Following months of fits and starts on Capitol Hill, federal NIL legislation has taken another turn. The SCORE Act, once viewed as the leading candidate for a comprehensive federal framework, was pulled from consideration after being teed up for a vote in the House. This illustrates the ongoing difficulty of advancing college sports reform through Congress.
At the same time, a new, potentially viable path has emerged in the Senate. Following more than two months of meetings and negotiations, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), the chair and ranking member of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee, have reportedly reached agreement on the framework of a new comprehensive bipartisan bill, the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA). While still in its early stages, this development may represent the most credible effort to date to break the legislative logjam that has stalled prior NIL proposals.
From SCORE to Stalemate
As previously discussed, the SCORE Act sought to establish a national NIL framework, provide antitrust protections to the NCAA, and codify elements of the House settlement. Despite advancing through committee, the bill has repeatedly failed to secure sufficient support for a floor vote. The continued inability to move the SCORE Act forward highlights a persistent reality: federal NIL legislation has been easier to propose than to pass. Key sticking points, including antitrust immunity, athlete employment status, and the scope of NCAA authority, remain deeply contested.
A Bipartisan Approach: The Protect College Sports Act
Against that backdrop, the Protect College Sports Act appears to represent a negotiated middle ground, combining elements of prior legislative efforts. Although final legislative text is still being refined, early reporting suggests several core components:
- Limited antitrust exemption to the NCAA and conferences, focused primarily on transfer rules, eligibility, and compensation caps—a narrower approach than earlier proposals.
- A national NIL framework preempting the current patchwork of state laws. This is an effort to increase consistency across jurisdictions.
- Transfer and eligibility limits, including one unrestricted transfer and a five-year eligibility window. A second transfer or additional transfers are permitted under certain conditions, such as a head coach leaving or the elimination of an athlete’s sport.
- Compensation controls tied to revenue sharing, effectively codifying aspects of the House settlement by granting legal protection to the NCAA and College Sports Commission to enforce strict standards prohibiting third-party NIL deals and enforcing a spending cap for how much each school can pay its athletes.
- Athlete protections such as scholarships, medical coverage, and oversight of NIL arrangements.
- Governance provisions addressing coaching movement, media rights, and conference structure. The bill would make it illegal for coaches to depart their teams before the end of the season, and for schools to hire coaches before the season ends. It also offers conferences the ability—as an option—to pool their media rights contracts in order to generate more revenue. This is a divisive topic among the SEC and Big Ten.
The Act remains neutral on the issue of athletes as “employees,” thus leaving open the issue of whether athletes can be deemed to be employees and/or collectively bargain.
In addition, it also establishes a “private right of action” for athletes to file a legal claim if they do not believe the law is being adhered to. The bill would also create an agent registry limiting fees to 5%.
A Bipartisan Breakthrough?
What distinguishes the Protect College Sports Act from prior efforts is its bipartisan foundation. Developed by the leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee, the bill reflects a shared recognition that the current college sports system is unsustainable.
Importantly, the proposal appears designed to attract sufficient bipartisan support in the Senate. A challenge that has hindered earlier legislative efforts.
Reality Check: A Long Road Remains
Despite this progress, significant obstacles remain. Agreement on a framework does not guarantee passage. Many of the same issues that stalled the SCORE Act are likely to resurface, particularly around athlete rights and NCAA authority.
Even if the bill advances in the Senate, its prospects in the House remain uncertain. Timing and competing legislative priorities further complicate the path forward.
What The Protect College Sports Act Means for the Industry
The emergence of the Protect College Sports Act reflects growing consensus that federal intervention is needed to stabilize college athletics, including ongoing litigation, NIL market expansion, and the implementation of the House settlement.
At the same time, uncertainty continues to define the current landscape. Governance will continue to evolve through NCAA rulemaking, litigation, conference initiatives, and limited federal involvement unless and until Congress acts.
Conclusion: A Window, Not a Breakthrough—Yet
The Protect College Sports Act may represent the clearest opportunity to date for a bipartisan federal NIL solution. By narrowing controversial provisions and blending prior approaches, it seeks to move the conversation forward.
Whether it succeeds where prior efforts have failed remains to be seen. For now, it is a renewed opportunity, not a resolution.
The Sports and NIL lawyers at Greenspoon Marder will continue to monitor developments and provide updates. For questions or guidance, please contact me at [email protected].
