Supporters of College Sports Bill Launch Super PAC

The college sports industry now has a dedicated super PAC.

The newly-formed PAC, called the College Sports United PAC, was created to ensure the current version of the Protect College Sports Act passes the House of Representatives without amendments, Alex Fulton, who runs the organization, told Front Office Sports. It’s believed to be the first and only super PAC created to advocate specifically for college sports issues. 

“Our goal is to make sure that all of the [House] members understand the importance of this bill—and of this matter,” Fulton said, who added he thought the bill would provide a “framework” for the future of college sports.

Fulton has a background in both politics and college sports. He currently serves as SVP of government public strategy firm Mercury Public Affairs’ California office in Sacramento, and previously founded Game Day Media, which helps schools with both revenue-sharing and NIL (name, image, and likeness) deals.

After recent conversations with university donors and athletic directors, Fulton decided to launch the PAC to ensure the Protect College Sports Act in its current form—without amendments—passes the House of Representatives. (If the House decides to amend the bill, it would have to return to the Senate for another vote, potentially slowing down the bill which must reach President Donald Trump’s desk before the new Congress is sworn in in January.) The organization registered with the Federal Election Commission as a super PAC on Sept. 22, according to an FEC filing.

The College Sports United PAC plans to specifically target House members who have come out against the legislation publicly. (A super PAC can raise and spend unlimited funds for political advertising.) Through advertising, direct voter contact, and other means, the organization intends to convince lawmakers to reverse course and support the bill.

“Our goal is to ensure that the constituents in their districts understand the ramifications of their bad stances,” Fulton said. “We are going to go to the constituents directly to apply pressure to ensure that the voters know exactly why it is important that this bill passes the House.”

Fulton described individuals who have encouraged the formation of the PAC as “smaller Division I institutions’ boosters and donors,” adding: “Essentially, all the donors that we’re talking to in these smaller schools have been very, very vocal [about] having their seat for the university at the table.” He declined to name specific donors, though their names and contributions will become public once donation records have been filed with the FEC.

The PAC has not yet reported any donations, largely because it was only launched a month ago. However, it has received a “good amount” of pledges, and expects to collect its first funds by the end of this week, Fulton said. 

While the group is the first super PAC focused on college sports, it’s hardly the only financial levers being pulled to lobby for or against the Protect College Sports Act. 

Texas Tech board chairman, Trump advisor and PCSA advocate Cody Campbell founded a 501(c)(4) called Saving College Sports in 2025. Funded by multiple donors, the group has disclosed tens of thousands of dollars in lobbying disclosures, and has spent about $10 million on a nationwide advertising campaign pushing the legislation, FOS previously reported. (Though Fulton praised the work of Campbell and members of his coalition, he said the College Sports United PAC is “separate” from this group; a spokesperson for Campbell confirmed he has no involvement in the PAC.)

In addition, the NCAA and power conferences, as well as individual universities, have spent millions lobbying on Capitol Hill. A coalition of civil rights groups, labor groups, and player advocacy organizations have lobbied against the legislation, with public campaigns of their own.

The House is expected to take up the PCSA when it returns in November after the midterm elections, though a timeline for if or when the group will vote on the legislation remains unclear.