The Senate overwhelmingly approved sweeping legislation Monday night establishing national rules for college athletics, including new standards governing Name, Image, and Likeness compensation, athlete transfers, eligibility, and recruiting.
The Protect College Sports Act passed 77-22, drawing substantial support from both parties after months of negotiations over how Congress should respond to the rapidly changing financial structure of college athletics.
The legislation was led by Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee.
Supporters argue the bill would replace the patchwork of state laws, court rulings, and individual conference policies that has governed college athletics since athletes began receiving NIL compensation.
“Today is a historic day for college athletics,” Cruz said following the vote.
Cruz argued that the legislation protects opportunities for college athletes while providing schools and athletic conferences with legal certainty after years of litigation.
The bill would establish federal rules allowing athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness while permitting schools to provide direct financial benefits to players under the revenue-sharing system that emerged from the House v. NCAA settlement.
The legislation also addresses one of the most contentious issues in modern college sports: transferring.
Athletes would generally be permitted one transfer without penalty.
Additional transfers could result in the loss of immediate eligibility, although exceptions would be available in certain circumstances, including coaching changes, discontinued athletic programs and other qualifying situations.
The legislation would also establish a maximum of five seasons of athletic eligibility within a six-year period, with exceptions for military service, religious missions and certain medical circumstances.
Those provisions are intended to create uniform national eligibility standards after lawsuits and NCAA waivers increasingly complicated traditional limits on how long athletes can compete.
Recruiting would also face new restrictions.
Schools would be prohibited from using NIL agreements as disguised recruiting payments, while third-party NIL deals would remain permissible as long as they reflect legitimate commercial arrangements.
Athletes would continue to be able to sign endorsement contracts, appear in advertisements, operate businesses and profit from social-media activity.
The legislation would also protect schools’ ability to enforce rules intended to distinguish legitimate NIL compensation from payments made primarily to induce an athlete to enroll or transfer.
One of the bill’s most consequential provisions addresses the legal status of college athletes.
The legislation would prevent athletes from being classified as employees of their schools, conferences or athletic associations solely because they participate in college sports.
That issue has become increasingly important as lawsuits and administrative proceedings have sought to determine whether athletes should receive employment protections, collective-bargaining rights and other benefits available to traditional employees.
Supporters say employee status could fundamentally alter college athletics and threaten non-revenue sports.
Labor organizations and other opponents argue that Congress should not prevent athletes from pursuing employee rights as college sports generates billions of dollars in television, ticketing and sponsorship revenue.
The bill also provides limited antitrust protections allowing the NCAA, conferences and schools to establish and enforce certain national rules without facing the same level of litigation that has repeatedly reshaped college athletics.
Those protections have been among the legislation’s most controversial provisions.
The NCAA has suffered a series of major court defeats involving athlete compensation, transfer restrictions and other rules, including the Supreme Court’s unanimous 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston.
College sports changed even more dramatically following the multibillion-dollar House v. NCAA settlement, which created a framework allowing schools to share athletic revenue directly with players.
Supporters of congressional action argue the combination of court rulings and conflicting state NIL laws has made a federal standard increasingly necessary.
Earlier versions faced opposition from several lawmakers, including Republican Sens. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Josh Hawley of Missouri, as well as labor groups and members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Major conferences also initially raised objections before negotiations produced changes that helped broaden support.
The bill also includes protections for scholarships and non-revenue sports, an important concern as schools redirect increasing amounts of athletic revenue toward direct player compensation.
Schools would generally be prevented from eliminating athletic opportunities simply to finance revenue sharing, although the legislation does not eliminate the financial pressures facing athletic departments.
The bill now goes to the House for consideration.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
