A bipartisan college sports bill is no substitute for athlete power

That text would also create an Office of the Student Athlete Ombudsman to offer independent advice at no cost. Free advice could help an athlete navigate a disputed benefit or rule. It would not, on its own, let that athlete change the rule.

Time matters, too. The Associated Press reported that the proposal would allow one transfer without sitting out a year, subject to exceptions. The Sept. 17 text generally limits eligibility to five calendar years, with exceptions. Those limits affect whether changing schools costs an athlete a season and how long that athlete can compete.

Who controls the money and the rules?

Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz argues that national rules would stabilize college sports. That case deserves consideration: a 2025 court settlement allowed colleges to pay athletes directly, and the measure would set nationwide rules for compensation tied to athletes’ names, images and likenesses. Sen. Maria Cantwell, a bill negotiator, has defended revenue sharing and the proposed athlete safeguards.

But permission to pay athletes is not a promise of a particular paycheck. The Sept. 17 text caps school revenue sharing and permits additional spending to retain athletes who have completed at least one full competitive season at their school. It allows an institution to exceed the cap by up to $22.5 million per academic year for that purpose—not a guaranteed payment to any athlete.

Published figures for the money rules differ, and the Sept. 17 text predates the Senate’s floor amendments. Congress should clarify the final limits before asking the House to vote. Even then, a cap on what schools can share with athletes merits scrutiny when critics say comparable limits do not apply to coaches’ salaries or athletic-program donations.

The other side of the bargain is authority. The measure would expand NCAA rulemaking and enforcement power, with limited antitrust protection for specified rules. National standards could bring consistency. They could also strengthen institutions whose decisions athletes may need to challenge.

Board seats are not the same as bargaining power

The Sept. 17 text requires current or former athletes to hold at least one-third of the membership and voting power on certain athletic-association governing boards and rulemaking committees. That would give athletes a voice in those bodies, though it would not guarantee seats for current athletes facing eligibility and compensation decisions now. The available text predates the Senate’s amendments, so the House should establish what representation the final Senate-passed measure provides.

The committee says its Sept. 17 revisions generally preserve pending lawsuits and damages claims over past conduct. That does not resolve how readily athletes could challenge rules protected by the measure in the future. Sen. Tim Kaine has raised that concern about athletes’ ability to sue universities.

The proposal also leaves athletes’ employee status unresolved: its text is neutral on whether they are employees. It does not establish collective bargaining rights. The NAACP and AFL-CIO opposed the measure in part over that unresolved question. The Congressional Black Caucus said the perspectives of Black athletes, coaches and agents, historically Black colleges and universities, and the caucus itself had not been meaningfully incorporated.

Those objections do not erase the value of medical coverage or independent advice. They ask what leverage athletes would have if those protections fall short.

The House should demand an athlete voice that lasts

Cantwell has said a proposed commission could address unresolved questions such as collective bargaining. But a commission’s study of athletes’ potential financial interests is not an immediate grant of rights. Schools and athletic associations stand to get a clearer framework for setting and enforcing rules; athletes need more than a promise to revisit their power later.

The House has not approved the bill. Before it does, it should require enforceable participation by current athletes in rulemaking, protect their ability to pursue employee status and collective bargaining, and narrow antitrust protections so they can challenge future rules. The people facing the medical bills and eligibility clocks need safeguards they can use—and a voice when those safeguards fall short.