Amended College Sports Bill Leaves SEC, Big Ten Concerns Intact

An amended version of the Protect College Sports Act likely won’t garner support from the Big Ten or SEC.

On Thursday, the Senate Commerce Committee will hold a markup of the bipartisan legislation—the first time a college sports bill has made it this far in the Senate. It’s the next step in bringing the bill to the Senate floor for a vote, which lawmakers who introduced it say they want to pass by the chamber’s August recess.

Currently, sweeping legislation to govern college sports, introduced by Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), Maria Cantwell (D., Wash) and sponsored by Eric Schmitt (R., Mo) and Chris Coons (D., Del) in May, doesn’t have unanimous support from the college sports community—notably the Big Ten and SEC. 

Both lawmakers and school/conference officials have stated they hope the bill will become amenable to the Big Ten and SEC through the amendment process. But despite multiple meetings between Big Ten and SEC officials and bill sponsors, the amended bill that will be considered does not alleviate some of the Big Ten and SEC’s biggest concerns, according to a copy obtained by Front Office Sports on Monday night. 

Additional amendments could be introduced during the markup itself, but it is unclear whether additional changes will be enough to get these stakeholders on board. 

The new version of the bill still allows FBS football programs to pool their media rights and sell them as a package, even though the provision is optional and would require at least 75% of FBS programs to agree to it. 

“We are not opposed to other conferences and universities exploring and opting in to media pooling,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey wrote in a letter to members this weekend. “However, the media pooling, as written, exposes the SEC to potential lawsuits forcing the conference into the media pooling practice.”

He added: “It forces the SEC and Big Ten to either play intraconference postseason tournaments or play only other non-pooling conferences or universities in the postseason to replace the CFP.” 

The Big Ten and SEC have also expressed concerns about the aspect of the bill that would prevent a Big Ten-SEC merger to form a two-conference super league. Sankey wrote, “we expect every university and every conference, along with outside entities, to be treated the same with respect to application of rules and regulations.” This portion of the bill also remains unchanged.

Additionally, no major changes were made to sections allowing a private right of action (meaning players could still sue schools for violating certain rules stipulated in the bill), which the two leagues said was too broad, and the preemption of state laws, which the leagues said was too narrow.

One major change in the bill, however, was how it would enforce the health and well-being of women’s and Olympic sports. A section of the bill would require all Division I schools to abide by the minimum number of sports required by NCAA or FBS membership; “large sized” schools— meaning those that report at least $80 million in annual athletic department revenue—were not allowed to reduce the number of roster sports and amount of grant-in-aid for women’s and Olympic sports teams below the 2024-25 season, with a few exceptions. Previously, this provision was required only for schools that chose to pool and sell media rights.

Meanwhile, lawmakers behind the bill have told FOS they want the bill to pass, regardless of whether the Big Ten and SEC get on board. 

“With 50 states in the country and 100 senators, there’s an awful lot of senators from states that don’t have either SEC or Big Ten teams, but do have college sports,” Sen. Coons said two weeks ago. “Note that three out of the four original cosponsors are from Texas, Missouri and Washington, which have both SEC and Big Ten schools in them, which I think is an important signal.”

He added: “We need to be willing to risk pushing back on the SEC. They are used to being the big game in town.”