The Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act on Monday night with a bipartisan vote of 77-22, marking a significant legislative step in addressing the financial and legal challenges facing collegiate athletics. Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a primary author of the bill, expressed hope that the House would return to Washington within four weeks to pass identical legislation, allowing President Donald Trump to sign it into law during a pre-game show this fall. However, the House is not scheduled to reconvene until after the midterm elections, creating a timeline that Senator Cruz and other backers acknowledge is far from certain.
The bill aims to stabilize college sports by providing antitrust protections to the NCAA and establishing a new framework for revenue sharing with student-athletes. Despite its passage in the Senate, the measure faces substantial opposition in the House and from civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, which argues the legislation fails to adequately protect student-athletes. The legislative path forward remains complicated by partisan disagreements over employment status for athletes and concerns about government overreach.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic opposition to the bill centers on concerns that it does not go far enough in protecting student-athletes, particularly regarding their legal standing and financial security. NAACP President Derrick Johnson stated that the bill "will only serve to harm student-athletes," comparing the current system to "sharecropping." This sentiment aligns with previous actions by the Congressional Black Caucus and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who opposed the rival SCORE Act earlier this year, declaring, "If the SEC schools are for it, we are against it." Senator Cory Booker, D-N.J., noted that if Democrats win the House in the midterms, they would have the opportunity to author a bill that "corrects for a lot of the failings" in the current Senate proposal. Some Democrats argue that the bill's neutrality on the employment status of athletes is a missed opportunity to resolve labor disputes, while others fear it entrenches the NCAA's power at the expense of players.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative support for the bill is driven by a desire to limit litigation costs for universities and the NCAA, though some Republicans express concern about federal overreach. Senator Ted Cruz argued that the bill is the "best chance to control runaway spending" and stabilize the ecosystem, calling its passage a "win-win for everybody." However, not all Republicans are supportive; some view the antitrust protections as insufficient or the federal intervention as unnecessary. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., emphasized earlier this year that any House legislation must prevent student-athletes from being classified as employees to avoid imposing additional financial burdens on schools. Randy Levine, vice chair of Trump's Roundtable on Fixing College Sports, dismissed rumors about the House's trajectory, stating, "I think what's out there is all rumor," while highlighting the complexity of turning college players into employees under current labor laws. President Trump has also expressed support for the bill, making college sports reform a priority of his administration.
What the Numbers Show
The Senate vote was 77-22, indicating broad bipartisan support at the federal level. The bill proposes increasing the amount of revenue schools are allowed to share with athletes from $21.5 million to $48.8 million through a new "retention pool" designed to keep current players. This pool aims to shift third-party Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals under the spending cap, addressing what bill co-author Cody Campbell described as "cap-circumvention games." The legislation does not impact ongoing lawsuits, including those related to the NCAA's new rule allowing athletes five seasons of eligibility over five years. The NCAA has spent millions on attorney fees due to repeated litigation, including recent cases involving LSU and NFL training camp players. The House previously failed to pass its own bill, the SCORE Act, which was considered less favorable to athletes. The NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus opposed the SCORE Act following a Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, leading Democratic co-sponsors Janelle Bynum and Shomari Figures to withdraw their support.
The Bottom Line
The Protect College Sports Act now faces a critical test in the House, where its fate depends on the outcomes of the upcoming midterm elections and the ability to navigate partisan divisions. If the House does not act before January 1, the NCAA and conferences may resort to self-governance models, though such plans face significant antitrust challenges. Conferences have discussed adopting higher revenue caps independently, but this would require altering the $2.8 billion House settlement and would not prevent lawsuits. The uncertainty surrounding the bill's passage leaves college athletics in a state of flux, with institutions waiting to see whether federal law will provide the stability and legal protections that the NCAA and many universities seek. The involvement of President Trump could influence the timeline, but the NAACP's opposition and potential Democratic gains in the House suggest that the legislative battle is far from over.