Senate passes college sports bill with athlete protections and more NCAA power

Athletes could generally transfer once without sitting out a year and would have five years of eligibility, subject to exceptions. The bill would also establish national rules for payments connected to athletes’ names, images and likenesses. Schools and conferences could pool television media rights, another provision with consequences for how institutions manage the money flowing through college sports.

Players would gain limits on agent fees, health-insurance and scholarship protections, and minimum sports and roster requirements intended to preserve opportunities in women’s and Olympic sports. Those safeguards matter to athletes outside the highest-paid teams. Whether the minimum requirements would preserve those opportunities in practice remains an open question.

The NCAA would gain power to enforce the rules

Supporters have a serious argument for federal action. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican negotiator, says the system’s legal problems require Congress to act. Democratic negotiator Sen. Maria Cantwell defends revenue-sharing as recognition of athletes’ right to a share and points to the bill’s protections. A national framework could give schools and athletes clearer terms than continued legal uncertainty.

But protections are not the same as power over the terms of a deal. Sen. Chris Murphy opposes capping athletes’ share without comparable caps on coaches’ salaries or donations to athletic programs. Schools would gain certainty about one major payment obligation; athletes would have a ceiling on direct revenue-sharing without a settled right to negotiate it collectively.

The NCAA’s antitrust protection would be limited to specified enforcement authority, not a blanket shield from lawsuits. Even so, Sen. Tim Kaine warned it could make it harder for athletes to sue universities. Sen. Cory Booker told CBS News that athletes won their rights to payments for use of their names, images and likenesses in court. He fears the bill would weaken a legal route athletes have used to challenge the system.

The House could change the bargain further

The NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus and AFL-CIO oppose the bill in part because it leaves athletes’ employee status and collective-bargaining rights unresolved. That is the central limit of the Senate compromise: it promises safeguards while leaving open whether athletes can negotiate with the institutions that set their pay and eligibility rules.

Supporters see national standards and protections for scholarships, health insurance and sports beyond the biggest programs. Opponents see an imbalance when the NCAA receives new enforcement authority while athletes’ bargaining rights remain uncertain. Both concerns matter; the protections do not erase the question of who gets to shape and challenge the rules.

Some House Republicans want language declaring athletes are not employees, which the Senate bill lacks. The House is in recess until after the November elections, and Congress would have to start over in the next Congress if it does not pass the bill by year’s end. Whether the House adds that language could further narrow athletes’ path to bargaining over college sports.