THE IN Governance Watch
For years, American college sport has been moving in one direction. Courts challenged the NCAA’s traditional control over athlete compensation, state legislatures created competing rules around name, image and likeness rights, transfer restrictions weakened and the old distinction between amateur and professional sport became increasingly difficult to sustain.
Now Washington is attempting something potentially more consequential: rebuilding a national regulatory system through federal law.
The U.S. Senate’s 77–22 approval of the Protect College Sports Act is therefore about considerably more than NIL payments or the transfer portal. If eventually enacted, the legislation would establish national standards across areas that have become increasingly fragmented, including athlete compensation, eligibility and transfers, while giving the NCAA limited antitrust protection to enforce key rules. It would also pre-empt the patchwork of state NIL laws that has helped create different regulatory environments across the country.
That produces an unusual governance reversal. The NCAA spent decades exercising enormous authority over college athletes, only to see important parts of that authority progressively challenged through litigation and legislation. Congress is now considering whether stability requires giving some of it back.
But how much regulatory power should a private sporting body receive from federal law?
That is the question behind the headlines.
The legislation attempts to draw a boundary rather than simply restore the old NCAA model. The proposed antitrust protection is limited, while the bill would simultaneously codify athlete rights and protections, including scholarship guarantees, post-eligibility health care, regulation of agents and athlete representation within governance structures. NCAA material supporting the bill says relevant governance boards would be required to include one-third student-athlete representation.
The result is a model in which Congress would not replace the NCAA as the regulator of college sport. Instead, federal law could define the perimeter within which the NCAA is allowed to regulate — protecting certain rules from repeated antitrust challenges while placing other athlete protections directly into law.
That distinction matters.
Sport traditionally argues for autonomy because uniform rules are necessary for competition. Athletes and their representatives have increasingly argued that autonomy cannot become immunity from ordinary economic and labor law. The Protect College Sports Act sits precisely between those two principles: how much autonomy does sport need to govern itself, and how much external law is necessary to govern the governors?
There is also an Olympic dimension that should not be overlooked. American universities are an important development system for Olympic athletes, and the bill includes provisions designed to protect women’s and Olympic sports by establishing sport, roster, and scholarship minimums. Supporters argue that controlling the financial disruption around revenue-producing college sports is necessary to protect those programs; critics dispute whether the proposed framework sufficiently protects athletes’ economic and labor interests.
None of this is settled. Senate approval is a major institutional step, but the Protect College Sports Act is not law. It now goes to the House of Representatives, where its prospects are less certain and where disagreements remain over how far Congress should go in protecting NCAA authority.
Yet the Senate vote has already shifted the governance debate. The question is no longer whether American college sport needs a different regulatory architecture. It is increasingly who should have the authority to build it.
For decades, that answer was largely the NCAA.
Then came the courts.
Now Congress has entered the field.
And if federal law ultimately restores powers that litigation took away, American college sport may be heading not back to the old NCAA — but toward something entirely different: sporting autonomy defined, limited, and protected by the state.
Last related articles
