WASHINGTON – The Senate is on track to pass a significant bipartisan bill on Monday aimed at regulating college sports. This legislative effort seeks to address the “chaos” that has emerged in the industry due to rising payments for athletes and the increasingly unrestricted nature of player transfers between schools.
If passed, this legislation would represent the most substantial attempt by Congress to establish national regulations concerning payments to student-athletes for their name, image, and likeness (NIL), as well as the frequency with which they may transfer schools. The bill would also grant the NCAA new authority to oversee these rules and provide limited antitrust protections to enforce them.
The bill has emerged from years of negotiations within the Senate, particularly following a pivotal 2025 lawsuit settlement that transformed the landscape of college sports by allowing colleges to compensate their players directly. While this legislation must still be approved by the House, it aims to codify the court settlement and introduce new regulations to help manage soaring costs faced by colleges.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) emphasized the necessity of Congressional intervention, stating, “It would be nice if college sports could somehow magically fix itself, but this is a matter of law, federal law, and only Congress can fix it.” Cruz collaborated with Washington Senator Maria Cantwell, the committee’s leading Democrat, to negotiate the bill.
More than 70 senators from both parties support the bill, which aims to reduce ongoing litigation and uncertainty in the realm of college sports for athletes, universities, and fans. It also proposes enhanced health and labor protections for the hundreds of thousands of student-athletes involved.
However, critics argue that the bill falls short of adequately protecting athletes or addressing the massive financial influx directed towards coaches, universities, and athletic conferences. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy expressed concern, stating, “This is a bill that essentially ensconces a system of exploitation, and it doesn’t fix the broader problems.”
Former President Donald Trump has shown interest in the legislation, and the White House formally endorsed it last month. Yet, the bill may face challenges in the House, which has struggled to advance a different version over the past year and is currently in recess until after the November elections. Should the bill fail to pass both chambers by year’s end, lawmakers would need to start anew in the next Congress.
Addressing Rising Costs and Transfer Policies
The college sports landscape has been significantly impacted since the 2025 court settlement that allowed colleges to pay players for their NIL rights, leading to football roster payrolls surpassing $40 million. The proposed legislation seeks to codify these settlement terms, including a revenue cap that permits schools to share up to $21.5 million with their players. Additionally, it would enable some institutions to increase this amount by up to $27.5 million through a retention fund and allow schools to pool their media rights to potentially generate more revenue.
The bill also intends to stabilize the NCAA transfer portal, which has seen an influx of players switching teams. It would limit player transfers to one “free” move within a five-year period without the requirement of sitting out a year, with some exceptions, and it restricts players to five total years of eligibility. This eligibility limit comes in response to growing concerns regarding schools pushing the boundaries, exemplified by LSU’s now-abandoned plans to roster players who had participated in NFL training camps.
Furthermore, the legislation seeks to prevent coaches from leaving their schools during the season and restricts conferences from expanding beyond 19 programs, aiming to deter the formation of “superleagues.” It would also require schools seeking to change conferences to spend three years as independents, a reduction from the five years initially proposed, garnering support from institutions like Florida State and Clemson.
Debate and Criticism of the Bill
While the bill includes new protections for athletes, such as caps on agent fees and guarantees for health insurance and scholarships, critics assert that it does not sufficiently limit the vast sums of money circulating in college sports. Murphy pointed out that while the legislation places a cap on student-athletes’ share of the revenue, there are no restrictions on the salaries of coaches or the size of donations to athletic programs.
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia expressed concern that the new antitrust protections might hinder athletes from pursuing legal action against universities, stating, “taking away their legal rights strikes me as a bridge too far.” Additionally, organizations such as the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the AFL-CIO have voiced opposition, particularly regarding the unresolved question of whether athletes should be classified as employees with collective bargaining rights.
The bill has faced opposition from several Black Democratic senators, including Cory Booker, Raphael Warnock, Lisa Blunt Rochester, and Angela Alsobrooks. Booker, a former college athlete himself, acknowledged the opportunities he received from college athletics but highlighted the injustices perpetuated by the NCAA, stating, “I saw how unjust the NCAA is.”
Some Republicans have also criticized the bill, arguing that it represents an overreach of federal involvement in collegiate athletics. Senator Rick Scott of Florida remarked that the legislation “goes way too far inserting the federal government into collegiate athletics.”
Uncertain Path in the House
Despite the strong bipartisan support in the Senate, the bill’s future in the House remains uncertain. Lawmakers will not reconvene until mid-November, after the elections, and it is unclear what Republican leaders will prioritize in the session’s final weeks. Although pressure from Trump could aid in advancing the bill, some House Republicans have insisted on including explicit language stating that athletes are not employees, a stipulation not present in the Senate bill and a key bargaining point for Cantwell to secure Democratic support.
Tim Walberg, Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and Brett Guthrie, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both emphasized that any enduring framework must address the central issue of whether student-athletes will be treated as employees. “Congress cannot deliver real stability, consistency, or certainty to schools, conferences, and student-athletes while leaving that question unresolved,” they stated.
