The United States Senate approved a bipartisan bill aimed at regulating college sports in an effort to bring order to an industry undergoing a profound economic and sporting transformation. The initiative, known as the College Sports Protection Act, received 77 votes in favor and 22 against, and seeks to establish national rules governing payments athletes receive for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL), as well as limit transfers between universities. The proposal also includes granting new powers to the NCAA to oversee compliance with these provisions, amid rising costs for institutions and uncertainty surrounding the future of the college sports model.
The bill’s approval marks the culmination of years of negotiations in Congress, which intensified following a 2025 court settlement that allowed universities to pay their athletes directly. This change reshaped the sector’s economic dynamics, particularly in sports such as football, where some teams’ payrolls can exceed $40 million. The initiative was negotiated by Republican Senator Ted Cruz and Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell, who pushed for a federal framework to reduce litigation and establish greater protections for athletes and institutions. However, the bill still needs approval from the House of Representatives and has drawn criticism from lawmakers and organizations that consider the protections it offers athletes insufficient.
Changes proposed by the bill to regulate college sports
One of the bill’s main objectives is to establish limits and conditions on payments college athletes receive for the use of their name, image, and likeness. The proposal seeks to incorporate the 2025 court settlement into federal law, allowing institutions to share revenue directly with their players. The bill sets a limit of $21.5 million in shared revenue per university, in addition to a retention fund that could provide up to an additional $27.5 million under certain conditions. This mechanism helped secure the support of the two major conferences in American college sports, the Big Ten and the Southeastern Conference. Universities and conferences could also pool their television broadcasting rights to expand their revenue streams.
The initiative also seeks to change how the NCAA’s transfer portal operates, as it has allowed players to switch universities more frequently and disrupted roster planning. The bill would limit athletes to one transfer without having to sit out a year within a five-year period, with some exceptions, and establish a maximum of five years of athletic eligibility. Additional measures include restrictions on coaches leaving their institutions during the season, a requirement for universities changing conferences to remain independent for three years, and a limit of 20 programs per conference. These provisions aim to curb the expansion of so-called super leagues and bring greater stability to college sports competitions.
Criticism of the bill and its future in Congress
Despite support from lawmakers in both parties, the proposal has drawn criticism over the scope of the protections it offers athletes. Supporters argue that the legislation will reduce litigation, establish common rules, and provide new labor and health protections for hundreds of thousands of athletes. However, opponents believe the bill does not adequately address inequalities in the distribution of financial resources within college sports. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut has criticized the initiative for limiting the share of revenue players receive while imposing no equivalent restrictions on coaches’ salaries or donations to athletic programs.
Objections also focus on athletes’ labor rights and their ability to organize collectively. Organizations such as the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, and the Congressional Black Caucus have opposed the bill, partly because it does not resolve whether college athletes should be considered employees with the right to collective bargaining. Senator Cory Booker, a former football player at Stanford University, has also questioned the powers that would be granted to the NCAA and their potential impact on athletes, particularly Black athletes. On the legislative front, the bill must still go through the House of Representatives, where an earlier proposal failed to advance over the past year. The congressional recess until after the November elections adds uncertainty to its future, as negotiations will have to resume in the next Congress if the bill does not receive approval from both chambers before the end of the year.
Last related articles
