Every fan has witnessed the recent seismic shift. College sports are now big business, and talented college athletes can reap big rewards. The changes have been rapid, following the NCAA’s adoption of a Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policy in 2021, the perpetual reconfiguration of conferences, the rise of the transfer portal, and the revenue-sharing system resulting from the House v. NCAA settlement.
The Protect College Sports Act (PCSA) would continue to reshape the college sports landscape by establishing a national framework for athlete compensation, athlete protection, transfers, revenue sharing, and conference realignment. After passing the Senate with a supermajority and garnering White House support, the question now is whether the House will also pass PCSA after the recent midterm elections.
In addition to their roles as college alumni and fans, lawmakers in Washington have wrestled with the legal framework underpinning NIL, recruiting, transfers, athlete protections, antitrust, and the patchwork of state laws now governing college sports.
PCSA is Congress’s most comprehensive effort yet. And there’s considerable momentum behind it, after a 77-22 vote in the Senate in September and formal endorsement from the White House. However, critical House constituencies, House procedure, and post-election uncertainty make final passage far from guaranteed during the 2026 lame-duck session.
What’s in the Protect College Sports Act?
As passed by the Senate, PCSA would address the following major issues facing the industry:
- Establish a federal right for athletes to earn NIL compensation and preempt certain state laws governing NIL, transfers, and eligibility
- Codify key elements of the revenue-sharing framework established by the House v. NCAA settlement
- Establish national rules on transfers, eligibility, recruiting, and athlete agents
- Provide academic, scholarship, health, safety, and medical protections for athletes, backed in part by a private right of action
- Offer protections intended to preserve women’s sports and Olympic sports
- Limit certain antitrust liability while remaining neutral on whether college athletes are “employees”
- Create a framework for pooling media rights, including an antitrust exemption and requirements governing revenue distribution and local broadcast access
- Restrict certain conference mergers and realignment, including limiting certain high-revenue conferences from expanding beyond 20 schools and requiring a conference-switching school to spend three years as an independent
While this omnibus college sports package gained supermajority support in the Senate, the path across the House floor remains uncertain.
Will the House Pass the Protect College Sports Act?
PCSA arrives in the House with significant support, but a fractured coalition. House views on the bill cut across party lines, and House constituencies have varied sets of priorities. For example, the Congressional Black Caucus has made clear its opposition to PCSA in its current form, raising concerns about athlete rights, antitrust, and treatment of historically Black colleges and universities. A group of House Republicans suggested adding binding limits on roster spots and scholarships available to international athletes.
There are regional concerns as well. More than 20 House members—many from Florida and the Carolinas—have asked House leadership to remove or substantially change PCSA’s conference-realignment restrictions. Some universities, including Florida State, Miami, Clemson, and UNC, have made a related request, inserting Atlantic Coast Conference internal dynamics directly into the debate in Congress.
Committees of jurisdiction have their own interests. House Energy & Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Education & Workforce Chair Tim Walberg (R-MI) have criticized the Senate approach for leaving athlete employment status unresolved and adding new private rights of action, which they argue could invite further litigation.
Separately, top Energy & Commerce Democrat Frank Pallone (D-NJ) seeks stronger athlete protections while opposing broad antitrust protections and federal preemption. These competing concerns show that House committee leaders do not yet agree on the changes the bill would need to move forward.
What Are the Challenges to Passing the Bill During the Lame-Duck Session?
A big vote in the Senate (e.g., 77-22, in the case of PCSA) can be mistaken as a clear signal that House passage is imminent or inevitable. Senate champions should be commended for their efforts to advance PCSA as bipartisan policy in a starkly partisan environment, and the weight of White House support keeps the bill on the lame-duck priority list.
However, until at least some of the policy concerns above are reconciled, PCSA will remain short of the 218 House votes required under a rule, and well short of the 290 votes generally needed to pass the bill under suspension of the rules. (Suspension is viewed as the most likely course for any legislation passed out of the House during lame duck, given the post-election dynamic and potential absences among the 100+ current members who are not returning next Congress.)
House passage of an amended bill would require another round of Senate votes, which could in theory occur quickly via unanimous consent. Yet with a short legislative calendar and policy questions still swirling, it is unclear whether the result for PCSA supporters will look like Indiana’s last-minute loss versus Ohio State or the Hoosiers’ dramatic win against Minnesota.
If the lame-duck effort falls short in the end, the teams in the Senate and the House will pick up and try again next season.