next?

Introduction

On September 28, 2026, the United States Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act of 2026 (the “Act”), a bill aimed at stabilizing the college athletics landscape, by a bipartisan vote of 77-22.¹ The Act was introduced on May 27, 2026, by U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the chair and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, respectively, along with co-sponsors Senators Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.).² The bill now moves to the House of Representatives, where the path forward is less certain. House dynamics, a limited legislative calendar, competing priorities, and the prospect of amendments or an extended deliberative process mean that enactment is far from guaranteed.³

If enacted into law, the Act has the potential to fundamentally reshape college athletics. By establishing binding federal standards governing student-athlete rights, eligibility, transfers, revenue sharing, and broadcasting, the Act would represent a significant departure from the patchwork of state laws and athletic association and conference-level rules that have long defined the legal landscape for college sports.

Background and Legislative Context

The college sports industry has faced mounting instability in recent years. In 2021, the Supreme Court’s ruling in NCAA v. Alston made clear that the multibillion-dollar industry is not exempt from antitrust laws, prompting the NCAA and its member institutions to lobby Congress for a new federal framework.⁴ Shortly thereafter, the NCAA adopted an interim policy suspending its prohibition on NIL agreements, allowing college athletes for the first time to enter into agreements compensating them for use of their name, image, and likeness rights (NIL), and the interim policy remains in place until federal legislation or new NCAA rules are adopted.⁵ The House v. NCAA settlement, approved in 2025, established the College Sports Commission (CSC) to oversee enforcement of NIL and revenue sharing and imposed an initial revenue sharing cap of approximately $20.5 million per school each year.⁶ However, critics claim that certain programs have attempted to circumvent the cap through their business partners entering into NIL contracts with athletes, reportedly driving top-tier football roster costs closer to $40 million.⁷

The Act builds on President Trump’s focused efforts to stabilize college athletics, most notably Executive Order No. 14400, Urgent National Action to Save College Sports, 91 Fed. Reg. 18267 (Apr. 3, 2026) (the “Order”), which directed federal action to establish uniform transfer rules, NIL standards, and eligibility protections.⁸ While prior congressional proposals, including the SCORE Act and the SAFE Act, stalled, the Order underscored the need for durable legislative reform and helped shape the Act.⁹ The president’s continued engagement on these issues will remain critical as the Act moves to the House.

Summary of the Act’s Key Provisions

Student-Athlete Compensation

1. Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Agreements. The Act would grant all student-athletes a federal right to earn compensation for use of their name, image, and likeness, replacing the existing patchwork of state laws and athletic association and conference-level rules with a uniform federal standard.¹⁰ Institutions, conferences, and athletic associations would be prohibited from restricting a student-athlete’s ability to market or earn compensation for their NIL rights, restricting eligibility based on entering into an NIL agreement, or revoking or reducing grants-in-aid on that basis.¹¹
   
   The Act would, however, prohibit an institution, conference, or associated entity from entering into an NIL agreement with a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete (other than an NIL agreement directly with the institution), unless the agreement is for a valid business purpose and is commensurate with the compensation paid by third parties to individuals with a similar profile, reputation, or notability who are not student-athletes or prospective student-athletes at the institution.¹² The same parties would be prohibited from providing compensation for any purpose to a prospective student-athlete prior to enrollment, other than compensation not exceeding the reasonable costs of attending a development cap or program open to non-prospective student-athletes.¹³ Although the “commensurate compensation” requirement would apply specifically to conferences and institutions’ associated entities, the “valid business purpose” requirement would apply to all NIL agreements other than agreements directly with an institution.¹⁴
   
   The Act would also impose a new certification system on NIL agreements involving, or brokered by, a multimedia rights holder, or a sponsor, apparel company, or athletic department or facilities vendor, in each case that has a commercial relationship with the student-athlete’s institution. In those cases, the multimedia rights holder would be required to certify that the institution is not the originating source of the compensation, and the sponsor, apparel company, or vendor benefiting from the student-athlete’s NIL would be required to certify that it is the originating source of the compensation, that it did not receive funds from the institution (and the institution did not forgo funds due from it) to finance the agreement, and that the institution did not negotiate or determine the compensation amount; the institution may also be required to certify that it is not circumventing the revenue sharing cap.¹⁵
   
   For Division I student-athletes, the Act would additionally require disclosure to the student-athlete’s institution and intercollegiate athletic association (or an entity designated by, and under the control of, the association) of any NIL agreement or NIL compensation exceeding $600 (including aggregated payments or benefits from the same entity totaling more than $600 over a 12-month period) within five days of entering into the agreement (or, to the extent not otherwise reported, within 30 days of receiving the compensation). Recruited athletes must report existing NIL arrangements upon enrollment. Each intercollegiate athletic association must also maintain a public, searchable database of anonymized institutional disclosures to help student-athletes and their agents assess fair market value for NIL agreements.¹⁶
   
   Taken together, these provisions mean that, outside the revenue sharing cap under which schools may pay athletes directly, the current prohibition on “pay to play” for student-athletes would continue, and there would be heightened diligence and reporting requirements for student-athlete NIL deals.
2. Revenue Sharing and Compensation Cap. The Act would prohibit circumvention of the revenue-sharing cap established by the House v. NCAA settlement, including any future modifications to the cap made through the settlement’s own amendment process.¹⁷ However, it is important to note that the Act does not automatically continue the cap upon expiration or termination of the settlement; instead, it would continue only if Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval, after which the cap would increase by four percent annually for two years and then be recalculated every three years based on 22 percent of Average Shared Revenue.¹⁸
   
   The Act also includes a new “retention fund” exception, which was added after the bill was initially introduced this past May. The retention fund would permit an institution to spend an additional $22.5 million per academic year in excess of the cap to retain student-athletes who have spent at least one full competitive season at the institution, plus up to an additional $5 million per academic year tied to compensation for student-athletes competing in non-revenue generating intercollegiate sports, including women’s and Olympic intercollegiate sports.¹⁹ This exception would apply for nine years following enactment of the Act and is available only to institutions that meet uniform benchmarks for graduation rates and academic progress.²⁰ In addition, institutions with more than $80 million in annual athletics revenue would not be permitted to pay any coach or manager more than $500,000 using funds other than college sports revenue or donations to the athletic department.²¹
3. Agent Regulation. The Act also seeks to regulate agents representing student-athletes.²² Agents would be required to register with a state and certify compliance with each applicable intercollegiate athletic association before representing student-athletes.²³ Agent fees would be capped at five percent, and agents would be prohibited from making fraudulent statements or misrepresenting NIL deals to entice student-athletes to enroll or transfer.²⁴ An intercollegiate athletic association would be empowered to decertify and fine agents for violations, backed by the Act’s antitrust exemption as discussed below.²⁵

Athlete Welfare and Opportunities

1. Medical Coverage and Scholarship Protections. Division I institutions (and Division II and Division III institutions with respect to any of their student-athletes who compete at the Division I level) would be required to provide comprehensive medical coverage during a student-athlete’s participation in intercollegiate sports, including all out-of-pocket expenses for sports-related injuries and illnesses, independent second opinions, catastrophic injury insurance, and an end-of-college physical examination.²⁶ For student-athletes enrolled in their final year of eligibility, Division I institutions would also be required to cover out-of-pocket medical expenses for sports-related injuries and illnesses for five years after the student-athlete’s last competition.²⁷ In addition, Division I institutions would be required to give former student-athletes the opportunity to return to complete an undergraduate degree with grant-in-aid if they (i) were enrolled at the institution during their final year of eligibility within the preceding ten years, (ii) received grant-in-aid while enrolled, and (iii) have not completed an undergraduate degree.²⁸
   
   Across all institutions, the NCAA would be required to maintain a fund of at least $60 million each academic year, increasing by $5 million following any year in which the fund is depleted, up to a $100 million cap.²⁹ The fund would help Division I institutions with less than $20 million in annual athletics revenue meet post-eligibility coverage obligations in cases of financial hardship, and would cover post-eligibility medical expenses for long-term conditions, such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), for student-athletes of member institutions in any division. All institutions would also be prohibited from revoking, reducing, or conditioning a grant-in-aid based on athletic performance, injury or illness, or roster management decisions, subject to exceptions for student-athletes who transfer or fail to remain in good standing.³⁰ The Act’s medical coverage requirements would serve as a floor, and schools, conferences, and athletic associations could provide additional coverage.
2. Protection of Women’s and Olympic Sports. The Senate-passed text would add a standalone requirement that Division I institutions with at least $80 million in annual athletics revenue maintain at least as many total grant-in-aid opportunities and roster spots for non-revenue generating sports, including women’s and Olympic sports, as they provided in the 2024–2025 academic year, subject to limited financial-hardship waivers and a nine-year sunset.³¹ A similar transitional requirement would apply to mid-sized institutions with $50 million to $80 million in athletics revenue, with a four-year sunset.³²

Eligibility, Mobility, and Recruiting

1. Eligibility Rules. Student-athletes competing in Division I or Division II would receive a maximum of five calendar years of eligibility, beginning on the earlier of the start of the academic year following the student-athlete’s 19th birthday or the athlete’s initial full-time enrollment, with exceptions for pregnancy, religious mission, active-duty military service, and other uniformly applied absences, which may include serious athletic injury or medical condition.³³ The Act would also prohibit professional athletes from competing at the collegiate level, which excludes (i) participation in basketball competitions before the earlier of an athlete’s 19th birthday or initial full-time enrollment, and, (ii) for sports other than football or basketball, receipt of prize money from a third-party sponsor not affiliated with an institution.³⁴ An intercollegiate athletic association or conference may further restrict eligibility if a student-athlete used illegal or performance-enhancing drugs or participated in sports wagering or sports-related event contracts.³⁵
2. Transfer Protections. The Act permits all student-athletes a one-time right to transfer without losing eligibility.³⁶ A second transfer requires the student-athlete to sit out one academic year, except in limited circumstances such as discontinuation of the athlete’s sport, departure of the athlete’s head coach from such individual’s existing school, sexual assault or harassment, or pursuit of a graduate degree.³⁷ This is broadly consistent with the transfer restrictions contemplated by the Order, which called for a one-time transfer with immediate eligibility and a second transfer only upon obtaining a four-year degree.³⁸
3. Mid-Season Coaching Transitions and Recruitment Windows. The Act would specifically prohibit Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) head coaches and coordinators from performing head-coaching duties for another institution during the same competitive season, and a coach who accepts a head-coaching position elsewhere mid-season could not serve as head coach for the hiring institution until both schools’ seasons conclude, a provision that takes on added significance in light of recent high-profile coaching departures.³⁹ The Act would also permit intercollegiate athletic associations to enforce defined recruitment windows, limiting contact with student-athletes enrolled at or committed to another institution to sport-specific windows of no less than two and no more than five weeks following the conclusion of the athletic season.⁴⁰

Conference Structure and Media Rights

1. Media Rights Pooling (Title II). Title II of the Act amends the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 to expand the eligible entities covered by the SBA antitrust exemption and permit conferences and institutions that are in Division I to voluntarily form a “covered entity” to pool and sell their media rights, conferring antitrust protections similar to those enjoyed by professional sports leagues.⁴¹ Participation would be voluntary, and existing media rights contracts would be preserved.⁴² The Senate-passed text clarifies that schools and conferences would not be permitted to contribute media rights where an existing contract prevents them from doing so, and it excludes rights to the NCAA basketball tournaments and, through August 1, 2032, the College Football Playoff.⁴³ For the antitrust exemption to apply, at least 75 percent of all FBS schools would need to participate in the covered entity, either directly or through their conferences.⁴⁴ Revenue from pooled media rights would be distributed according to a formula guaranteeing that each member institution receives more collective media rights revenue (excluding College Football Playoff revenue), than the largest amount that the institution received in any single academic year from 2021–2022 through 2024–2025. At least 15 percent of the remaining revenue would be distributed equally among member institutions that received revenue from FBS football competitions during academic year 2024–2025, and the remainder based on performance.⁴⁵ The Act does not expressly limit pooling to particular sports and the media rights to be pooled would be determined by unanimous vote of the member conferences and member institutions.⁴⁶
2. Prevention of a “Super League”. In an effort to halt the creation of “super leagues” or “super conferences,” the Act makes it a violation of the antitrust laws for any conference whose primary athletic revenue derives from intercollegiate football media rights and that reported more than $700 million in revenue on its 2025 or subsequent tax returns to (i) merge with or acquire another covered conference or institution if, as a result, its membership would be less than 75 percent of all FBS institutions (currently approximately 102 of 136 schools), or (ii) acquiring the assets or media rights of a non-covered institution, if doing so would bring its membership above 19 schools.⁴⁷ The Act would also bar any entity from acquiring covered institutions for the purpose of forming a new conference or intercollegiate athletic association. For six years after enactment of the Act, a “covered institution” for purposes of the merger restrictions would include any school that competed as a member of such a conference at least once in the preceding three years (a five-year lookback applies for purposes of the new-conference prohibition).⁴⁸ Moreover, such a transaction would be unlawful in itself and deemed void, and cannot be saved by traditional antitrust defenses based on efficiencies, net beneficial effect on competition, or consumer benefits. No prior federal legislation has directly targeted conference consolidation in this manner, reflecting growing concern that the largest conferences could break away to form a self-governing entity outside NCAA oversight.⁴⁹
   
   The realignment provisions have nonetheless generated pushback. Shortly after Senate passage, the presidents and chancellors of Florida State, Miami, Clemson, and North Carolina wrote jointly to House leadership requesting that the membership cap be raised from 19 to 22 institutions and that the three-year independence requirement be eliminated, arguing it would impose an undue burden on schools that have already negotiated exit terms with their current conference.⁵⁰ More than a dozen House lawmakers from Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina are expected to join in pressing for these changes, creating a potential bloc of opposition in the House absent further amendments.⁵¹

Legal Framework and Enforcement

1. Antitrust Exemption. At the heart of the Act is a targeted antitrust exemption that would shield intercollegiate athletic associations and conferences from legal challenges on rules governing transfers, eligibility, compensation caps, agents, coaching transitions, recruiting, and championships.⁵² More precisely, the Act would create two separate antitrust safe harbors shielding intercollegiate athletic associations, conferences, and institutions from (i) antitrust challenges to the enforcement of or compliance with the Act, including through rules or bylaws, and (ii) antitrust challenges to enforcement sanctions, including fines against institutions or their employees, postseason bans, athlete eligibility restrictions, and agent decertification.⁵³ Both safe harbors are conditional: an intercollegiate athletic association is entitled to protection only if it actually adopts and implements rules and sanction regimes for all covered areas.⁵⁴ A separate exemption under Title II applies to pooled media rights (discussed above).⁵⁵ Importantly, the protection is not a blanket exemption for all college-athletics conduct: it is tied to the Act’s authorized rules and enforcement mechanisms, leaving conduct outside those enumerated areas subject to traditional antitrust scrutiny.⁵⁶
2. Federal Preemption of State Laws. The Act would preempt state laws that conflict with its provisions or that govern compensation to student-athletes for NIL, student-athlete transfers, or eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics.⁵⁷ This is a significant development for stakeholders operating across multiple states, as it would eliminate the current patchwork of differing state NIL regimes that has created uneven recruiting advantages and compliance challenges. Certain state laws would be expressly preserved, including civil rights, tort, criminal, contract, trademark, and copyright laws, except to the extent they conflict with the Act.⁵⁸ The Senate-passed text would specify that the eligibility subjects covered by preemption are student status, academic requirements, professional-athlete status, and years of eligibility.⁵⁹
3. Enforcement and Private Right of Action. The Act would provide student-athletes with a private right of action to enforce key provisions, including their NIL rights, agent protections, health and safety standards, scholarship protections, and medical coverage requirements.⁶⁰ Pre-dispute arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers would be prohibited, meaning institutions and conferences cannot require athletes to waive their right to sue as a condition of participation.⁶¹ A 30-day written notice and opportunity to cure would be required before a civil action may be filed, giving institutions a window to remedy violations before facing litigation.⁶² The notice and cure requirements would not apply to actions based in whole or in part on physical injury, death, or sexual abuse or misconduct; the Act would also generally preserve pending cases and damages claims arising from past conduct.⁶³

Political Viability

The Act has been received as more politically viable than prior college sports legislation, as evidenced by its overwhelming 77-22 Senate vote, broad bipartisan co-sponsorship, support from all 32 Division I conferences and more than 380 colleges and universities, and the backing of President Trump. However, the Act still faces significant obstacles to enactment, including a compressed House legislative calendar, unresolved substantive objections from both Republican and Democratic members, and the risk that a change in House control following the November midterm elections could effectively reset the entire legislative process.⁶⁴

Despite some optimism that the House could take up the Act before the November midterms, House leadership has indicated that consideration is unlikely leaving the Act to the five-week lame-duck session beginning November 9, 2026, when a possible change in House control could weaken members’ incentives to act.⁶⁵

Threat of Conference Realignment

The Act’s political trajectory must also be understood against the backdrop of potential conference shakeups. Despite initially withholding support from the Act, the Big Ten and SEC ultimately came out in support of the legislation after federal lawmakers agreed to strengthen the Act’s protections against circumvention of the athlete revenue-share cap. Reporting earlier this year raised the prospect of the SEC breaking away from the current NCAA conference structure, which ESPN described as a realistic possibility given the conference’s outsized revenue, competitive ambitions, and growing frustration with the pace of reform.⁶⁶ The Big Ten and SEC each reported more than $1 billion in revenue during the 2025 fiscal year, several hundred million dollars more than their peers in the ACC and Big 12.⁶⁷ Both conferences initially signaled interest in greater self-governance, and the Act seeks to directly address this threat: it bars any covered conference reporting more than $700 million in revenue on its fiscal year 2025 or any subsequent tax return from engaging in specified mergers or acquisitions involving covered conferences or institutions.⁶⁸ On the eve of the Senate Commerce Committee’s June 3, 2026, hearing on the Act, the Big Ten and SEC even issued a joint statement withholding support, and neither Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti nor SEC commissioner Greg Sankey signed a letter of support for the Act signed by 26 of 32 Division I conference commissioners.

Both conferences reversed course in late July 2026, following days of negotiations with Senators Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the bill’s co-authors, and reported pressure from the Trump administration urging passage.⁶⁹ In exchange for their support, lawmakers added language strengthening the provision that prohibits schools from circumventing the athlete revenue-share cap, requiring school-affiliated sponsors and apparel brands to enter into an attestation process certifying that NIL deals are not directed by the school and that the compensation does not originate from the school.⁷⁰ By the time of the Senate’s 77-22 vote on September 28, 2026, the Big Ten had issued a statement expressing support for the Act’s passage, and the SEC had dropped its opposition.⁷¹ The Act ultimately had the backing of all 32 collegiate athletic conferences, more than 380 colleges and universities, and major professional sports organizations.⁷²

Employee Status Neutrality

The Act includes several drafting choices that distinguish it from prior bills. Most notably, the Act takes an expressly neutral stance on whether college athletes are employees or independent contractors.⁷³ Section 122 states plainly that the legislation “is neutral on, and does nothing to alter, employee or non-employee status for student athletes.”⁷⁴ This stands in sharp contrast to the SCORE Act and other prior proposals, which sought to codify a definitive non-employee designation for student athletes, a position that proved politically divisive and a primary reason the SCORE Act stalled in Congress.⁷⁵ By sidestepping the employment classification debate entirely, the Act removes a significant source of partisan friction and leaves open the possibility that student-athletes may pursue collective bargaining in the future.

White House and Executive Branch Support

The Act benefits from meaningful White House backing. Members of the presidential committees on college sports released a letter expressing support for the bipartisan effort, urging that “[i]t is time for all interested parties to set aside past differences and coalesce around this legislation in order to get it to the President’s desk without delay.”⁷⁶ This executive endorsement is significant: while the Order laid out many of the same reform priorities now codified in the Act, the Order’s enforceability remained subject to legal challenge and did not bind private parties, including the NCAA.⁷⁷ The Executive Office of the President’s Statement of Administration Policy and President Trump have also expressed support for the legislation.⁷⁸ Randy Levine, who serves as an advisor to President Trump, has publicly expressed support for the bill, further signaling that the administration views the legislation as a priority and is prepared to invest political capital in its passage.⁷⁹ The Senate’s 77-22 bipartisan vote reflects the extent of this political alignment, with substantial majorities of both parties supporting the legislation.⁸⁰

Opposition to the Act

Not all stakeholders share a supporting view of the Act’s merits. A notable coalition, including the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and the AFL-CIO, has opposed the bill, arguing that it was drafted without meaningful input from the athletes most affected, who are disproportionately Black, and that it grants sweeping new federal protections to powerful institutions while failing to adequately safeguard the athletes whose labor generates the industry’s revenue.⁸¹ The NAACP has also linked its opposition to a broader concern that Congress should not extend antitrust immunity and other federal benefits to conferences that profit from Black athletic talent while remaining silent as Black voting rights come under attack in the states where they operate.⁸² These objections did not prevent Senate passage but are likely to be part of the debate as the bill advances to the House.

Timing Challenges

Finally, the Act also faces challenges from a timing perspective. With the November midterm elections on the horizon and Congress typically recessing thereafter, the available floor time for House consideration before year-end is limited.⁸³ Further complicating the outlook, if Republicans lose their House majority in November, there is no telling how important the new Congress would view the current bill, and the legislation would need to be reintroduced and re-negotiated from scratch under potentially different leadership and committee structure.

Conclusion

The Protect College Sports Act represents the most comprehensive federal legislative effort to date to address the structural challenges facing college athletics. The combination of White House backing, bipartisan Senate leadership, and broad conference support from 32 collegiate athletic conferences, together with support from more than 380 schools and major professional sports organizations, gives the Act a political foundation that prior bills lacked. Having cleared the Senate by a wide bipartisan margin of 77-22, the central question is now whether the House will take up and pass the Senate bill. Universities, student-athletes, NIL collectives, conferences, brands, and investors should closely monitor the Act’s progress in the House of Representatives and engage with legal counsel to assess its potential implications for their operations, compliance frameworks, and strategic planning. Stakeholders should be prepared for the possibility that the regulatory landscape could shift materially in the coming months and should begin evaluating how potential or contemplated transactions and strategic initiatives may be affected. We will continue to provide updates as this legislation advances through the legislative process.