WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved major college sports legislation on Monday to revamp a beloved institution that has faced uncertainty from the explosion of name, image and likeness and unlimited transfers.
The Protect College Sports Act passed 77-22, with U.S. Sens. Katie Britt and Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., supporting the bill in the final vote. Each had previously voiced different hesitations with the bill throughout the legislative process and suggested amendments along the way.
The bipartisan measure, led by U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., hashed out over months of negotiations, would set national standards for student-athlete compensation, limit transfers and clarify eligibility rules.
It would create limited antitrust protections for the NCAA, shielding the organization from legal challenges related to those rules. The NCAA itself is one of the biggest cheerleaders of the Protect College Sports Act.
After final passage, NCAA President Charlie Baker applauded the bipartisan effort “to protect this uniquely American tradition of college sports in the decades to come.”
Before the final vote, senators voted on several amendments to the bill, including expanding the conference cap from 19 to 20 and limiting the scope of federal preemption for personal injury cases.
But Britt and Tuberville’s amendment that would make clear that NIL funds paid to athletes by separate entities associated with an institution, such as a collective, count against that institution’s revenue share cap, did not get a vote Monday night.
Cruz, one of the main authors, argued federal legislation was a necessary step to bring stability to the “chaos” of the college sports landscape.
“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,” he said.
Tuberville previously opposed the Protect College Sports Act, arguing that it was too broad and gave the federal government too large a role in college sports. The former Auburn football coach showed his distaste for the bill by voting against it on the first procedural vote.
In the end, though, Tuberville decided to support it after changes were made to the final measure and because of his deep connection to college sports. He previously told Alabama Daily News that “something has to be done” to tackle the “Wild West” of college sports.
Under the bill, student-athletes can transfer one time without penalty, minus a few exceptions such as pregnancy or mission work, and would have five years of eligibility. The Protect College Sports Act also restricts coaches from leaving universities mid-season.
If any school wants to move to a different Power Four conference, they will have to be “independent” for three years, down from five years in the original bill text. That’s something Britt wanted to see changed.
Opponents say bill doesn’t protect college athletes
Despite sweeping bipartisan support, the Protect College Sports Act has garnered strong opposition from some Senate Democrats, labor rights groups and the NAACP.
The critics argue the bill would strip away athletes’ rights and does not go far enough to rein in runaway spending in college sports.
“College athletes need a say in the terms and conditions of their work, but this bill would silence athletes and empower the NCAA,” the AFL-CIO said on social media Monday.
Standing on the Senate floor before the final vote, former Stanford football player U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., outlined his opposition to the antitrust exemptions for the NCAA included in the bill.
“This means less accountability for the NCAA and fewer tools for athletes to challenge the NCAA’s abuses of power when they have an incredible track record of abusing their power,” Booker, one of the most ardent opponents of the bill, said.
He also objected to the Senate spending its last week in session before the midterms on a college sports bill when “gas is at $5” and “diesel costs are record high.”
What’s next
The Protect College Sports Act now heads to the U.S. House, where its fate is uncertain. The bill is unlikely to be considered in the lower chamber before the midterms as lawmakers are scheduled to be out of session until Nov. 9.
The Congressional Black Caucus has also expressed opposition to the bill, arguing Black voices of athletes, coaches and historically Black colleges and universities have not been “meaningfully” involved in helping craft the legislation.
“It falls short of providing Black athletes with the rights, representation, economic opportunities, and meaningful safeguards they deserve, while also failing to adequately recognize the interests of Black coaches, Black agents, HBCUs, and other professionals whose futures will be shaped by this legislation,” the caucus said in a statement last month.