The Price of College Sports, Part III: Congress Steps In — What the Protect College Sports Act Would Actually Change

College athletics spent decades insisting it could govern itself.

Then came NIL. The transfer portal. Conference realignment. Revenue sharing. Collectives. Lawsuits. Agents. Roster limits.

And an economic model that increasingly asks athletic departments to spend more money while simultaneously sharing more of that revenue with the athletes who generate it.

In Part I of The Price of College Sports, we examined how college athletics arrived here. In Part II, we looked at the financial pressure building even inside major Power Four athletic departments.

Now comes Part III.

Washington is attempting to establish rules for what college athletics becomes next.

The Protect College Sports Act, S. 4668, moved closer to passage when the Senate voted 77-22 on September 17 to advance the legislation. The important question isn’t simply whether Congress acts. It’s what Congress is trying to fix—and what problems would remain even if the bill becomes law.

Why Congress Is Involved

College athletics no longer operates under one clean national framework. NIL rules have varied by state. NCAA regulations have repeatedly faced legal challenges. The transfer system has changed dramatically. Schools have begun sharing revenue directly with athletes under the House settlement structure.

Meanwhile, the financial arms race we discussed in Part II hasn’t disappeared.

Supporters of the Protect College Sports Act argue that college athletics needs a national framework instead of continuing to operate through a combination of NCAA rules, court decisions, settlements and different state laws.

Critics don’t necessarily disagree that college sports needs reform. Their disagreement is largely over who receives the authority to establish the new rules and how much economic freedom athletes should retain.

1. NIL Would Become a Federal Right

One of the most significant provisions is also one that can get lost amid the controversy. The legislation would establish a federal right for college athletes to earn NIL compensation, moving the system toward a national standard rather than a patchwork of state rules.

College athletics spent generations defending amateurism. Congress is now considering legislation that would explicitly recognize athletes’ right to make money from their name, image and likeness.

This isn’t a return to the old amateur model. It’s an attempt to regulate the new compensation model.

2. The Agent Business Would Change

This is one provision that deserves considerably more attention throughout college athletics.

Families entered the NIL era negotiating agreements potentially worth hundreds of thousands—or millions—of dollars while navigating agents, marketing representatives, collectives, attorneys and other advisers.

The proposal would impose registration and conduct requirements on agents and cap covered agent fees at 5 percent. It also includes enforcement provisions intended to address misleading representations to athletes.

We have taught young people how to read defenses and scouting reports. We haven’t necessarily taught them how to read contracts, understand taxes, establish businesses, evaluate agents or determine what percentage of their income they should surrender for representation.

If college athletics is going to operate like a major economic enterprise, financial education has to become part of athlete development.

3. Transfers Would Have Rules Again

The transfer portal has fundamentally changed roster management. Coaches recruit their own roster every year while simultaneously recruiting high school players and portal prospects.

The proposed legislation would establish a national transfer framework, including a transfer opportunity without sitting out and additional exceptions under specified circumstances.

Supporters see national rules as a way to restore predictability to roster management. Critics argue that restrictions can limit freedoms athletes have gained through litigation.

How much stability does college athletics need, and how much individual freedom should athletes retain? Those interests are not always easy to reconcile.

4. Eligibility Would Become More Predictable

The proposal establishes a five-year eligibility framework with specified exceptions, including circumstances involving serious injuries and medical conditions.

That may sound like administrative housekeeping. It isn’t.

Eligibility litigation has increasingly challenged the NCAA’s ability to enforce traditional participation rules. For coaches, athletic directors and roster managers, predictability matters. You cannot construct a roster efficiently if nobody knows whether the eligibility rules governing that roster will survive the next lawsuit.

5. Health Care and Education Would Receive Federal Protection

This portion of the legislation shouldn’t get buried beneath the NIL discussion.

The bill contains requirements involving sports-related medical expenses and post-eligibility medical coverage, along with educational and athlete-welfare provisions.

• Degree-completion assistance
• Scholarship protections
• Independent medical decision-making
• Health and safety standards
• Athlete whistleblower protections
• An athlete ombudsman
• Athlete representation in parts of the governance structure

The revised legislation also treats federal medical requirements as a floor rather than a ceiling, allowing schools, conferences and athletic associations to provide greater coverage.

6. Women’s and Olympic Sports Are Part of the Economic Equation

This connects directly to Part II.

When athletic departments suddenly have millions of dollars in new athlete-compensation obligations, where does that money come from?

• Football?
• Basketball?
• Donors?
• Facilities?
• Administrative budgets?
• Olympic sports?

The legislation attempts to provide protections connected to non-revenue sports and grant-in-aid opportunities while preserving existing federal civil-rights obligations.

Any new economic model has to answer who pays for those opportunities.

7. Television Could Become Part of the Solution

One of the more interesting pieces of the proposal involves media rights. Schools could voluntarily participate in arrangements to pool and negotiate certain media rights, with specified antitrust protections.

Why does that matter?

Because if college athletics wants to preserve broad participation while simultaneously paying athletes and controlling costs, creating new revenue may ultimately be more sustainable than simply redistributing existing revenue.

The future of college sports cannot consist solely of finding another expense to cut. Eventually the industry has to ask: Where can additional sustainable revenue come from?

The Antitrust Question

This is where the legislation becomes most controversial.

Supporters argue that some antitrust protection is necessary because attempts to create national rules can otherwise become the subject of continuing litigation. Their argument is that a national system needs enough legal certainty to function.

Opponents argue that antitrust protections could strengthen institutional control while limiting athletes’ ability to challenge compensation, eligibility and transfer restrictions. Some athlete and labor advocates instead favor collective bargaining as a mechanism for establishing durable rules.

That’s arguably the central philosophical disagreement surrounding the bill:

Who should ultimately establish the economic rules of college athletics—Congress, the NCAA, conferences, schools, courts, or athletes and institutions negotiating collectively?

What Would This Mean for Indiana and the Big Ten?

For Indiana, Purdue and every other Big Ten institution, federal legislation could replace some of today’s uncertainty with a more standardized operating structure.

• NIL
• Revenue sharing
• Agent representation
• Transfers
• Eligibility
• Health-care obligations
• Scholarship protection
• Roster management
• Media rights

For athletic directors, that kind of predictability has real value. But legislation doesn’t make the financial pressures disappear.

Indiana would still have to decide how to allocate resources. The Big Ten would still compete against the SEC and other conferences for athletes, coaches, facilities and media value. Donors would still matter. Revenue generation would still matter. Recruiting would still cost money.

Congress can establish rules. It cannot eliminate economics.

Coach Griff’s Take: Rules Aren’t the Same Thing as a Solution

After looking at this issue across three parts, this is where I keep coming back.

College athletics absolutely needs structure. Athletes deserve to know their rights. Schools need to know the rules. Coaches need to know how they can construct rosters. Families need protection when dealing with agents and contracts. Athletic departments need enough financial predictability to plan beyond the next fiscal year. And women’s and Olympic sports shouldn’t become collateral damage while football and basketball navigate a new economic model.

But we also shouldn’t confuse establishing rules with solving the underlying financial problem.

The pressures we discussed in Part II don’t disappear because Congress passes legislation.

If athletic departments continue increasing coaching salaries, recruiting budgets, administrative costs and facilities spending while simultaneously adding tens of millions of dollars in athlete compensation, eventually the math still has to work.

That’s why the most important question surrounding the Protect College Sports Act may not be whether it restores order.

Does it create a sustainable economic model—or simply establish rules for managing an increasingly expensive one?

That’s the question college athletics still has to answer.

And it leads directly into where this series should go next.

The Price of College Sports Series

• Part I — How We Got Here: Amateurism, NIL and revenue sharing.
• Part II — Follow the Money: Why Power Four athletic departments can generate enormous revenue and still face financial pressure.
• Part III — Congress Steps In: What the Protect College Sports Act would actually change.
• Part IV — Where Do We Go From Here? Building a model that protects athletes, competition and college athletics itself.