What the Protect College Sports Act Sets for NIL Pay and NCAA Rules

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote today on the Protect College Sports Act, a bipartisan bill that would create the first federal framework for name, image, and likeness compensation in college athletics. The legislation, led by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, is expected to pass with at least 70 votes after procedural votes already reached that threshold.

The bill builds on the House v. NCAA settlement, approved in June 2025, which required schools to share revenue with athletes for the first time. That settlement set an initial revenue-sharing cap of $20.5 million for the 2025-26 school year, which has since risen to $21.6 million. The new federal legislation would expand and stabilize that framework while granting the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption to enforce eligibility and transfer rules—provisions that have been subject to constant litigation as state courts made conflicting rulings.

The patchwork that prompted federal action

Before 2021, the NCAA prohibited athletes from profiting off their name, image, and likeness. That changed rapidly after state courts in multiple jurisdictions ruled against the NCAA’s restrictions. With no federal standard, college sports operated under a patchwork of state laws, litigation outcomes, and NCAA policies that varied dramatically by geography.

This legal fragmentation created chaos across Division I athletics. Schools faced conflicting rules in different states, unlimited transfers between programs with minimal penalties, and constant lawsuits over eligibility rules. The NCAA lobbied Congress for years to pass a sweeping federal law after numerous state rulings transformed college sports, particularly football and men’s and women’s basketball. Decisions and temporary injunctions changed NCAA rules that had been in place for decades, enabling athletes to transfer freely between schools and receive direct compensation from their institutions.

The House v. NCAA settlement in June 2025 marked a turning point. A federal district court approved the settlement, which included nearly $2.8 billion in damages and injunctive relief. Most of that would go to athletes who competed in college sports since 2016, with the bulk directed toward football and men’s and women’s basketball players, after hundreds of millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees. The settlement required Power 5 conference schools to opt into revenue-sharing starting at $20.5 million for the 2025-26 school year, a cap that has since grown to $21.6 million. But the settlement left many questions unanswered about transfer rules, eligibility periods, and how to enforce standards across all divisions.

Senate vote timing
The Senate is scheduled to vote on final passage of the Protect College Sports Act on September 28, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. ET. Procedural votes have already reached the 70-vote threshold needed for passage. The House is not expected to vote until after November midterm elections.

What the bill changes for NIL and athlete compensation

The legislation grants student athletes a federal right to earn compensation for their name, image, and likeness, replacing the patchwork of state laws that have governed NIL deals.

The bill establishes two compensation streams beyond direct pay. Schools can distribute up to $21.6 million in revenue-sharing, the current cap under the House settlement, which the bill adopts rather than increases. A second pool of $22.5 million, expandable to $27.5 million if institutions invest in NIL for women’s and Olympic sports, can be used as a retention fund tied to academic performance—compensating athletes for staying at their school rather than transferring. These pools can total up to $50 million annually per school.

The bill requires disclosure of NIL compensation exceeding $600 per year, with anonymized data reported to the NCAA, which maintains public databases to help athletes negotiate fair NIL deals. Schools are prohibited from restricting compliant NIL agreements or retaliating against athletes through grant-in-aid reductions based on NIL activities, except for violations of codes of conduct or unauthorized use of school marks. Athletes gain explicit codified rights to market and earn compensation for their NIL and enter into NIL agreements without institutional interference.

Agent regulation and oversight mechanisms

For the first time, the federal government would regulate NIL agents. The bill amends the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act to require NIL agent certification and registration through athletic associations, which maintain public registries of certified agents. Agent fees are capped at 5 percent of endorsement contract value, part of the bill’s effort to protect athletes from exploitation by agents.

The College Sports Commission, formed by the power conferences under the House settlement to oversee NIL agreements and revenue sharing, would continue that role, with uniform enforcement across institutions. Athletes must report any non-institution NIL payments over $600 to oversight entities that maintain anonymized databases. This transparency requirement aims to prevent collectives—third-party entities separate from schools that pool money to pay athletes—from circumventing spending caps through undisclosed arrangements.

The NCAA antitrust exemption and transfer rules

A central provision of the bill grants the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption, allowing the organization to enforce eligibility and transfer rules without court challenges. This reverses years of legal uncertainty that began after courts ruled against the NCAA’s restrictions on athlete compensation. By codifying these rules in federal law rather than leaving them to NCAA enforcement, the bill shifts the authority for eligibility and transfer rules from the NCAA to Congress, which can amend them.

The bill establishes a uniform five-year eligibility clock. Athletes receive one penalty-free transfer; subsequent transfers require sitting out competition for one year, with exceptions for pursuing a graduate degree, a discontinued sport, a head coach leaving, or sexual assault or harassment. Football coaches are prohibited from moving mid-season, a provision intended to create stability in program management and prevent recruitment chaos.

The antitrust exemption applies narrowly to eligibility, transfer rules, and revenue-sharing frameworks—not to salaries or individual compensation negotiations. This distinction preserves the ability of athletes to negotiate NIL deals and direct compensation while allowing the NCAA to enforce competitive rules uniformly across institutions. Without this exemption, any attempt by the NCAA to enforce transfer or eligibility rules could face antitrust litigation, as it has repeatedly in recent years.

The bill grants the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption, allowing the organization to enforce eligibility and transfer rules without court challenges, reversing years of legal uncertainty.

Revenue pooling and the broadcasting model

The bill amends the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 to allow schools to voluntarily join collectives to pool media rights, similar to professional leagues like the NFL and NBA. This pooling model provides antitrust protection for collective media negotiations without mandating participation—existing media contracts remain unaffected, and schools retain the option to stay independent and negotiate separately. Pooled revenue could increase stability and transparency compared to the current fragmented system where collectives operate with minimal oversight.

The voluntary pooling structure is designed to provide financial stability without pressuring endowments or raising student fees. Schools that choose to participate can combine their multimedia rights into a single negotiating entity, potentially increasing their collective bargaining power against media companies. The revenue-sharing cap is set to be eliminated after nine years unless Congress votes to retain it, creating a sunset provision that allows adjustment as the college sports landscape evolves. If Congress takes no action, the cap expires automatically, which could trigger another round of legal uncertainty.

Former athletes in Congress drive the debate

At least half a dozen sitting senators are NCAA Division I former athletes, and several others played in Division II or sports governed by other organizations. These former college athletes have brought firsthand experience to legislation that directly affects current players. Jim Justice of West Virginia played golf at Marshall University; Ron Wyden of Oregon played basketball on a scholarship at UC Santa Barbara; and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania co-captained the wrestling team at West Point.

Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, played tight end at Stanford and has been a vocal advocate for athlete protections. Tommy Tuberville, the Alabama Republican and former Auburn football coach who led the team to an undefeated 2004 season, initially opposed the bill as government overreach into college sports. But this month, Tuberville reversed his position and switched his vote to yes, recognizing the need for federal standards. Katie Britt of Alabama co-sponsored amendments with Tuberville to tighten NIL compensation rules.

The bipartisan coalition expanded to include Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Chris Coons of Delaware as cosponsors, along with Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Peter Welch of Vermont, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, and John Hickenlooper of Colorado. Their shared experience as former athletes proved influential in navigating the technical details of athlete compensation and the political divisions over how much regulation college sports needed.

The path forward and house obstacles

If the Senate passes the bill today, it faces additional procedural hurdles in the House, which is not expected to return until after November midterm elections. House amendments could delay final passage beyond the start of the new Congress in January, potentially requiring the legislation to restart from scratch. The bill’s bipartisan support in the Senate does not guarantee House passage, as some representatives may seek to expand or narrow provisions.

Supporters say the bill is needed to stabilize Division I athletics after years of litigation and rule changes. Without federal standards, the current framework expires in 10 years when the House settlement’s revenue-sharing requirements end, potentially triggering another round of legal chaos. The legislation aims to provide long-term certainty for schools, athletes, and conferences planning their operations and budgets.

Photo: NPS Photo · Public domain · via Wikimedia Commons