The U.S. Senate took a major step toward a unified federal framework for college athletics by passing the Protect College Sports Act (“the Act”) (S. 4668) with an overwhelming 77-22 bipartisan vote. Even though the Act cleared the Senate with strong bipartisan support many questions remain about antitrust protections, the status of student athletes becoming university employees, and whether the bipartisan support in the Senate will lead to similar support and passage in the House. Without House passage, the future of college sports regulation will remain in its current uncertain status.
Why It Matters
For collegiate athletes and businesses operating in or adjacent to the college sports industry (including sponsors, media companies, brands engaged in NIL partnerships, universities, and apparel manufacturers), the regulatory landscape in college sports has been anything but stable. A patchwork of state laws, ongoing federal and state litigation against the NCAA, and shifting NCAA rules have created significant uncertainty. Despite this, the U.S. Senate took a major step toward a unified federal framework with its overwhelming bipartisan vote and support of the Act. Significant questions remain about whether (and in what form) this legislation will ultimately become law.
Key Provisions of the Protect College Sports Act
The legislation aims to replace the current fragmented regulatory environment with a comprehensive national framework governing college athletics. Key provisions include:e
- A maximum of five years of college athletic eligibility
- Escalation of the revenue sharing allocation for distribution to nearly $49 million annually
- Mandatory state agent registration and a cap on fees at 5%
- Guaranteed scholarships for 10 years upon completion of athletic eligibility
- Mandatory coverage for out-of-pockets costs for sports-related injuries for five years following completion of athletic eligibility
- A uniform national transfer policy for student-athletes (one free transfer during the five-year eligibility period without having to sit out
- A national set of NIL (name, image, and likeness) rules that would override existing state-by-state regulations
- An antitrust exemption for the NCAA, shielding the governing body from legal challenges related to athlete eligibility, compensation caps, and NIL disclosure requirements
- For businesses that have struggled to navigate inconsistent state NIL laws and unpredictable court rulings, the prospect of a single, uniform federal standard could provide welcome clarity and stability.
Controversy Surrounding the Antitrust Exemption
The bill’s antitrust exemption has emerged as a central point of contention. Athlete-led litigation challenging NCAA restrictions on compensation and NIL deals was one of the initial driving forces behind the push for federal legislation. Critics argue that granting the NCAA immunity from such challenges could shift power away from student-athletes and limit their ability to seek legal recourse when disputes with the NCAA and their attempted enforcement of their bylaws against student-athletes arise.
The Congressional Black Caucus issued a firm rebuke of the legislation immediately following the Senate vote, citing concerns that the antitrust provisions would restrict athletes’ ability to bring private legal action. Supporters of the exemption express a counter-position that it would bring much-needed stability to a college sports landscape that has been roiled by conflicting court decisions.
The Employment Question Looms Large
Another significant flashpoint is the bill’s silence on whether college athletes should be classified as employees. By declining to take a position on this contentious question, the legislation has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. Some Democratic lawmakers have pushed for language explicitly recognizing athletes as employees eligible for collective bargaining, while Republicans have sought amendments declaring that athletes are students and should not be considered employees and therefore subject to numerous federal and state legal rights and employees protections.
Industry observers have noted that if the current legislation fails, any future college sports bill in the next Congress will likely place athlete employment and collective bargaining closer to the center of the debate. This could result in the opening of a can of proverbial worms including complex questions about bargaining structures, labor relations, and university obligations.
eeeee
Despite the Senate’s strong bipartisan showing, the bill faces a challenging road in the House of Representatives. House Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated that the legislation will not be taken up until after the midterm elections, and a looming deadline of December 11 to fund the federal government may well take up all of the focus and energy in the Lower Chamber.
Should the House pass its own version of the bill, which would likely include amendments (such as a proposed $5 million cap on college coach salaries that narrowly failed in the Senate), a bicameral conference would be necessary to reconcile the differences before both chambers could vote on a final compromise. All of this would need to occur before a new Congress is sworn in on January 3, 2027, or the legislative process would have to start over.
Regardless of the bill’s ultimate fate, the ongoing legislative debate underscores the rapidly evolving legal landscape surrounding college athletics. The team at Lewis Brisbois attorneys within its focused College Sports Practice is closely monitoring legislative and regulatory developments affecting college athletics and the broader sports industry. Our team is well-positioned to help clients navigate the complex intersection of sports law (including NIL contracts and current NCAA rules and regulations, antitrust matters, employment issues, commercial contracts, and regulatory compliance.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
