Senate Passes Sweeping Bipartisan Bill to Regulate College Sports

The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed a comprehensive bipartisan bill Monday that seeks to establish national regulations for college sports, aiming to curb the 'chaos' introduced by escalating athlete payments and frequent player transfers. The 77-22 vote represents a significant congressional effort to provide a framework for name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation and athlete transfers.

The bill, a result of years of Senate negotiations that intensified following a 2025 court settlement allowing colleges to pay athletes, would codify this settlement into law while introducing new rules to manage costs for educational institutions. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, who co-negotiated the bill with Sen. Maria Cantwell, stated that federal law is necessary to address the issues within college sports.

Supporters, including over 70 senators from both parties, contend the legislation will reduce ongoing litigation and uncertainty for athletes, schools, and fans, while also providing hundreds of thousands of student-athletes with enhanced health and labor protections. However, critics argue the bill falls short in protecting athletes and controlling the substantial financial flows to coaches, colleges, and conferences. Sen. Chris Murphy expressed concern that the bill "essentially ensconces a system of exploitation."

The bill's path forward remains uncertain. While President Donald Trump has shown interest and the White House has endorsed the legislation, it faces potential challenges in the House of Representatives. The House has previously struggled to advance similar versions of the bill and is in recess until after the November elections. If the bill does not pass both chambers by the end of the year, lawmakers will need to restart the process in the next Congress.

College sports have been significantly impacted by the 2025 settlement, leading to NIL deals that have resulted in substantial payrolls for football programs, with some exceeding $40 million. The proposed legislation includes a revenue cap allowing schools to share up to $21.5 million with players, with an additional $27.5 million available through a retention fund, a provision designed to gain support from major conferences.

To help schools generate more revenue, the bill would permit the pooling of TV media rights. It also aims to stabilize the NCAA transfer portal by restricting players to one "free" transfer over five years without sitting out, with limited exceptions, and capping total eligibility at five years. This addresses concerns raised by the increasingly permissive approach to transfers, exemplified by LSU's now-canceled plans involving players who had attended NFL training camps.

Further measures in the bill include restrictions on coaches leaving schools during the season, a three-year waiting period for conferences wishing to switch affiliations, and limitations on conference size to 20 programs to prevent the formation of "superleagues." A last-minute amendment by Sen. Ashley Moody adjusted the conference size cap from the original 19 programs.

Negotiations on several amendments delayed the vote, including provisions related to sexual assault lawsuits and the disclosure of foreign financing. Amendments rejected by the Senate included limits on ticket prices, caps on coaches' salaries, and increased compensation for athletes with catastrophic injuries.

The legislation incorporates new athlete protections, such as caps on agent fees and guarantees for health insurance and scholarships. It also mandates that schools maintain a minimum number of sports and roster spots to safeguard non-revenue-generating sports like women's and Olympic sports from being cut.

Despite bipartisan support in the Senate, some Democrats, including Sens. Cory Booker, Raphael Warnock, Lisa Blunt Rochester, and Angela Alsobrooks, have opposed the bill. They argue it inadequately limits the vast sums of money in college sports, particularly coaches' salaries and donations, while capping athletes' revenue share. Concerns also persist regarding whether athletes should be classified as employees with collective bargaining rights, an issue the bill does not resolve. These opponents highlight the significant role of Black athletes in college sports and express skepticism about the bill's true beneficiaries, suggesting it grants excessive power to the NCAA, especially concerning antitrust exemptions.