Can a bipartisan U.S. Senate bill finally bridge the traditional structure of college sports and its new, athlete-empowered era?
Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced Wednesday they plan to introduce the “Protect College Sports Act of 2026” during the 119th Congress’ current session. Its provisions would both protect athletes’ income rights while also increasing enforcement of third-party deals. It would establish guardrails schools and conferences say are essential, while bringing some sanity to the annual coaching carousel.
Sources with knowledge of the situation told IndyStar Commerce Committee hearings could begin as soon as next week. The resolution of that process could take months to unfold.
The bill checks a number of boxes an athletic program such as Purdue would deem favorable, if not essential. It takes another step toward evening the playing field on athlete compensation. It moves to stabilize eligibility questions, so programs no longer must wonder whether deciding not to push the envelope there means playing at a disadvantage.
Previous attempts to impose those rules have been struck down by courts going on several years now. This bill grants the NCAA limited antitrust rights to enforce those rules without fear of facing more lawsuits.
Bipartisan origins might be necessary to pass this bill through the Senate, but politics is not the only potential obstacle.
Unlike in professional sports, college athletes do not have labor representation or contracts which require collective bargaining to negotiate those guidelines. The unilateral imposition of restrictions on transfer or income rights triggered lawsuits which eventually overturned college sports’ previous amateurism model.
This bill includes many protections for athletes – even enhancements compared to the current system. For instance, agents would need certification from the “Intercollegiate Athletic Association,” and their commissions or fees would be capped at 5%.
The bill would require all schools to cover sports-related medical bills for five years after their final competition. A $60 million trust fund would help smaller schools provide long-term care for athlete injuries.
Athletes would have no-cost access to an ombudsman to help resolve concerns with schools, conferences or the NCAA. The bill would also preempt any state or local laws regarding NIL, transfers and other factors.
At the same time, the bill also strengthens the College Sports Commission’s ability to enforce existing revenue share and name, image and likeness rules. As set up via the House v. NCAA settlement, schools can share up to $21.3 million in media rights revenues in the coming year. Third-party NIL deals allow teams to spend beyond that limit.
Those deals must be legitimate, though. While the CSC currently has oversight of them, with an arbitration process for athletes to dispute rejected deals, coaches around college sports have been vocal about a lack of enforcement. The bill would grant the CSC power to reject deals not based on a legitimate business purpose without threat of lawsuits.
That could be interpreted as limiting athlete income opportunities, something courts across the country have stopped the NCAA from enforcing. Notably, the bill does not cross the line into declaring athletes to be non-employees. It keeps alive the conversation of employee status and collective bargaining.
Among other potential benefits, athletes would begin their careers with five years of eligibility, as opposed to the current four. That change has already been working its way through the NCAA governance process.
College athletes – and high school prospects – also would no longer fear losing an opportunity to a professional coming back to school. Pros would be prohibited from reclaiming eligibility. However, foreign professionals who received compensation beyond certain kinds of prize money would also be ineligible to play college sports.
Purdue men’s basketball guard Omer Mayer and others coming from EuroLeague clubs would need to follow those guidelines. Same for former Purdue big man Oscar Cluff, who played for a club in his native Australia.
Cluff also transferred three times, moving from junior college, to Washington State, to South Dakota State and finally Purdue. Athletes now would be allowed only one transfer without sitting out, except for certain exceptions such as a coaching change. Courts have also shot down this limitation in the past.
Speaking of transfer restrictions, though, coaches would face them as well. No more Lane Kiffins departing Ole Miss for LSU in the middle of the College Football Playoff chase. Coaches would prohibit such movement until both the originating and destination schools have completed competition, including the postseason.
That clause speaks to the very issue of fairness which sent college sports down this road years ago. If you’re going to impose any restrictions on the movement of players – timing, frequency, etc. – then you must be willing to impose some on the coaches.
The bill also says one-third of any athletic association governing boards of rulemaking committees must consist of current or recent athletes. That speaks to the other crucial issue – whether athletes have a voice in this process, or whether they must simply accept what’s handed to them.
IndyStar IU insider Zach Osterman contributed to this story.
Nathan Baird and Sam King have the best Purdue sports coverage, and sign up for IndyStar’s Boilermakers newsletter.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: How college sports could change with US Senate bill Ted Cruz, Maria Cantwell plan to introduce
Reporting by Nathan Baird, Indianapolis Star / Indianapolis Star
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
