Senators Unveil Details of 'Protect College Sports' Act

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.

Let’s put Bo Dietl on the case

Not happening. CBA or nothing.

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.

Not happening.

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.

Need legislation that’s good for the game(s) not just the top conferences. 5 for 5, financial caps, transfer limits, poaching restrictions . . . All good for the game. It shouldn’t be mass transfer with mega dollars picking teams to the bone each year. The mission of college football should have some level of integrity.

GopherTheJugular said:

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.

Click to expand...

Maybe the money/NIL there is no solution. However, I do think that the vast majority of fans have less of a with the money compared to the transfer portal & being immediately eligible. If they can reign that in somewhat, I think it is absolute progress.

1 free transfer with immediate eligibility is fair, along with the coaching change aspect. I'd even go a step further & allow if a kid's main recruiter departs from their position (each student athlete would have an official assistant coach tied to them). Do this & I think this would help.

At the same time, it works both ways. While the players are hitting the portal, the teams are constantly looking at the portal to replace their current players.....it's cutthroat all the way around.

While there might be constitutional issues implicated, the cases that threw open the current pay for play are were roited in the Sherman Antitrust Act. It is entirely within the peragative of Congress to make changes or exceptions to the act and abrogate the result of the lawsuits.

Even to the extent that there are constitutional issues as play, the interstate commerce clause has traditionally been interpreted as giving Congress broad authority over an almost endless range of subject matter (although more recent SCOTUS decisions have tempered that authority).

I think it's entirely plausible and defensible for Congress to enact legislation consistent with what's being proposed.

BillyMyr said:

Need legislation that’s good for the game(s) not just the top conferences. 5 for 5, financial caps, transfer limits, poaching restrictions . . . All good for the game. It shouldn’t be mass transfer with mega dollars picking teams to the bone each year. The mission of college football should have some level of integrity.

Click to expand...

you're discussing 2 separate things and lumping into one with the term "game". Good for who? The player or the school (I will decline to call them students at this point as the system, fans included, have created this all the way down to youth sports in that they are athletes and the schooling is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of athletes any of this is being imposed for)

5 for 5: honestly why is this good for anyone? you just added a bonus year for some guys to try save the NCAA from being sued. Just stop granting medical RS's, COVID years, etc., and this was never a problem to begin with. They kept trying to add "games" to let people play parts of years and made their own problem. I get they want to just make it standard, but again why are we trying to normalize 23-24 year old people playing against teenagers? We don't do this in HS and you don't get an extra year just because there. I'd be in favor of going back to the way it was and whatever type of RS you want to take along the path, you get one. There's no do-over just like there's no do-over if your in HS or a professional. If you want to say the 5th year is for "school", that's really the only logical reason I could buy but then we should also be really hammering schools who are falling short in their APR.

Financial caps: what "cap" are you using? a blanket salary cap across all divisions? well that hurts your premier players while protecting schools. a balanced cap based on revenue? well that creates the same power dynamic and still hurts players because some person wants to pay for his team to win and give some kid 15 million dollars over 4 years but Michigan has more money to do that than CMU. Unless you're going to let players negotiate a CBA, this really is only for the schools

Transfer limits: I don't limit a regular student from transferring nor someone working a job, why should I restrict a college player, given there are numerous possible reasons to transfer entirely outside of the sport (parent is sick, different academic program, etc.). Simpler would just be they need to put in harsh tampering rules. Unless in the portal, it's an absolute do not contact. If money/benefits package is discussed, etc., you need to make the punishment be punishing, either fiscally or to the student athlete in terms of eligibility (if they know the rules and chose to go sign, they made their choice).

Poaching restriction: 1st time fines/suspensions need to be hefty. This shit about a 5k fine is ridiculous. It means nothing. Make it hefty, give your commission grounds to enforce it (this is the biggest problem is the governing body/NCAA/CSC have no teeth whatsoever against the athletes and have chosen to put such a minimal punishment against the school). Once you have some teeth there, you're going to see poaching really drop down. If guys are do not contact unless in the portal, there is going to be a paper/call trail. Same as your going to have calls/texts from agents to players. Once you hammer some of these schools, it's going to crack down real fast.


I appreciate that they're trying. I think you can pretty easily impose no contact rules, same as they do with HS recruiting dead periods which have not been deemed illegal (and should seemingly be pretty easy to impose while enrolled/during academic session and/or season). They have created a monster with how they rolled out NIL and did so with basically no way to set a "market value" as it's a market that's never existed (like Livvy Dunne is making 4-5mil supposedly, so how am i supposed to figure out value for Gopher football's backup center? Same as we can name KCs starting QB but have no idea who the backup center for Las Vegas is but to what scale should their deal be valued differently if they shoot a local ad for a car dealer?). Add in you have some kids who are "celebrity" kids (Sanders, Manning) or prodigies from youth (Flagg) who are going to come into college with huge brands already established, and why should they be required to lessen/restrict that brand while playing college sports (concept against the "cap" being talked about).

upnorthkid said:

Transfer limits: I don't limit a regular student from transferring nor someone working a job, why should I restrict a college player, given there are numerous possible reasons to transfer entirely outside of the sport (parent is sick, different academic program, etc.). Simpler would just be they need to put in harsh tampering rules. Unless in the portal, it's an absolute do not contact. If money/benefits package is discussed, etc., you need to make the punishment be punishing, either fiscally or to the student athlete in terms of eligibility (if they know the rules and chose to go sign, they made their choice).

Click to expand...

Just like a regular student, there's no restriction on an athlete that transfers being able to take classes & pursue their degree.

Difference of opinion; I just don't understand why someone transferring a 2nd time having to sit out a year before participating in games is that unfair...

I think limiting NIL/salary caps, while a good idea, would be pushing the payments back under the table like they previously were.

mngolf said:

I think limiting NIL/salary caps, while a good idea, would be pushing the payments back under the table like they previously were.

Click to expand...

Or just be made to the person's mom now. Is there anything in this bill that prevents a person's family from being given things? That'd be a tough sell to put in there, legal-wise. We all know why it would be needed, but I can't imagine Congress passing legislation that says someone related to an athlete can't accept gifts. Far too much of a grey area to be policed.

FireDaveLee said:

Just like a regular student, there's no restriction on an athlete that transfers being able to take classes & pursue their degree.

Difference of opinion; I just don't understand why someone transferring a 2nd time having to sit out a year before participating in games is that unfair...

Click to expand...

do we restrict them participating in club sports, serving on councils, doing research, etc?
Is there a sitting out period for a coach?
Is there for an administrator ?

Think the argument comes down to do you harm their future livelihood and I'd say you do and there is no comparable thing we require them to sit out from doing, so it's not going to hold up unless you make them sign something binding.

I get where people are coming from in wanting to prevent players from hopping around, but its pretty damn rare there are second time transfers moving up and up consecutively. Mostly its down for opportunity to play and then back up or guys jumping laterally who don't ever end up being impact guys anyway but we pay for them for some reason.

Think i'd say if you're going to restrict transfers and sports (and I'd be very in favor of this), you make grad transfers free (yay degree getting, the supposed point) and the rest you sit out. makes you value the whole package when you commit and schools trying to poach need to be fine with them sitting a year.