Senators Unveil Details of 'Protect College Sports' Act

Donate To GopherHole
MisterGopher

MisterGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
502
Reaction score
321
Points
63
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/op...-unveil-details-of-protect-college-sports-act

U.S. Senate Commerce Committee chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) have reached a bipartisan agreement on legislation that they say will restore stability to college sports, titled the Protect College Sports Act of 2026.

According to a press release, the Protect College Sports Act would "restore order in college athletics by creating enforceable national rules, preserving fair competition, protecting student athletes, while also ensuring that long-standing rivalries are maintained."

The senators said the bill "would bring stability to transfers, eligibility, recruiting, tampering, and real Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights for athletes; protect student athletes without turning college sports into professional sports; preserve fans’ favorite games and traditions; make TV money work for college sports; and restore competitive balance to ensure all schools, not just the blue bloods, can compete."


This article gives a good summary of the provisions:
Protect College Sports Act, explained: What to know about bipartisan bill that aims to limit transfers, cap spending, more
 

Overall, almost anything that provides structure and somehow institutes a spending limit on the highest rollers is good for Gopher football and men's basketball. The best outcomes put a lot of institutional power on the Big Ten, preserving Minnesota's seat at the big table...but also put a ceiling on those who will wildly outspend the Gophers.

The more pro-CBA-style that any Act is, the better for the Gophers.

However, it is a fair debate if the generally super wealthy and privileged and mostly financially set for life people making these decisions are acting legally or ethically by depriving a bunch of broke college kids of their full economic worth in the small window they have to cash in on it.

Especially as the window for young people to cash in on their minds may be closing.
 

fmlizard said:
However, it is a fair debate if the generally super wealthy and privileged and mostly financially set for life people making these decisions are acting legally or ethically by depriving a bunch of broke college kids of their full economic worth in the small window they have to cash in on it.
Click to expand...
Legally I don't see anything wrong, I mean, it's not illegal to cap salaries in other pro leagues. I don't think them being 18-23 versus older for the NFL has any legal standing.

As for ethics, that can probably be argued to death with no agreed upon conclusion (cue MplsGopher, Gophers4Life, GopherGrit). You provided a point, but college football wasn't created so that these kids could earn money they otherwise wouldn't. Also I don't think any fans want to see it continue into the wild west like it has been, and if the fans give up that would hurt lots of college football athletes as the opportunities go away (ie some schools dropping football because they can't afford it anymore and would rather focus on winning in hockey or softball - this would obviously be very lower level schools, not P4, but it would nonetheless still take away opportunity).

Just looking for friendly debate, hope it didn't come out wrong.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Legally I don't see anything wrong, I mean, it's not illegal to cap salaries in other pro leagues. I don't think them being 18-23 versus older for the NFL has any legal standing.
Click to expand...

The difference is that those pro leagues all have unions who negotiated on behalf of the players and agreed to cap salaries in exchange for other considerations that benefit the majority of the players union. The union members ratified those CBAs.

Here it seems the federal government is trying to use the Act to give college sports an antitrust exemption and in the process, give either the government of the NCAA the power to regulate the pay of players/employees. The student athletes haven't agreed collectively to anything.

There might be a MLB lockout in 2027. It would be like the Feds coming in and forcing a labor agreement without one or either party participating. That has happened before in things like airline strikes but never in entertainment activities.

The basics of the Act sound sensible and like they would improve a runaway situation. I'm just not sure how the basic constitutional arguments that opened these floodgates in the first place have changed.
 

MisterGopher said:
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/op...-unveil-details-of-protect-college-sports-act

U.S. Senate Commerce Committee chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) have reached a bipartisan agreement on legislation that they say will restore stability to college sports, titled the Protect College Sports Act of 2026.

According to a press release, the Protect College Sports Act would "restore order in college athletics by creating enforceable national rules, preserving fair competition, protecting student athletes, while also ensuring that long-standing rivalries are maintained."

The senators said the bill "would bring stability to transfers, eligibility, recruiting, tampering, and real Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights for athletes; protect student athletes without turning college sports into professional sports; preserve fans’ favorite games and traditions; make TV money work for college sports; and restore competitive balance to ensure all schools, not just the blue bloods, can compete."


This article gives a good summary of the provisions:
Protect College Sports Act, explained: What to know about bipartisan bill that aims to limit transfers, cap spending, more
Click to expand...
At a glance, I like these changes and they are definitely a good start for at the very least stabilizing college sports in the short term. Curious to see how the final bill will look by the time it makes it to the president’s desk (if it does)
 


fmlizard said:
The difference is that those pro leagues all have unions who negotiated on behalf of the players and agreed to cap salaries in exchange for other considerations that benefit the majority of the players union. The union members ratified those CBAs.

Here it seems the federal government is trying to use the Act to give college sports an antitrust exemption and in the process, give either the government of the NCAA the power to regulate the pay of players/employees. The student athletes haven't agreed collectively to anything.

There might be a MLB lockout in 2027. It would be like the Feds coming in and forcing a labor agreement without one or either party participating. That has happened before in things like airline strikes but never in entertainment activities.

The basics of the Act sound sensible and like they would improve a runaway situation. I'm just not sure how the basic constitutional arguments that opened these floodgates in the first place have changed.
Click to expand...
I can’t wait for the first student athlete strike against the NCAA. I put the over/under at 2030.
 

fmlizard said:
The difference is that those pro leagues all have unions who negotiated on behalf of the players and agreed to cap salaries in exchange for other considerations that benefit the majority of the players union. The union members ratified those CBAs.

Here it seems the federal government is trying to use the Act to give college sports an antitrust exemption and in the process, give either the government of the NCAA the power to regulate the pay of players/employees. The student athletes haven't agreed collectively to anything.

There might be a MLB lockout in 2027. It would be like the Feds coming in and forcing a labor agreement without one or either party participating. That has happened before in things like airline strikes but never in entertainment activities.

The basics of the Act sound sensible and like they would improve a runaway situation. I'm just not sure how the basic constitutional arguments that opened these floodgates in the first place have changed.
Click to expand...
I agree with your statement. Their is zero chance this will work as set up. You need to unionize these athletes for them to agree to any salary cap. No student athlete is going to limit the pay they can get without getting something in return. That bird has already flown that cage sorry.
 





fmlizard said:
Here it seems the federal government is trying to use the Act to give college sports an antitrust exemption and in the process, give either the government of the NCAA the power to regulate the pay of players/employees. The student athletes haven't agreed collectively to anything.

The basics of the Act sound sensible and like they would improve a runaway situation. I'm just not sure how the basic constitutional arguments that opened these floodgates in the first place have changed.
Click to expand...
Good point, I let that slip over my head. But here's an article in USA today that I don't quite get, it mentions the antitrust exemption as a way to avoid lawsuits:

It would also seek to put rules in place, such as a one-time transfer rule and restrictions on former professional athletes playing in college, along with an antitrust exemption to avoid having the rules contested in court.
Click to expand...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...pproaching-a-crossroads/90296193007/?tbref=hp
 

Won't work. Got to be something negotiated with the NCAA, the Universities, and the athletes.
 

This is a real “split the baby” document everyone can or should be upset about.

I’m surprised the democrats signed on although it gives lip service to preserving Olympic and women’s sports so there’s that.

I could be wrong on cursory read but it doesn’t seem to have any real teeth on preventing the P2 from breaking away from this proposed entity? Why would they agree to pooling rights, with anyone?

States the player salary cap will continue but be increased by yearly inflation rate. Ok…

States NIL outside of the cap is gone. So…50% or more (alleged) pay cut for the big boys. Ok…

No cap on coach or department salaries. Surprise!

Tampering enforcement for players, but not coaches.

Denied employment status.

No mention of prevention or annulment of current or future private equity ownership schemes of teams or conferences.

The players would be leaving megabucks on the table by allowing this to proceed. I suspect this is DOA given Congress has bigger fish to fry and the backlash could be pretty swift.
 

call me a Cruz missile or whatever, but I like this better than the current law of the land.
 



GopherTheJugular said:
Legally I don't see anything wrong, I mean, it's not illegal to cap salaries in other pro leagues. I don't think them being 18-23 versus older for the NFL has any legal standing.

As for ethics, that can probably be argued to death with no agreed upon conclusion (cue MplsGopher, Gophers4Life, GopherGrit). You provided a point, but college football wasn't created so that these kids could earn money they otherwise wouldn't. Also I don't think any fans want to see it continue into the wild west like it has been, and if the fans give up that would hurt lots of college football athletes as the opportunities go away (ie some schools dropping football because they can't afford it anymore and would rather focus on winning in hockey or softball - this would obviously be very lower level schools, not P4, but it would nonetheless still take away opportunity).

Just looking for friendly debate, hope it didn't come out wrong.
Click to expand...
I think the problem will come from what athletes can earn outside of the structure with NIL. Pro leagues don't cap individual salaries but create a structure that caps team spending limits in a variety of ways (baseball being the exception). But no league limits what a player can do outside that system in terms of endorsements, personal appearances, etc. That's where I think the Constitutional rub emerges and what O'Bannon was all about.

The NCAA could do much of what is suggested here in terms eligibility and transfer rules but have somehow not been able to put their foot down.
 



FireDaveLee said:
Click to expand...
yep. and would imagine Saban's sentiment is what many would echo in coaching and the public...... until their team starts losing. i'm sure all those same people will then focus on the coach that's developing young people and say that this is good and what it's all about.
 

If I had the answer, I'd give it.

Even if there are issues with this, I like that they're trying to figure out a solution. Keep tinkering with it & poke holes and keep building on something.....

What I can't stand is the Jay Bilas' & his cronies who instantly say no to everything, but don't offer a solution.
 

FireDaveLee said:
If I had the answer, I'd give it.

Even if there are issues with this, I like that they're trying to figure out a solution. Keep tinkering with it & poke holes and keep building on something.....

What I can't stand is the Jay Bilas' & his cronies who instantly say no to everything, but don't offer a solution.
Click to expand...
I applaud the attempt, but I still don't know how you get around NIL collectives. If the NCAA couldn't stop them, (and Congressman Romney said they were coming for the NCAA back when this mess started), but now Congress wants to do the very thing they said the NCAA can't do?

I don't think their is a solution. The kids will never agree to cap NIL, and they'd be extremely stupid to do so.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom