A complete substitute amendment, v3 fundamentally restructures the bill by introducing a new Title III for HBCU sports media and connectivity grants, significantly overhauls the revenue share cap and NIL compensation rules, and adds several new protections and disclosure requirements for student athletes. v3 is effectively a different bill from v2, with extensive changes across all titles.
Protect College Sports Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 5, 2026
Bottom line
The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 creates a new federal regulatory landscape for intercollegiate athletics, aiming to standardize athlete compensation, enhance welfare, and manage media rights, while also providing targeted support for HBCUs.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a comprehensive federal framework for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights for college athletes, providing various student athlete protections related to academics, medical care, health and safety, and transfers. It also regulates sports broadcasting rights, including antitrust exemptions for intercollegiate athletic associations under specific conditions, and creates a grant program to improve sports media and connectivity infrastructure at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill brings much-needed order and consistency to the chaotic landscape of college sports, which has been fragmented by varying state laws and court rulings. They contend it protects student athletes from exploitation, ensures fair compensation for their NIL, and establishes critical health and safety standards. Furthermore, proponents highlight the bill's efforts to preserve women's and Olympic sports opportunities and to support HBCUs, promoting equity and stability across the collegiate athletic ecosystem.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill represents an overreach of federal authority into college sports, potentially stifling innovation and creating an overly bureaucratic system. Concerns could be raised about the complexity of compliance for institutions, the potential for unintended consequences on competitive balance or the financial viability of certain sports programs, and whether the antitrust exemptions grant too much power to athletic associations. Some may also question the specific financial caps and allocations, arguing they do not go far enough to compensate athletes or that they disproportionately benefit certain institutions.
This bill is extensive and highly detailed, requiring significant time for a thorough review. Its length and legal complexity mean that a casual reader would struggle to grasp its full implications within a short timeframe, necessitating dedicated study.
Sec. 101, Title I
Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Protections
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. It requires consent for group NIL use and mandates student athletes to disclose NIL agreements exceeding $600 to their institution and athletic association.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures student athletes can fairly benefit from their own identity, aligning collegiate sports with modern commercial realities and preventing exploitation. The disclosure requirements promote transparency and help prevent illicit inducements.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that mandatory disclosures create an administrative burden and could lead to privacy concerns for student athletes. Some argue that allowing institutions to restrict eligibility for certain NIL agreements (e.g., violating code of conduct) still leaves too much power with institutions.
Tradeoffs
Balances student athlete economic freedom with institutional oversight and the need for transparency to maintain fair competition. The $600 disclosure threshold aims to capture significant deals while avoiding micro-management of small transactions.
Sec. 102, Title I
Modifications to Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA)
This section amends SPARTA to require written agency agreements, caps agent fees at 5% of endorsement contract value, prohibits contracts extending beyond athlete eligibility, and adds a private right of action for student athletes against agents for certain violations. It also removes the warning about losing eligibility for having an agent.
Sec. 104, Title I
Establishment of Name, Image, and Likeness Agreement Database
Institutions must disclose anonymized NIL data (services rendered, compensation amounts) to their athletic association. The association then establishes a publicly accessible, searchable database to help student athletes and agents estimate fair market value for NIL agreements, updated annually.
Sec. 106, Title I
Medical Coverage Requirements
Division I institutions (and DII/DIII athletes competing in DI) must cover all out-of-pocket medical expenses for sports-related injuries/diseases, provide second opinions, catastrophic injury insurance, and an end-of-college physical. For athletes in their last year of eligibility, 5 years of post-eligibility out-of-pocket coverage for sports-related injuries is mandated. Athletic associations must establish a fund ($60M-$100M) for post-eligibility medical expenses for long-term conditions and financial hardship cases.
Sec. 108, Title I
Office of the Student Athlete Ombudsman
Intercollegiate athletic associations must establish an independent Office of the Student Athlete Ombudsman to provide free, confidential advice to student athletes on their rights, assist in dispute resolution, and educate them on the Act. The Ombudsman and staff are protected from compelled testimony and retaliation.
Sec. 114, Title I
Prohibited Compensation and Agreements (Revenue Share Cap and Retention Fund)
This section prohibits institutions, employees, or associated entities from arranging compensation that circumvents a 'revenue share cap' (defined by a court settlement). It allows an exception for a 'retention fund' of up to $22.5 million per academic year (plus an additional $5 million for non-revenue sports) to retain student athletes, but this exception sunsets after nine years and requires academic benchmarks. It also prohibits compensation to prospective student athletes before enrollment and requires certifications for third-party NIL deals to prevent indirect institutional payments.
Sec. 115, Title I
Congressional Approval of Continuation of Revenue Share Cap and Retention Fund
This section establishes a fast-track legislative process for Congress to approve the continuation of the revenue share cap and retention fund (from Sec. 114) if the underlying court settlement expires or terminates. If approved, the revenue share cap would increase by 4% annually for two years, then be recalculated based on 22% of Average Shared Revenue every three years, subject to independent audit.
Sec. 116, Title I
Commission on the Future of College Athletics
Establishes a 24-member Congressional Commission within the legislative branch to study and provide recommendations on the future of college athletics, including alternative compensation structures (like collective bargaining or employment status), protection of non-revenue sports, spending limitations, and the revenue share cap. It also creates a Student Athlete Retention Council within the Commission.
Sec. 118, Title I
Limitation on Antitrust Liability
This section grants intercollegiate athletic associations, conferences, and institutions an antitrust exemption for enforcing or complying with specific provisions of the Act, including those related to NIL, eligibility, transfers, recruitment, and agent registration. It also exempts sanctions (fines, restrictions) for violations of these provisions.
Sec. 125, Title I
Protection of Women's Sports and Olympic Sports
This section prohibits intercollegiate athletic associations and conferences from reducing minimum athletic competitions, participants, or varsity sports teams (including men's, women's, and Olympic sports) for Division I membership. It also requires large and mid-sized institutions to maintain grant-in-aid opportunities and roster spots for non-revenue generating sports at or above their 2024-2025 levels, with some waiver exceptions and sunset clauses.
Sec. 202, Title II
Antitrust Exemption for Collegiate Sports Broadcasting
This section amends the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 to extend antitrust exemptions to joint agreements among institutions or conferences that form a 'covered entity' to sell or transfer media rights for intercollegiate athletic competitions. This allows collective bargaining of media rights without violating antitrust laws, provided the covered entity complies with specific requirements.
Sec. 203, Title II
Requirements for Entities Selling Media Rights
This section sets conditions for the antitrust exemption for a 'covered entity' selling media rights. It mandates broad membership eligibility, specific voting rights (including for student athletes on revenue allocation), a revenue allocation formula (including minimum distributions and performance-based shares), protection for women's and Olympic sports, and requirements for contributing media rights (with exceptions for NCAA basketball tournaments and early College Football Playoff rights). It also includes provisions for preserving traditional rivalries.
Sec. 205, Title II
Prohibition on Certain Conference Mergers or Acquisition
This section makes it unlawful under antitrust laws for covered conferences (those reporting over $700M in revenue in FY2025 or later) to merge or acquire other covered conferences/institutions if it results in less than 75% of Football Bowl Subdivision institutions remaining, or to acquire non-covered institutions if it exceeds 20 member institutions. It also prohibits entities from creating new conferences by merging/acquiring multiple covered institutions. Such transactions are void and cannot be justified by procompetitive effects.
Sec. 302-307, Title III
HBCU Sports Media and Connectivity Program
This title establishes a competitive grant program, administered by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Telecommunications and Information in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to support long-term improvements to broadband, information technology, media infrastructure (including sports broadcast infrastructure), and local journalism at eligible HBCUs. Grants are for 2-5 years, with priority given to institutions demonstrating greatest need and limited capacity to raise funds. It authorizes $180 million annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2032.
The exception allowing institutions to exceed the revenue share cap for a 'retention fund' (up to $22.5 million annually, plus $5 million for non-revenue sports) is subject to a time limitation, applying only for a nine-year period beginning on the date of enactment.
Sec. 114(a)(2)(C), Title I
Why it matters:This is likely a compromise to allow for a period of institutional adjustment and athlete retention incentives, while signaling that this specific mechanism is not intended to be permanent without further review or reauthorization.
Case for: Proponents would argue that the sunset allows for a trial period to assess the effectiveness and impact of the retention fund, providing flexibility for future policy adjustments based on real-world outcomes.
Case against: Critics might contend that a nine-year sunset creates long-term uncertainty for institutions and athletes, making it difficult to plan and invest in retention strategies, and could lead to a 'cliff effect' when the period expires.
Estimated impact: Limits the duration of a significant financial flexibility mechanism for institutions, potentially impacting athlete retention strategies and institutional budgets after 2035.
Establishes a fast-track legislative process for Congress to approve the continuation of the revenue share cap and retention fund if the underlying court settlement (In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation) expires or terminates. This includes specific language for a 'joint resolution of approval' and expedited consideration rules in both the House and Senate.
Sec. 115, Title I
Why it matters:This is a tactical maneuver to ensure Congress retains ultimate control over the core financial structure of college athletics, particularly the revenue share cap, which is a highly contentious issue. The fast-track mechanism ensures a vote can occur without being bogged down by normal legislative procedures.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures democratic accountability and allows Congress to adapt the financial framework of college sports to future realities, preventing a single court settlement from permanently dictating policy without legislative input.
Case against: Critics might contend that such fast-track procedures limit debate and scrutiny, potentially leading to less informed decisions on critical financial matters for college sports. It also introduces political uncertainty into the system.
Estimated impact: Grants Congress a powerful, expedited mechanism to re-authorize or modify the revenue share cap and retention fund, fundamentally shaping the long-term financial model of college athletics.
Explicitly states that the entire title is neutral on, and does nothing to alter, employee or non-employee status for student athletes.
Sec. 122, Title I
Why it matters:This is a critical political compromise. The question of whether student athletes are employees is highly contentious and has significant legal and financial implications. By explicitly stating neutrality, the bill avoids taking a stance on this issue, allowing it to move forward without resolving a fundamental debate.
Case for: Proponents argue that this neutrality allows the bill to address pressing issues like NIL and athlete welfare without getting bogged down in the complex and divisive employee status debate, which can be addressed separately or through other legal avenues.
Case against: Critics might contend that avoiding the employee status question leaves a fundamental ambiguity in the legal landscape for student athletes, potentially leading to future litigation and uncertainty regarding their rights and protections.
Estimated impact: Preserves the status quo regarding the legal employment classification of student athletes, deferring a major policy decision.
Requires that each member institution of the 'covered entity' (for media rights sales) receives more collective media rights revenue (excluding College Football Playoff revenue) during each academic year than the largest amount of collective media rights revenue (excluding CFP revenue) that the institution received in any single academic year during the period of academic year 2021-2022 through academic year 2024-2025.
Sec. 203(d)(2)(A)(ii), Title II
Why it matters:This is a critical financial guarantee designed to ensure that institutions joining the new collective media rights entity will not see a reduction in their baseline media revenue, addressing a major concern for institutions considering such a move.
Case for: Proponents argue this guarantee provides financial stability and incentivizes institutions to join the collective media rights entity, ensuring they benefit from the new structure without risking a decrease in their established revenue streams.
Case against: Critics might contend that such a guarantee could disproportionately benefit institutions that had high revenues in the baseline period, potentially limiting the funds available for more equitable distribution or for supporting smaller programs.
Estimated impact: Ensures a floor for media rights revenue for participating institutions, potentially stabilizing their athletic department budgets.
Prohibits certain large conferences (over $700M in FY2025 revenue) from merging or acquiring other conferences/institutions if it leads to less than 75% of FBS institutions remaining, or if it results in more than 20 member institutions. It also prohibits creating new conferences by acquiring multiple covered institutions. These prohibitions are absolute, with no antitrust defenses.
Sec. 205, Title II
Why it matters:This is a direct legislative response to the recent trend of 'super conference' formation and is designed to halt further consolidation among the most powerful conferences. By making the prohibition absolute ('no defenses'), it removes judicial discretion and ensures the legislative intent is strictly enforced.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a necessary intervention to preserve competitive balance, protect smaller conferences, and maintain the diversity of collegiate athletics, preventing a few dominant conferences from monopolizing the sport.
Case against: Critics might argue that this is an artificial restraint on market forces and institutional autonomy, preventing conferences and institutions from making strategic decisions that could enhance their financial stability or competitive standing in a rapidly evolving landscape.
Estimated impact: Significantly restricts future conference realignment and consolidation among the wealthiest conferences, potentially freezing the current power structure or forcing alternative strategies for growth.