By: Cathy Hampton and Bruce B. Siegal
The enactment of the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policy transformed the NCAA model from a traditional amateur athletics model into one that permits athletes to receive compensation for the commercial use of their NIL. It was one of the most significant changes in the history of college sports. The landmark policy has enabled thousands of college athletes to profit from personal endorsements, autographs, and media appearances while maintaining their eligibility. However, not everyone has been a fan of the changes, which have also created confusion about eligibility requirements, competitive fairness, transfers and enforcement. As a result, college sports could be heading toward the biggest rule change since NIL began.
After several unsuccessful attempts by Congress to enact a national framework for college athletics, lawmakers may finally be moving closer to a bipartisan solution. The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 proposes sweeping changes to athlete eligibility, transfers, NIL compensation, and governance. While the bill faces obstacles and opposition to becoming law, athletic departments, coaches, and families should understand what it could mean for the future of college sports.
What the Protect College Sports Act Does
The bipartisan bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate in May to provide the NCAA and the newly formed College Sports Commission with limited antitrust protection for enforcing rules governing athlete eligibility, transfers, compensation limits, and third-party NIL activities. The proposed legislation also introduces provisions intended to protect athletes, sets standards for agent conduct, and adds governance requirements for schools and conferences.
New Eligibility Rules for Athletes
The proposed bill provides student-athletes with a five-year eligibility window beginning in the academic year after a student-athlete turns 19 or graduates from high school, whichever comes first.
During the five-year window, athletes would be permitted one unrestricted transfer without losing eligibility. A second transfer would require the athlete to sit out a year, subject to several exceptions, including a coaching change, the discontinuance of a sport, graduate enrollment, pregnancy, religious mission work, or military service.
The bill also directly protects women’s sports and Olympic sports programs. NCAA Division I schools reporting at least $80 million in annual athletic revenue must keep their scholarship and roster levels for these programs at or above 2024-25 levels. This applies to every high-revenue program, not just those who opt into the bill’s media rights provisions. Supporters of the provision argue that it is intended to protect sports programs that have faced increased financial pressure following the adoption of revenue-sharing models and the implementation of the House settlement.
NIL Compensation and Agent Oversight
The legislation would allow athletes to continue engaging in legitimate NIL activities while creating greater transparency and oversight in the marketplace. It requires athletes to report NIL compensation above $600 to their school, and it updates the federal Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act to require agent registration and cap agent fees on endorsement contracts at 5%. Athletes also have a private right of action against agents who provide false or misleading information, and the bill creates an independent Athlete Ombudsman within the NCAA to provide athletes with direct guidance.
Where the Bill Stands Today
After clearing the Senate Commerce Committee in June, the bill is now awaiting consideration by the full Senate. While NCAA President Charlie Baker has voiced support for the bill, it needs 60 votes to clear a filibuster, with the Big Ten and SEC remaining opposed. Both conferences say the bill needs further changes to protect their long-term interests.
While the bill addresses many of the issues NIL has created, it still leaves one major question unresolved. One of the most notable issues left unresolved by the bill is whether student-athletes should be classified as employees. The legislation largely avoids the issue, leaving courts and regulators to continue addressing it.
As a result, cases such as Johnson v. NCAA remain critically important. The Third Circuit’s decision, which established a framework for evaluating student-athlete employee status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, continues to shape the legal debate regardless of whether the Protect College Sports Act ultimately becomes law.
The Protect College Sports Act represents one of the most serious bipartisan efforts to establish a national framework for college athletics since the introduction of NIL. By addressing transfers, eligibility, agent conduct, NIL oversight, and athlete protections in a single proposal, the bill would establish a more uniform national framework to an industry that has increasingly been shaped by litigation and state-by-state regulation.
Whether the legislation ultimately gains sufficient support to become law remains uncertain. However, its advancement reflects continued congressional interest in college sports regulation as a priority and may be moving closer to the type of bipartisan solution that has eluded Congress for several years.
The sports law and NIL attorneys at Greenspoon Marder will continue to monitor these developments and provide updates as the legislative landscape evolves. For questions regarding NIL compliance, athlete eligibility, or college sports governance, please contact us.
This publication is provided by Greenspoon Marder LLP is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as general legal advice nor a solicitation of any type. Please contact the author(s) or your Greenspoon Marder LLP contact if you have any questions regarding the currency of this information. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision. Before you decide, ask for written information about the lawyer’s legal qualifications and experience.
