Last week, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) introduced a sweeping, 111-page bill on college sports called the Protect College Sports Act. Sens. Eric Schmitt (R., Mo.) and Chris Coons (D., Del.) also signed onto the bill.
Because the legislation, born from years of negotiations led by Cruz, is bipartisan, it’s the most likely bill to pass of all college sports legislation. The Commerce Committee will hold its first hearing on the bill on Wednesday, with the goal of getting it passed by the August recess.
The bill has the formal support of the Big 12, ACC, and the American conference, as well many college sports stakeholders tasked by President Trump to lead policy conversations on the issue, like Texas Tech university board chairman Cody Campbell.
But on the eve of the hearing, the Big Ten and SEC released a statement saying they don’t support the bill in its current form. The NCAA has not said whether it will endorse the bill.
Still Undecided
Over the past several years, the Big Ten, SEC, and NCAA (in addition to the Big 12 and ACC) have spent several years and millions of dollars lobbying in Congress for a favorable college sports bill. Their priorities: antitrust protections to set and enforce rules around athlete compensation, transfers, and eligibility; and that prevents state laws from pre-empting these rules.
The Protect College Sports Act grants the ability to overrule some state laws and offers antitrust protections to enforce rules around athlete compensation, transfers, and eligibility that the bill itself sets. But it doesn’t prevent athletes from becoming employees, and allows FBS conferences to pool and sell media rights together while preventing a Big Ten-SEC merger.
When the bill came out, the NCAA and power conferences released statements thanking senators, but said they were studying it.
When asked by Front Office Sports whether the lack of an athlete employee ban would be a dealbreaker, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said it wouldn’t be “a stopping point”—a surprising position given that the power conferences and the NCAA have lobbied for a non-employment provision.
The conference did release a subsequent statement specifically addressing the concept of pooling media rights, saying all university presidents and chancellors unanimously opposed “assigning its media rights to a third party.”
The NCAA did not immediately respond to a comment request. After initially saying they had no further comment, the Big Ten and SEC released a joint statement saying they “do not support the Protect College Sports Act as drafted.”
Trump hasn’t formally endorsed the bill either. “President Trump has been relentless in his effort to protect and preserve college sports,” a White House official told FOS on Tuesday. “The WH is reviewing the proposed bipartisan legislation, but it appears that the legislation is moving the conversation on these important issues forward.”
Decided Detractors
On the other side of the spectrum, three college athlete advocacy groups have also come out against the bill: the United College Athletes Association, Athletes.org, and the National College Players Association. They say the bill is unfair because it allows limits on athlete pay and other provisions that would normally be negotiated through collective bargaining with players themselves.
“This bill would play athletes and organized labor for fools,” Ramogi Huma, NCPA executive director and a key advocate in securing athlete NIL rights, said.
Four current and former UCAA athletes, Oluchi Okananwa (Maryland), Brooke Daniels (Michigan), Jada Williams (LSU), and Grace Slaughter (Missouri), said: “The Senators who drafted this bill without us behind closed doors claim this legislation preserves the opportunity for college athletes to collectively bargain; that assertion is false.”
There are detractors on Capitol Hill, as well.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.), echoed the athletes’ concerns, saying the bill “seems like a great deal for the NCAA and the rich guys who run college sports, and a bad deal for athletes.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Brett Guthrie (R., Ky.) and Rep. Tim Walberg (R., Mich.) criticized the bill for not being restrictive enough, specifically because it didn’t prevent athlete employment. (Guthrie and Walberg support the SCORE Act, which has failed to reach a House floor vote three times for lack of support.)
Staunch Supporters
In the days following the bill’s release, multiple FBS leagues have come out in favor. The Big 12 and American conference have sent letters to senators endorsing the bill, according to copies obtained by FOS. The ACC also reportedly sent a letter in support.
In the American’s letter, commissioner Tim Pernetti wrote that the league “sees the moment as an opportunity for our entire industry to come together to set forth a structured future.” Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark wrote that the legislation “reflects an important commitment to and a good foundation for greater stability, clearer standards, and meaningful protections for student-athletes.”
Multiple members of Trump’s presidential committees on college sports back the legislation, even though Trump himself hasn’t yet. Saving College Sports, Campbell’s advocacy organization, sent a letter Monday with dozens of signatures supporting the bill, including from presidents of several Big 12, ACC, American, and incoming Pac-12 universities.
Though the Big Ten hasn’t signed on to support, Michigan regent Sarah Hubbard signed the letter. The SEC hasn’t endorsed the bill, but LSU’s president Wade Rousse and board chair Lee Mallett signed on.
However, both LSU officials have since told separate news outlets they did not authorize the use of their name on the letter. An LSU spokesperson confirmed Rousse’s statement to FOS. An email exchange FOS obtained showed Mallett said he would be interested in supporting the bill before it was publicized; Mallett did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
