Protect College Sports Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 4, 2026
Bottom line
The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 seeks to federalize and standardize the landscape of college athletics, focusing on student athlete welfare and a restructured approach to media rights, while granting significant antitrust protections to a new collective entity.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a comprehensive federal framework for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights for student athletes, introduces new regulations for sports agents, mandates health and safety standards, creates an ombudsman office, and provides antitrust exemptions for a new collective entity to manage college sports media rights. It also sets rules for conference mergers, broadcast access, and student athlete transfers and eligibility, while extending a revenue share cap from a prior legal settlement.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is necessary to bring order and consistency to the currently fragmented and often confusing Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) landscape, ensuring student athletes are protected and fairly compensated. They contend it will promote competitive balance, safeguard non-revenue generating sports, and preserve traditional rivalries, all while providing a stable framework for the future of college athletics under federal oversight.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that this bill represents an undue federal intrusion into collegiate sports, potentially stifling innovation and creating new bureaucratic hurdles for institutions. Concerns could be raised about the antitrust exemptions granted, the potential impact on smaller conferences or institutions, and whether the proposed revenue share cap truly benefits all student athletes or primarily entrenches the power of major athletic programs.
The bill is moderately complex with extensive definitions and cross-references, requiring a dedicated reading time to fully grasp its implications, which may exceed the time typically allotted for public review of such comprehensive legislation.
Sec. 101
Name, Image, and Likeness Protections and Disclosures
This section prohibits institutions, conferences, or athletic associations from restricting a student athlete's ability to earn compensation from their NIL rights or enter into NIL agreements, with exceptions for violations of student conduct codes or unauthorized use of institutional property. It also mandates student athletes to disclose NIL agreements exceeding $600 to their institution, and for institutions to report anonymized data to an intercollegiate athletic association, applicable only to Division I institutions.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision standardizes NIL rules, protects student athletes' economic rights, and provides transparency regarding NIL deals, which is crucial for maintaining fair competition and preventing illicit inducements.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that mandatory disclosures could infringe on student athlete privacy or create an administrative burden for institutions, while the exceptions for institutional conduct codes could still allow for subjective restrictions on athlete earnings.
Tradeoffs
Balances student athlete autonomy in earning NIL compensation with institutional oversight and the need for transparency to prevent abuse and maintain competitive integrity.
Sec. 102
Modifications to Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA)
This section amends SPARTA to include NIL agreements in the definition of 'agency contract' and imposes new prohibitions on athlete agents, such as charging fees exceeding 5% of an endorsement contract, entering contracts beyond a student athlete's eligibility, or making fraudulent representations. It also creates a private right of action for student athletes to sue agents for violations and invalidates pre-dispute arbitration agreements and joint action waivers.
Sec. 104
NIL Agreement Database and Institutional Disclosures
This section requires Division I institutions to disclose anonymized data on NIL agreements and compensation to their intercollegiate athletic association. The association must then establish and maintain a publicly accessible, searchable database for student athletes and agents to estimate fair market value for NIL agreements, updated annually, while ensuring student athlete privacy.
Sec. 106
Medical Coverage Requirements
This section mandates Division I institutions, or their athletic associations/conferences, to cover all out-of-pocket medical expenses, second opinions, and catastrophic injury insurance for sports-related injuries/diseases during a student athlete's participation. It also requires 5 years of post-eligibility coverage for sports-related medical expenses and establishes a $60 million fund by intercollegiate athletic associations to assist smaller Division I institutions and cover significant long-term conditions for all divisions.
Sec. 107
Health, Wellness, and Safety Standards
This section mandates institutions, conferences, and intercollegiate athletic associations to adhere to specific health, wellness, and safety standards, including those for brain injury (concussion management), heat-related illness, rhabdomyolysis, sickle cell trait, and asthma. It also requires measures to prevent abuse/misconduct, designates an independent athletic health and safety officer at each institution, and ensures the autonomy of medical personnel in return-to-play decisions.
Sec. 108
Office of the Student Athlete Ombudsman
This section requires intercollegiate athletic associations to establish an independent Office of the Student Athlete Ombudsman. The Office will provide free, confidential advice to student athletes on their rights and responsibilities, assist in resolving concerns, and offer information on external resources. The Ombudsman and staff are protected from compelled testimony and retaliation.
Sec. 111
Student Athlete Representation on Governing Boards
This section mandates that not less than one-third of the membership and voting power of any intercollegiate athletic association's governing board or committees with rule-making authority must be comprised of current student athletes or former student athletes who graduated within the preceding 10 years. Current or former employees of the association, conference, or member institution are excluded from counting towards this requirement.
Sec. 112
Transfer Protections
This section allows student athletes one transfer without losing eligibility. A second transfer results in a loss of eligibility for the first academic year after transfer, with exceptions for situations like sport discontinuation, head coach departure, sexual assault/harassment, or pursuing a graduate degree, in which case eligibility is not lost.
Sec. 114 & 115
Prohibited Compensation and Extension of Revenue Share Cap
These sections prohibit institutions, employees, or associated entities from arranging or providing compensation that would circumvent or exceed the 'revenue share cap' (defined as the Benefits Pool Limit from the 'In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation' settlement) to student athletes or prospective student athletes. Compensation must be for a valid business purpose and commensurate with market rates. Section 115 extends this revenue share cap indefinitely after the settlement expires, with annual inflation adjustments. Certain personal athletic and education benefits are explicitly permitted outside the cap.
Sec. 116
Commission on the Future of College Athletics
This section establishes a 20-member Congressional Commission on the Future of College Athletics, with at least one-third student or former student athletes, to study and provide recommendations on various aspects of college athletics. These include alternative compensation structures (like collective bargaining), protection of non-revenue sports, spending limitations, and whether to eliminate, extend, or change the revenue share cap. The Commission is authorized to hold hearings and issue a report within 5 years.
Sec. 118
Limitation on Liability (Antitrust Exemption for Title I Provisions)
This section grants an antitrust exemption to intercollegiate athletic associations, conferences, and institutions for enforcing or complying with specific provisions of Title I, including those related to the revenue share cap (Sec. 114, 115), eligibility (Sec. 113), NIL restrictions (Sec. 101(a)(3), 101(b)(1-2)), recruitment/tampering (Sec. 117), transfer rules (Sec. 112), and agent registry (Sec. 103). It also exempts sanctions imposed for violations of these rules, provided the association has established rules implementing these provisions.
Sec. 119
Private Right of Action
This section establishes a private right of action, allowing individuals to file civil lawsuits in federal or state courts for violations of specific sections of Title I, such as NIL protections, academic protections, medical coverage, health standards, ombudsman duties, comparable standards, student athlete representation, and certain transfer/eligibility rules. It allows for actual damages, equitable relief, and attorney's fees. Importantly, it limits pre-dispute arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers, with exceptions for disputes related to the 'In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation' settlement.
Sec. 121
Relationship to Existing Law (Federal Preemption)
This section preempts any state or local laws, regulations, rules, or standards that conflict with Title I provisions or prevent compliance with it, specifically those governing NIL compensation (except as necessary for compliance), student athlete transfers, or eligibility. However, it explicitly preserves various state laws, including Uniform Athlete Agent Acts, civil rights, tort, criminal, fraud, privacy, contract, trademark, copyright, and consumer protection laws, unless they directly conflict with the federal preemption clause.
Sec. 202
Antitrust Exemption for Collegiate Sports Broadcasting
This section amends the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 to extend its antitrust exemption to joint agreements among institutions or conferences that form a 'covered entity' to sell or transfer media rights for intercollegiate athletic competitions. This exemption is conditional on the 'covered entity' complying with and enforcing specific requirements outlined in other sections of the bill, particularly regarding its membership, governance, revenue allocation, and protection of women's and Olympic sports.
Sec. 203
Requirements for Entities Selling Media Rights (Covered Entity)
This section details the requirements for the 'covered entity' to qualify for antitrust exemption. It mandates membership from at least 75% of Football Bowl Subdivision institutions, requires offering membership to all Division I conferences/institutions on fair terms, and specifies voting rights (including student athlete votes on revenue allocation). It also sets a revenue allocation formula, mandates protection for women's and Olympic sports (maintaining grant-in-aid and roster spots), requires contribution of most media rights (excluding NCAA basketball tournaments), and includes provisions for preserving conference opponents and traditional rivalries.
Sec. 204
Market-Level Broadcast Access for College Football and Basketball
This section requires the 'covered entity', as a condition of its antitrust exemption, to make commercially available, on a non-exclusive basis, at least one 'Local Outlet option' for each intercollegiate football or basketball competition in the local designated market area of each participating member institution. A 'Local Outlet option' means an opportunity for a free-to-view outlet to carry the live competition. The FCC is granted jurisdiction over complaints regarding good faith negotiation for these rights.
Sec. 205
Prohibition on Certain Conference Mergers or Acquisitions
This section makes it unlawful under antitrust laws for any conference that reported over $1 billion in revenue on its fiscal year 2025 tax return to merge, consolidate with, or acquire assets/membership of another conference if the transaction would result in the number of member institutions being less than the membership requirements for the 'covered entity' (i.e., less than 75% of FBS institutions). Such prohibited transactions cannot be justified by procompetitive effects and are void.
Sec. 207
Media Rights Utilization Requirement for Non-Football/Basketball Sports
This section requires distributors who acquire media rights for intercollegiate athletic competitions in sports other than football or basketball from the 'covered entity' or its members to 'affirmatively use' those rights by making the competitions reasonably available to the public within one year. Failure to use the rights, after notification and a 180-day cure period, results in the reversion of those rights back to the originating entity, allowing them to be resold without penalty.
The mandatory disclosure requirements for student athletes regarding NIL agreements and compensation (exceeding $600) apply only to Division I institutions, as defined by NCAA bylaw 20.9.
Sec. 101(b)(5)
Why it matters:This is a significant carve-out that limits the scope of the disclosure requirement to the highest-profile athletic programs, potentially to reduce administrative burden on smaller institutions or to focus regulatory efforts where NIL activity is most prevalent. It could be seen as standard legislative practice to define applicability, but its placement might make it less immediately apparent.
Case for: Supporters would argue that focusing disclosure requirements on Division I institutions targets the segment of college athletics where NIL activity and potential issues are most concentrated, reducing unnecessary burdens on smaller divisions where NIL deals are less common.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding Division II and III institutions from these disclosure requirements creates a two-tiered system, potentially leaving athletes in those divisions without the same level of transparency or protection, or allowing for less scrutiny of NIL activities in those contexts.
Estimated impact: Limits the federal NIL disclosure mandate to approximately 350 Division I institutions, excluding over 1,000 other NCAA member institutions.
The definition of 'institution' for the purposes of prohibited compensation and agreements (including the revenue share cap) is specifically expanded to include institutions that are a party to or have opted into the 'In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation' settlement.
Sec. 114(d)
Why it matters:This specific reference directly links the federal legislation to an ongoing, significant legal settlement, effectively codifying or extending its terms and applicability to a specific group of institutions. This is a tactical maneuver to ensure the bill's provisions align with or supersede existing legal agreements, rather than a neutral drafting choice.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this ensures consistency and continuity with existing legal frameworks governing NIL, providing a clear and enforceable standard for institutions already involved in the settlement.
Case against: Critics might argue that directly referencing an ongoing legal settlement in federal law is unusual and could create complexities if the settlement terms are further modified or challenged, or if institutions not party to it are treated differently.
Estimated impact: Extends the applicability of the revenue share cap and other compensation prohibitions to all institutions covered by the specified legal settlement, ensuring a broad and consistent application of these financial limits.
While generally invalidating pre-dispute arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers for private rights of action under Title I, the bill carves out specific exceptions for disputes arising from the enforcement of the 'In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation' settlement, particularly regarding 'valid business purpose' for NIL agreements and compliance with the revenue share cap. These specific disputes must follow the procedure set forth in Article 6, Section 2 of that settlement.
Sec. 119(d) and (e)
Why it matters:This is a highly technical and tactical maneuver. It appears to grant broad protections against arbitration but then strategically limits them for specific, highly sensitive financial disputes that are already subject to an existing legal settlement. This ensures that certain core economic controls remain under the jurisdiction established by the settlement, rather than being immediately open to broader litigation, which is a deliberate choice to manage legal risk.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that complex financial disputes, particularly those related to the revenue share cap and 'valid business purpose,' are handled through established, specialized procedures defined in the existing settlement, promoting consistency and potentially faster resolution.
Case against: Critics might argue that these exceptions undermine the spirit of the private right of action and the invalidation of arbitration agreements, potentially forcing student athletes into less favorable dispute resolution mechanisms for the most financially significant issues.
Estimated impact: Significantly impacts how student athletes can challenge the most financially consequential aspects of the bill (revenue cap, valid business purpose) by directing them to procedures outlined in a specific legal settlement rather than direct court action.
To qualify for the antitrust exemption for selling media rights, the 'covered entity' must be comprised of at least 75 percent of the institutions participating in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) as of the date the joint agreement is entered into.
Sec. 203(b)(1)
Why it matters:This is a tactical maneuver to ensure that the antitrust exemption primarily benefits and is contingent upon the participation of the major revenue-generating football programs. By setting a high FBS participation threshold, the bill effectively mandates broad buy-in from the most powerful athletic institutions to unlock the federal protection, rather than allowing a smaller, less representative group to form a 'covered entity'.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this threshold ensures the 'covered entity' is truly representative of the major players in college football, giving it legitimacy and broad support, which is necessary for a successful collective media rights venture.
Case against: Critics might argue that this requirement grants disproportionate power to FBS institutions, potentially marginalizing other divisions or smaller conferences, and effectively forces participation from a large segment of institutions to access the antitrust benefits.
Estimated impact: Ensures that any 'covered entity' receiving federal antitrust protection for media rights will be dominated by, and largely serve the interests of, the Football Bowl Subdivision, representing the highest-revenue segment of college sports.