The US Senate has passed legislation aimed at reshaping college sport, giving the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption and setting rules for athlete payments, transfers and eligibility.
The Protect College Sports Act cleared the chamber by 77 votes to 22 after more than a year of negotiations led by Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Democrat Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington.
The bill would allow the NCAA to restore its five-year eligibility rule and impose limits on transfers. It would also establish a framework for name, image and likeness deals, under which some college athletes now earn millions of dollars per season.
Supporters, including the NCAA, prominent universities and major conferences, say the legislation would bring stability to a system disrupted by years of litigation. President Trump has also backed the measure, calling for its passage on September 17.
“Right now, it is the Wild West. The Protect College Sports Act is bipartisan legislation designed to bring order to the chaos,” Mr Cruz said at a news conference in September.
The legislation now goes to the House of Representatives, which is in recess until after the November midterm elections. Its prospects there remain uncertain.
Dispute over NCAA powers
For about a decade, court action has weakened long-standing rules governing college athletics, including restrictions linked to amateur status, transfers and eligibility.
Senator Eric Schmitt, Republican of Missouri, said before Monday’s vote: “We’re not turning back the clock, and whether you loved or hated the old system, we shouldn’t try. The problem is that college sports entered this new era without a stable framework to govern it.”
Opponents, including labour groups, athletes’ organisations and the NAACP, argue that the bill would impose restrictions on athletes without giving them an equal voice alongside universities and other powerful institutions.
Sam Ehrlich, an associate professor at Boise State University who studies college sports litigation, said the measure would be better described as the “Protect the NCAA Act”.
“It gives the NCAA significant institutional power to be able to continue to control college sports at the expense of athletes who have been able to push the NCAA on some of their illegal business practices over the years,” he said.
More than half a million athletes compete across the NCAA’s divisions each academic year. Most athletes who earn money compete in revenue-generating sports such as American football and basketball, with the largest payments concentrated among players in the four biggest conferences: the SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Big 12.
Women’s and Olympic sports
Supporters say the bill is needed to control rising athletics costs and prevent universities from cutting more teams that do not generate revenue, including many women’s and Olympic sports programmes.
A report released by Ms Cantwell said schools had eliminated more than 100 women’s and Olympic sports teams since 2023. The bill would require universities to maintain scholarships and roster places for such programmes, although those protections would expire after nine years at large schools and four years at midsize institutions.
Schools could also receive exemptions if their athletics revenues declined or they faced other demonstrable financial hardship.
Critics say the legislation does not address spending on coaches, administrators and other athletics operations while seeking to limit athlete compensation. Senator Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat and former Stanford tight end, said: “That’s what frustrates me — is we have a bill that’s going to protect the wealth and the gravy train for a lot of folks but puts burdens on college athletes.”
The bill also includes a 5% cap on fees for agents handling name, image and likeness agreements, allows conferences to pool media rights and sets out health and safety requirements for universities.
It would limit conferences to 20 members and require a university moving from one major conference to another to compete as an independent for three academic years. The provision, intended to discourage further conference realignment, could face opposition in the House, particularly from states whose universities may want to preserve their options.
