Story
Oct 1, 2026
Senate Says It Is Saving College Sports—Critics Say It Is Stripping Athletes of Power
A bipartisan Senate bill promises standardized NIL payments, transfer rules and health protections, but opponents warn it could limit athletes’ ability to sue, bargain collectively and shape the future of college sports.
The Senate’s sweeping college-sports overhaul is being sold as a rescue mission—but athlete advocates see a power grab disguised as reform.
The Protect College Sports Act passed 77-22 with bipartisan support, establishing federal rules for name, image and likeness payments, transfers, athlete safety and revenue sharing. Its backers argue that a national framework is urgently needed as money floods into college athletics and inconsistent court rulings leave schools and athletes navigating an unstable system.
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, the bill’s sponsor, called the current model “unsustainable, plain and simple,” pointing to repeated transfers, legal uncertainty and the risk that colleges will cut less lucrative sports.1 The NCAA likewise praised the measure as a bipartisan effort to preserve college sports and urged the House to codify its provisions into law.1
The bill would permit roughly $21.6 million in annual athlete revenue sharing per institution beginning in 2026-27, create a further retention fund and allow one transfer without loss of eligibility. Supporters, including Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, say those benefits could give athletes meaningful financial security while protecting women’s and Olympic sports, healthcare and whistleblower rights.1
Critics see the same provisions differently. Sen. Cory Booker said the bill could “undermine their rights, undermine their collective bargaining, undermine their health and safety,” while limiting athletes’ ability to challenge the NCAA in court.1 He argued that athletes won NIL rights through litigation and that Congress moved only after those victories threatened the existing system.
The Congressional Black Caucus added that the legislation failed to incorporate the perspectives of Black athletes, coaches, agents, HBCUs and the caucus itself.1 That criticism exposes the bill’s central divide: supporters emphasize uniformity and stability, while opponents question who controls the new rules—and who may lose leverage under them.
The measure now heads to the House, though lawmakers may not take it up until after the midterm elections, raising further questions about why Congress prioritized college sports over more immediate affordability concerns.