The business of college sports could be facing another major reset. On September 28, 2026, the U.S. Senate passed the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act of 2026 S. 4668) (PCSA) by a 77–22 vote. The bill, authored by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), now heads to the House of Representatives, where its path is anything but certain.  If ultimately enacted, the PCSA would establish a federal framework governing several of the issues that have reshaped college athletics over the past five years, including name image and likeness (NIL) compensation, athlete representation, transfers, eligibility and the NCAA’s exposure to antitrust litigation.

The bill is not yet law, and the House of Representatives may amend the Senate’s version of the legislation. But sports industry participants should begin evaluating its potential impact now. For universities and conferences, the legislation could provide something they have sought for years: greater ability to establish and enforce uniform rules without facing the same level of antitrust exposure.

For athletes, agents, collectives, and businesses operating in the college sports ecosystem; however, the legislation could materially change how deals are structured and how athletes move between institutions.

Over the past several years, college athletics has been drastically reshaped by NIL, the transfer portal, the House v. NCAA settlement,[1] and direct revenue sharing just to name a few. The PCSA is Congress’s most significant attempt to date to put a federal framework around the post-House marketplace. Since there is a lot to unpack in this bill, we’ve highlighted five takeaways we believe athletes, agents, schools, brands, collectives, and other businesses operating in sports should be watching.

1. The NCAA Would Get an Antitrust Exemption

Perhaps the most significant legal development is the legislation’s treatment of antitrust law. For years, the NCAA has faced antitrust challenges to rules restricting athlete compensation and other economic activity. Those cases have steadily changed the leverage between athletes, schools, and the NCAA. The PCSA would change that dynamic by providing antitrust protection for certain rules governing college sports, including rules related to athlete eligibility, transfers, and compensation. [2] This legislation does not eliminate NIL. However, it attempts to place NIL within a regulated national system, controlled by the NCAA.

For schools and conferences, the legislation could provide greater certainty and room to establish uniform national rules. For athletes and their representatives, it could narrow one of the most effective legal tools used over the past decade to challenge NCAA restrictions. If the bill becomes law, expect the precise boundaries of that antitrust protection to be closely examined.

2. NIL Is Not Going Away, but May Very Look Different

The current NIL marketplace has developed against a patchwork of state statutes, NCAA rules, conference requirements, and evolving judicial decisions. The PCSA would move toward a federal regulatory structure and preempt certain inconsistent state requirements.

Since 2021, athletes, schools, and collectives have been navigating a patchwork NIL framework consisting of state laws, NCAA policies, conference rules, and court decisions. That has created opportunities, but it has also created uncertainty and confusion particularly for companies and athletes operating across multiple states.

The PCSA attempts to replace at least part of that patchwork with a more uniform federal framework and would preempt certain conflicting state NIL laws. From a transactional standpoint, this is a win because NIL agreements cannot be viewed as simple endorsement deals. Rather, lawyers and agents need to consider multiple factors including the athlete’s eligibility, institutional compensation, disclosure requirements, agent rules as well as what happens if the regulatory environment changes during the term of the agreement.

3. The PCSA Would Set Key Terms of Athlete Compensation Without Collective Bargaining

The economics of college athletics have changed quickly following the House settlement. However, the Senate bill aims to address the rapidly evolving system of athletes potentially receiving compensation through their schools while separately earning money from third-party NIL arrangements.

But the PCSA goes beyond simply regulating NIL or institutional compensation. In many respects, the legislation would establish by federal statute the rules governing issues that athletes might otherwise seek to negotiate collectively, including compensation, benefits, scholarship protections, medical coverage, transfer rights, eligibility, and other aspects of the athlete-school relationship. Rather than those terms being negotiated through a collective bargaining process, athletes would operate within a framework established by Congress and college sports governing bodies.

That distinction is significant. In professional sports, many of the economic terms and protections affecting athletes are negotiated collectively between players and management. The PCSA would instead establish many of those terms legislatively, even while leaving the broader question of athlete employment status unresolved.

Under the PCSA federal framework, institutions and other participants in the college sports ecosystem will be permitted to compensate athletes under specified conditions. That means NIL agreements, institutional compensation arrangements, collective agreements, and endorsement contracts will no longer be evaluated in isolation as standalone commercial agreements, but as components of a broader compensation system.

What used to be viewed primarily as an NCAA compliance issue is quickly becoming a sophisticated business and legal issue. For athletes or agents, the question will no longer be, “what is this NIL deal worth?”; instead, it will become: “what is the total economic package; what rights are being given up; and what restrictions come with the money?” Schools will need to think about this the same way. Compensation decisions affect recruitment and retention, roster construction, Olympic and non-revenue sports, donor relationships, and athletic department budgets.

4. New Rules for Agents and Representatives

This part of the bill has received less attention than the NCAA antitrust provisions, but it could have a very practical impact on the people representing athletes. Among other requirements, the legislation would amend the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act and impose additional federal requirements on athlete representation.

Notably, the PCSA places a 5% cap on agent fees for certain endorsement contracts, along with additional requirements surrounding registration, certification, and athlete representation agreements.

For established agencies, this could require changes to existing contract forms and compensation models. For athletes and their families, it makes understanding the representation agreement even more important. Particular attention should be paid to provisions addressing:

• Who is representing the athlete?
• What services are actually being provided?
• How long does the agreement last?
• What happens when the athlete transfers?
• Who controls or receives commissions on deals signed during the relationship?
• Does the agent continue receiving compensation after termination?
• How does NIL representation and future professional representation interact?

Those are questions we are already asking when reviewing athlete representation agreements. If this legislation becomes law, some of those issues will have federal rules attached to them. Agents, agencies, and lawyers representing athletes should be reviewing their forms now rather than waiting until a new law takes effect.

5. Transfers and Eligibility Could Become Much More Regulated

The transfer portal has become one of the defining features of modern college sports. The Senate legislation would give governing bodies greater ability to establish and enforce uniform rules involving transfers and eligibility, while also imposing statutory protections and limitations. Student athletes could potentially face significantly less flexibility than they have become accustomed to in recent years. On the other hand, for schools and coaches, it could provide greater roster certainty and team continuity. But it also means recruiting and roster-management practices will need to be evaluated carefully against whatever federal framework ultimately emerges.

The practical takeaway for athletes is simple: before entering the portal, an athlete should fully understand what happens to their playing eligibility, institutional compensation, and NIL agreements, as well as the potential consequences related to housing and scholarships as a result of moving between institutions.

What Should the Sports Industry Do Now?

For now, no immediate contractual changes are required simply because the Senate passed the bill. The House of Representatives still has to act, and the legislation could look different by the time this process is finished. But waiting until enactment to begin analyzing these issues would be a mistake.

Universities and Conferences should begin mapping existing NIL, compensation, transfer, and eligibility policies against the Senate framework and identifying areas that could require revision.

Athletes and Families should understand how the proposed legislation could affect NIL agreements, agent relationships, transfer decisions, and institutional compensation.

Agents and Athlete Representatives should review representation agreements, commission structures, registration requirements, and NIL contracting practices.

Collectives and NIL businesses should evaluate how their payment structures, athlete agreements, and relationships with universities could operate under a federal framework.

Brands and Sponsors should continue to facilitate NIL transactions but should build enough flexibility into agreements to address changes in federal law, NCAA rules, and athlete eligibility.

Investors and Businesses Operating in College Sports should account for the possibility that federal legislation will materially change the regulatory and litigation risk associated with the sector.

College athletics is moving toward a model that looks increasingly like a sophisticated sports business with revenue sharing, athlete representation, and regulated compensation. The Protect College Sports Act is another step in that evolution. Whether the House of Representatives ultimately passes this version of the bill remains to be seen. But the Senate vote proves that the conversation has moved well beyond whether college athletes should be compensated. Congress is now setting the stage to decide who gets to set the rules for a multi-billion dollar sports economy and what rights athletes, schools, and businesses will have within it.

Taft’s Sports attorneys are monitoring the Protect College Sports Act and developments in the House of Representatives. Please contact Marcus Sandifer, Sydney Hargrove, Meagan Sunn, Jarrod Loadholt or a member of Taft’s Sports practice group with questions about how these developments may affect athlete representation, NIL agreements, sponsorships, institutional compensation, or other sports-related business arrangements.

---

[1] House v. NCAA, 545 F.Supp.3d 804 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (House).

[2] Another consideration for the future is how, if at all, the commercial restraint analysis and federal protections will change in light of the NCAA’s shift in Division I eligibility from a Five-Year Rule to a Five-Season Rule.   See Meghan Durham Wright, Division I adopts age-based eligibility model, NCAA, https://www.ncaa.org/news/2026/6/23/media-center-division-i-adopts-age-based-eligibility-model.aspx, June 23, 2026.