What’s in the Protect College Sports Act — and what happens next

The Protect College Sports Act cleared the Senate Commerce Committee on June 18 on a 19-9 bipartisan vote. The bill — S. 4668, sponsored by committee chairman Ted Cruz and ranking member Maria Cantwell, with original co-sponsors Eric Schmitt and Chris Coons — now heads to the full Senate, where it needs 60 votes to pass.

“The greatest threat to college sports is inaction,” Cruz said. “No more punting. We are in fourth-down territory. Time to go for it.”

The bill is 200-plus pages of legislation that would create a new federal oversight body, reshape conference structure, rewrite the rules on athlete compensation, transfers and eligibility, regulate NIL and agents, pool media rights and freeze conference membership. It has support from 24 conferences, 267 schools, the NCAA, the NFL, MLB, the NBA, the NFLPA, the NBPA and the White House. It has opposition from the two most powerful conferences in American sports.

Here is what it says.

The College Sports Commission

This is the part most people skip over, and it matters more than almost anything else in the bill.

The PCSA would create a brand-new federal body — a nine-member College Sports Commission — with authority over NIL, transfers, eligibility and agent conduct. The president appoints five members. The Senate majority and minority leaders each appoint two. Terms last five years.

The commission — not the NCAA — becomes the primary enforcement authority. Congress is not handing the NCAA more power. Congress is building a new agency and handing it the keys. The bill gives that commission an antitrust exemption to enforce the rules it approves and a $50 million annual budget paid through assessments on member institutions.

NIL regulation

Right now, more than 30 states have their own NIL laws. The bill throws all of them out and replaces them with one federal standard.

Athletes keep the right to earn money on their name, image and likeness. That is codified into federal law. Schools can share revenue directly with athletes — but the bill caps how much. The formula pegs the cap at 22 percent of the average sports revenue generated by the top 68 revenue-producing schools. That works out to roughly $20.5 million per school right now.

Here is where it gets complicated. Any NIL money flowing through associated entities — boosters, collectives, corporate sponsors, apparel brands — counts against that cap. The bill’s sponsors have called this the “money washing” crackdown. If a booster-funded collective pays a quarterback $2 million, that $2 million hits the school’s $20.5 million ceiling.

On the agent side, the bill requires federal registration for anyone representing athletes. Agents have to disclose conflicts of interest. They cannot contact recruits before college enrollment. Their fees are capped at 5 percent of the deal. The commission would maintain a public registry.

Athletes have to report any NIL deal worth more than $600. And schools cannot force athletes to hand over their NIL rights as a condition of playing.

The associated entities problem

The associated entities provision has drawn opposition from current athletes. On June 16, two days before the committee vote, Michigan State football player Sam Edwards sent a letter to Cruz and Cantwell co-signed by 18 current college athletes. Edwards is the NCAA Division I Board’s student-athlete representative and a representative to the White House Saving College Sports Roundtable.

The letter cited data from the CSC/NILGo system showing that over $240 million in above-the-cap deals have already been submitted and approved — “the overwhelming majority of which are paid through associated entities.”

“Under the current language of the bill, these above-the-cap associated entity deals would suddenly be deemed impermissible,” Edwards wrote. “Restricting the amount student-athletes can receive from associated entities to be contained within the revenue share cap would have a severe negative impact, and greatly inhibit student-athlete compensation in general.”

The letter asked the committee to amend Section 114 “so as not to hold associated entity agreements under the umbrella of the institutional $20.5M cap.” The committee voted two days later without making that change.

Transfer rules

Every athlete gets one free transfer. No penalty, no sitting out.

After that, the rules tighten. A second transfer means sitting out a full academic year. The bill creates two five-week transfer windows per sport each year, with the commission setting the specific dates. Outside those windows, coaches, agents and boosters are barred from recruiting athletes enrolled at other schools. The bill calls it tampering.

Athletes who experience documented abuse, harassment or safety issues can transfer immediately regardless of the window.

Eligibility

The clock starts when an athlete enrolls — not when they first compete. From that point, they have five years of eligibility.

Professional athletes cannot compete in college, and the bill extends that to international professionals. But an athlete who enters a pro draft and goes undrafted can come back. An athlete who plays one sport as an amateur can earn professional money in a different sport — a college baseball player could compete on a professional golf circuit without losing eligibility.

The commission can also pull eligibility from athletes caught betting on their own events.

Coaching mobility

The bill puts a leash on midseason coaching moves. From the first regular-season game through the final postseason game, head coaches and primary assistants cannot leave for another college job. They can leave for the NFL or another professional league — but not for a rival program across the conference.

The penalty for schools that poach: the school that hires the departing coach owes the school that lost him a buyout equal to the full remaining value of his contract.

Media rights pooling

The bill amends the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 — the same law that allows the NFL, NBA and NHL to jointly negotiate their television contracts — to extend antitrust protection to college sports.

Under the bill, FBS schools could voluntarily band together to negotiate media rights collectively — the way the NFL does it. The catch: at least 75 percent of FBS schools have to opt in before the exemption kicks in. That is roughly 104 of 138 schools. Current media contracts stay in place. The pooling would apply only to future deals.

The money would flow on three levels. Every participating school gets a floor — a guaranteed payout exceeding what it earns under its current deal. On top of that, conferences that already hold premium media rights keep an advantage built into the formula. And a third tier rewards on-field performance. The bill does not create revenue parity. Schools with bigger brands and better results still earn more.

The bill also mandates local access. Every football and basketball game has to be carried by at least one local outlet in the school’s home market at no cost to the viewer. Existing national and regional contracts are not affected.

Proponents have claimed pooling could unlock an additional $4 billion to $9 billion for college athletics.

The problem: the Big Ten and SEC have expressed no interest in participating. Without them, the 75 percent threshold may be unreachable. And the conferences that benefit most from the current revenue disparity can simply decline to join.

The conference merger ban

The provision drawing the most attention — and the most opposition — freezes conference membership for any league generating more than $700 million in FY2025 revenue.

The original bill set that threshold at $1 billion, which would have applied only to the SEC and Big Ten. The revised version dropped it to $700 million, which brings the ACC and Big 12 under the ban as well. The Big 12 is on pace for $710 million in gross revenue in 2026, per Heartland College Sports — meaning it endorsed a bill that now freezes its own membership at 16 schools.

Under the ban, a covered conference cannot merge with another league, absorb another league’s assets or media rights or take another league’s members. The target is a super league. It would also block the SEC or Big Ten from adding schools like Florida State, Clemson or Miami — programs whose desire to leave the ACC is an open secret.

Traditional rivalries

The bill tries to protect the games fans actually care about. If more than six of a school’s top 10 historic opponents play in the same conference, that conference has to keep its membership intact. The media-rights entity created under the pooling provision would enforce scheduling rules to keep those rivalries on the calendar.

Athlete protections

The bill creates a $60 million annual trust fund to cover medical costs for athletes after their eligibility runs out — including long-term conditions like CTE. Schools with less than $20 million in athletic revenue can apply for hardship contributions to meet their obligations.

Medical staff on campus would operate independently. Doctors — not coaches, not athletic directors — make return-to-play decisions, and the bill gives them final authority that cannot be overridden. The bill also sets minimum insurance standards for athletes during competition.

Athletes can sue. The bill gives them a private right of action in federal court against schools, conferences and the NCAA. But there is a catch: if an athlete files suit and loses, the bill allows the defendant to recover its legal fees from the athlete. Critics argue that provision discourages all but the most clear-cut cases.

Anyone who reports a violation to the commission gets whistleblower protection.

Women’s and Olympic sports

The bill draws a line at $80 million. Schools above that threshold in annual athletic revenue — and there are 74 of them — cannot cut women’s or Olympic sport teams below the scholarship and roster levels they carried in 2024-25. Smaller schools get more room to adjust.

If the media-rights pooling entity gets off the ground, a portion of the pooled revenue has to go toward preserving non-revenue sports. Title IX enforcement stays in place and the bill strengthens it.

Employment status

The bill punts on one of the biggest questions in college sports: whether athletes are employees. It does not say they are. It does not say they are not. It does not touch collective bargaining. It does not address federal labor protections. The NLRB’s Dartmouth case and other pending employment proceedings continue as if the bill does not exist.

The sponsors chose this path on purpose. The SCORE Act — the prior House vehicle — tried to bar athletes from being classified as employees. That bill died twice. Cruz and Cantwell left the employment question alone.

Not everyone is happy about it. Athletes.org and other advocacy groups want the bill to protect the path to collective bargaining. Edwards’s letter took the opposite position — asking the committee to write non-employee status into the law. The bill satisfies neither side.

Football season

The bill weighs in on the calendar. It says the college football season and postseason “should conclude by January 8, to the extent practicable” — nonbinding language, but a signal. It also adjusts broadcast-protected windows, pushing them one week earlier in September and one week later in December.

The vote

The committee voted 19-9. Thirteen Republicans and six Democrats voted yes. Two Republicans and seven Democrats voted no.

The yes votes included Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who holds the authority to bring the bill to the full Senate floor. Cruz told reporters he expects a floor vote in July.

The two Republican no votes tell a specific story. Roger Wicker of Mississippi represents two SEC schools — Ole Miss and Mississippi State. Todd Young of Indiana represents two Big Ten schools — Indiana and Purdue. Young’s spokesman told the Indianapolis Star the senator “hopes that additional changes can be made to the bill to address concerns raised by the Big Ten.”

Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin proposed an amendment prohibiting schools and conferences from working with private equity firms. It was defeated.

The opposition

The SEC and Big Ten issued a joint statement the morning of the vote: “We continue to believe revisions are needed to secure our support for the bill. Despite our sustained engagement and good faith efforts, these critical revisions have not been accepted.”

The two conferences issued a second statement that evening, signed by presidents and chancellors, rebutting Cantwell’s characterization of their engagement: “Senator Cantwell’s characterization of the Big Ten and SEC engagement regarding the Protect College Sports Act does not accurately reflect the process that has occurred.”

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey told Front Office Sports he was “disappointed” that the ACC and Big 12 endorsed the bill without consulting the SEC. Sankey also raised a specific media concern: the bill “forces the SEC and Big Ten to either play intraconference postseason tournaments or play only other non-pooling conferences or universities in the postseason to replace the CFP.”

Cantwell’s response was direct: “The SEC and Big Ten are threatening intimidation on the schedule. There is intimidation here.”

Athletes.org — representing more than 5,200 current and former college athletes — called the bill “a power grab” that “shuts athletes out of the room, shuts their voices out of the process and hinders the momentum of collective bargaining.” The National College Players Association called it “a Trojan Horse Attack on college athletes’ rights.” The United College Athletes Association said the bill was “drafted without us behind closed doors.” Ten pro sports unions have also criticized elements of the bill.

The Congressional Black Caucus has raised “serious substantive concerns” about accountability, athlete protections and impact on HBCU communities.

What happens next

The bill needs 60 votes to pass the Senate. The Senate breaks for the Fourth of July recess June 27 through July 12 and begins its August recess on August 8. That gives approximately three working weeks in July for a floor vote.

A Capitol Hill source told Puck’s John Ourand: “The Senate doesn’t have the bandwidth to do this right now.” The source went further: “I don’t think anything gets done in the Senate before November.” NCAA president Charlie Baker told Yahoo Sports he puts the odds at “50-50.” Independent analysts are less optimistic — Karen Weaver, who directs the collegiate athletics program at the University of Pennsylvania, told Inside Higher Ed the probability is 10 to 15 percent this Congress.

If the bill passes the Senate, it moves to the House. The House companion bill — H.R. 9137, introduced June 4 by Rep. Michael Baumgartner of Washington — has been referred to committee but has not had a hearing. The SCORE Act, the prior House vehicle, is effectively dead after being pulled from the floor twice. If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee would reconcile the differences.

The Senate has never passed a college sports bill. No college sports bill introduced since 2021 — and there have been many — has advanced to a floor vote in either chamber. The SCORE Act came closest: it passed a procedural rule vote 210-209 in December 2025 before the substantive vote was canceled the same day. It was pulled again in May 2026 after the Congressional Black Caucus announced unanimous opposition.

Cruz dismissed the SCORE Act as unworkable: “Precisely zero Senate Democrats would support it. It is a bill that has no prospect of actually being signed into law.”

The Protect College Sports Act is different in one structural way. It has bipartisan sponsorship and a bipartisan committee vote. Whether that survives 60 senators, 218 House members and the legislative calendar is the question nobody in college sports can answer — but everybody with a move to make is watching.

Read the bill

The full text of the Cruz-Cantwell-Schmitt substitute amendment — the version adopted by the committee — is available here: Full bill text (PDF).

The section-by-section summary from the Senate Commerce Committee is available here: Section-by-section summary (PDF).

Diehard’s coverage of the Protect College Sports Act

Congress just started a race it can’t win — While senators debated how to prevent the next round of realignment, a Power 4 president, a G6 coach and a conference commissioner were already making moves. Column on why the bill may cause the exact thing it was designed to prevent.

The Protect College Sports Act just cleared its first hurdle. Here’s how everyone reacted. — Cruz, Cantwell, the NCAA, the SEC, the Big Ten, Athletes.org and national media — every major reaction to the 19-9 committee vote, aggregated with links.

The Protect College Sports Act passed committee. Here’s who it actually protects. — The merger ban freezes conference membership for the four highest-revenue leagues. The actual beneficiaries are the mid-tier Power 4 programs whose media value depends on staying in the room with marquee brands.

Tuberville is fighting the bill his state’s G6 schools need — Senators from Power 2 states filed amendments to gut the bill. Alabama has four G6 programs. Their senator opposed the legislation those programs endorsed.

The evidence and the testimony — The Senate heard three hours about the crisis facing college sports’ middle class. The G6 was the evidence. The Power 4 was the testimony.

Senate strikes bipartisan deal on college sports reform — what it means for the G6 — The initial analysis of the bill when it was introduced. Some provisions help programs outside the Power 4. Others may lock them in place.

Savior or surrender: The G6 playoff proposal isn’t what it looks like — The White House wanted to give the G6 its own playoff. Before celebrating, look at what they asked for in return.

The Moat — The revenue divide between the Power 4 and everyone else isn’t a gap. It is a moat — engineered, maintained and defended by the programs on the other side.

The G6 was never allowed to compound — If the College Football Playoff had started with 24 teams in 2014, 21 of 80 qualifying programs would have come from the Group of 6. Every one was denied the chance to build on it.

Memphis is spending like a Power 4 program. It isn’t one. — Memphis will hit full revenue share in 2026-27. The math, the history and the pressure say it may not matter.

The war never stopped — The current climate feels existential for the G6. But this class war has been raging since the first TV camera pointed at a football field.