Over the past several years, we have followed a series of legislative efforts aimed at providing governance over the rapidly evolving world of college athletics. As discussed in our prior articles on the SCORE Act, the Trump Executive Orders, and the emergence of the Protect College Sports Act, lawmakers have increasingly sought a federal solution to issues that courts, conferences, and the NCAA have struggled to resolve on their own.
Many of those efforts stalled before reaching a meaningful vote.
This week, however, college sports took a significant step toward federal regulation when the Protect College Sports Act passed the Senate in a 77-22 vote, moving federal college sports legislation further than any prior NIL-related bill and closer than ever to becoming law. It now moves to the House of Representatives, where it is expected to encounter additional scrutiny, debate, and potential amendments.
From SCORE Act Failure to Bipartisan Momentum
As discussed in our prior blogs, the NCAA-backed SCORE Act appeared at one point to be the leading vehicle for federal college sports reform. Despite support from many institutional stakeholders, the legislation repeatedly struggled to gain sufficient political support and was ultimately shelved before receiving a House vote.
The failure of SCORE highlighted a fundamental challenge: while many stakeholders agreed that college athletics needed greater certainty, there was little agreement on what that certainty should look like.
Enter the Protect College Sports Act – the latest and potentially most consequential effort to establish a federal framework for college athletics.
Crafted by Senators Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell, the legislation emerged as a rare bipartisan compromise. Rather than focusing exclusively on NIL, the bill attempts to address a broader range of issues affecting college athletics, including transfers, eligibility, athlete compensation, recruiting, enforcement, and governance. Notably, the bill would establish a federally protected right for student-athletes to earn compensation from the use of their name, image, and likeness. In doing so, it would largely replace the current patchwork of state NIL statutes with a uniform national framework.
The Antitrust Question Remains the Centerpiece
At the heart of the legislation is perhaps its most controversial provision: a limited antitrust exemption for the NCAA and athletic conferences. For years, courts have dismantled or weakened many NCAA restrictions through antitrust litigation. Cases such as Alston and other challenges have significantly constrained the NCAA’s ability to regulate athlete compensation and mobility. The Protect College Sports Act would partially reverse that trend.
Under the bill, the NCAA and conferences would receive targeted protection when enforcing rules relating to:
- Athlete eligibility;
- Transfer restrictions;
- Revenue-sharing limits;
- Compensation caps; and
- Certain NIL regulations.
Supporters argue these protections are necessary to create a stable national framework and prevent every major policy decision from being challenged in court. Others argue that antitrust litigation has been the primary catalyst for athlete rights and believe granting additional immunity could allow the NCAA to regain authority that courts previously concluded was unlawful.
Whether Congress should restore some measure of regulatory authority to the NCAA remains one of the central debates surrounding the legislation. It may also prove to be one of the most important factors in determining whether the bill can survive additional scrutiny in the House.
Agent Compensation Limits: Protecting Athletes or Limiting Representation?
As currently drafted, the legislation would establish a federal agent registry and agent fees would be capped at 5% of athlete earnings. Concerns regarding unqualified advisors, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and inconsistent standards have become more prevalent. A national registration framework could help create greater confidence and professionalism within the industry.
While intended to protect student-athletes from excessive fees, the cap may have unintended consequences. Experienced agents frequently provide far more than contract negotiation services, including marketing strategy, brand development, business introductions, compliance guidance, and long-term career planning. Limiting compensation too aggressively could discourage some of the most qualified representatives from working in the college athlete market, particularly where the value of individual deals may be significantly smaller than professional athlete contracts.
The proposal is also noteworthy because it differs from compensation structures commonly found in professional sports. While many professional sports leagues regulate agent compensation, those limitations are typically collectively bargained with player associations and vary significantly by league and service type. This raises the question as to whether a uniform 5% cap appropriately reflects the realities of a rapidly evolving NIL marketplace. Congress imposing such restrictions could reduce athlete access to sophisticated representation at precisely the moment when NIL transactions are becoming more complex.
The challenge will be finding the appropriate balance between protecting student-athletes and preserving their freedom to select and compensate advisors in a competitive marketplace.
Health And Safety
Although much of the public attention surrounding the bill has focused on NIL, transfers, and antitrust protections, the legislation also contains several meaningful health and safety provisions. Among other provisions, the legislation would require enhanced medical coverage and preserve scholarship protections for student-athletes. Division I schools would be required to cover out-of-pocket medical costs for athletic injuries or illness, including covering the cost of a second opinion and provision for an end-of-eligibility medical examination. Those institutions would also be required to cover out-of-pocket costs for sports-related injuries or illness for five years after the athlete’s eligibility concludes.
How The Bill Protects Women’s and Olympic Sports
One of the primary policy justifications behind the Protect College Sports Act is the preservation of women’s sports and Olympic-development programs. Escalating compensation costs and increased financial pressures on athletic departments threaten non-revenue sports that have historically served as a critical pipeline for Olympic athletes. The legislation seeks to provide greater financial predictability and governance stability in an effort to protect broad-based athletic opportunities. It attempts to prevent schools from cutting women’s and Olympic sports by requiring schools to maintain a minimum number of sports.
What Happens Next?
Despite the Senate vote, the bill is far from becoming law. The House will now determine whether a similar bipartisan coalition can be assembled. While passage in the Senate demonstrates meaningful momentum, House approval is hardly guaranteed.
Many of the issues that complicated prior NIL legislation remain unresolved, including:
- The scope of antitrust protections;
- Athlete employment status;
- Federal preemption of state NIL laws;
- Compensation restrictions; and
- Enforcement authority.
Moreover, members of both parties may seek additional amendments before supporting final passage. In short, the Senate’s action represents a major milestone, but not the finish line.
Why This Development Matters
Regardless of whether the Protect College Sports Act ultimately becomes law, the Senate vote is significant. For years, college athletics stakeholders have waited for Congress to move beyond hearings, white papers, and draft proposals. The Senate’s approval signals that lawmakers may finally be prepared to play a more active role in shaping the future of college sports.
Perhaps more importantly, it reflects growing recognition that litigation alone cannot provide a comprehensive framework for governing collegiate sports. Whether the solution proposed by Congress is ultimately the right one remains open to debate. What is becoming increasingly difficult to debate is the need for some form of long-term clarity.
Conclusion
As we have discussed throughout this series of articles, the fundamental question remains unchanged: how much authority should be entrusted to the NCAA to regulate an increasingly commercialized industry while still protecting the rights and opportunities of student-athletes?
The Sports & NIL attorneys at Greenspoon Marder will continue to monitor developments surrounding the Protect College Sports Act and provide updates as the legislative process unfolds. For questions regarding NIL compliance, athlete representation, eligibility matters, 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.
