Exploring the proposed Protect College Sports Act

The latest development in the SCORE Act saga has taken a new turn.

Now called the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA), the legislation meant to redefine college athletics at the federal level is set to hit the floor once again, with a Congressional hearing scheduled for Wednesday morning at 9 a.m. Eastern time.

Per Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports, senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) made a number of changes to the sweeping legislation after feedback from the sudden death of the SCORE Act, with language now attached which would codify the one-time transfer rule and potentially allow players to be considered employees of their institution.

The bill as currently constructed has a number of platforms which are aimed at addressing certain emergent problems in the NCAA, including pooling media rights, establishing revenue caps on rosters, prohibition of breakaway superleagues, standardizing the coaching carousel and creating a "five-in-five" eligibility standard by age.

The bill picked up more co-sponsors over the week, including senators Eric Schmitt (R-MO) and Chris Coons (D-DE), while representative Michael Baumgartner (R-WA) also expressed his interest in sponsoring the bill when it reaches the House for consideration over social media.

Mid-American Conference commissioner Jon Steinbrecher addressed the new bill in a speech on Thursday, expressing his frustration at "the inability of the federal government to get past its partisan warfare and enact laws that could assist in bringing a degree of sanity to our eligibility and transfer rules" to this point, while expressing cautious optimism by saying the PCSA is "a good first step."

Steinbrecher also stated the bill could use "some limited anti-trust protection."

We're here to break the important aspects of the initial draft down and explain what it could mean for the NCAA moving forward as Congress gets set to discuss the bill on the floor on Wednesday:

Age-based athlete eligibility and prohibition of signings with professional experience

President Donald Trump released an executive order in early April which expressed his support for student-athletes to keep eligibility to five seasons in five years, and has worked with several roundtables and members of Congress to initiate discussion on the topic.

Specifically, the executive order seeks to "[establish] clear, consistent, and fair eligibility limits, including a five-year participation window" and "[set] structured transfer rules for academic and athletic continuity."

Per the text of the law, the eligibility clock for a prospective student-athlete would start under one of four conditions which occurs first:

• the student-athlete’s 19th birthday
• the student-athlete’s actual high school
  graduation date
• the student-athlete’s expected high school graduation date based on the first year of high school enrollment, or
• the date a student-athlete enrolls full
  time at an institution.

Normal exceptions, such as pregnancy, missionary trips and military service will not apply.

This legislation also takes aim at the current phenomenon of signing athletes who have played professionally overseas or signed to a professional contract without playing in the United States, expressly disallowing such prospects from signing with NCAA members.

The issue has been a hot-button one for the last year or so, as several Big Ten and SEC schools have signed professional players to take the court. The most famous case of this was last year, when Alabama signed former Detroit Pistons G-Leaguer Charles Bediako– who last played college basketball in 2023– and played him in a handful of games for the Tide before being declared ineligible by a court decision.

Since then, several Power schools have jumped on the opportunity to sign prospects from professional leagues, with former G-Leaguer Bryson Warren signing for Texas A&M and LSU snagging RJ Luis Jr. after two NBA stints. Under the PCSA, such an action would be disallowed.

The proposal also addresses the issue of tournament prize money for student-athletes who participate in Olympic (non-revenue) sports. The topic has been in discussion for years as it created a myriad of eligibility issues across sports with non-traditional recruitment routes, such as tennis.

Per Section 113, subsection D:

"For purposes of subsection (a)(3), a student athlete who competes
in a sport other than football or basketball shall not be considered a professional athlete based solely on the amount of prize money the student athlete received based on place finish or performance in an athletic event before or after enrollment in an institution, so long as— (1) the prize money was provided only by the sponsor of the athletics event; and (2) the sponsor of the athletics event is not an institution, employee of an institution, volunteer of an institution, collective, or an associated entity."

Student-athlete rights

This version of the PCSA gives student-athletes the ability to redress wrongs with "private right of action" protections if they feel the law is not being adhered to, and creates the position of a "student-athlete ombudsmen", who is meant to provide independent advice and resources regarding all matter of student-athlete issues. Student-athletes and employee universities are also granted whistleblower protections by law under the PCSA.

The proposal also creates a lane for lower-resource programs and conferences to pool together money and create medical trusts to pay for associated medical issues both during and after a student-athlete's career– though based on the language, the proposal is potentially tied to pooled media resources (which will be addressed later).

Specifically, Section 106, which establishes the medical trust, states the following:

(A) in the case of a Division I institution that generates less than $20,000,000 in total annual athletics revenue during the preceding academic year, compliance with subsection (a)(2) (or, in the case of a Division II or Division III institution, voluntary compliance with subsection (a)(2)), in the event of demonstrated financial hardship; and (B) post-eligibility medical expenses for a member institution’s student athletes diagnosed with significant long-term conditions related to their participation in an intercollegiate sport, including chronic traumatic encephalopathy and any other cognitive impairment.

... The intercollegiate athletic association described in this subsection shall ensure that the fund or program established under this subsection is funded at an amount that totals at least $60,000,000 on the first day of each academic year. ...

Under current conditions, the transfer portal is essentially a free market thanks to a permanent injunction and a number of NCAA factors, including the name-image-and-likeness (NIL) market and roster management decisions.

NCAA bylaws such as the "Hugh Freeze Rule" allow players to declare their intention to enter the portal if a coach has departed the program prior to fall camps. In the current version of the PCSA bill, NCAA student-athletes would be eligible to transfer from their initial institution to another once without penalty.

A second transfer would have to meet certain standards to be granted a waiver. Known exceptions include if a coach has left the program (which is currently allowed) or if an athlete's sport has been eliminated, amongst others. If a waiver is not accepted or sought, a student would have to sit out one season upon arrival at a new institution.

There will be questions surrounding enforcement of the transfer policies, as the bill currently has no mechanism for making quick changes. One of the key differences from the SCORE Act is the PCSA ditched giving the conferences and NCAA the chance to establish their own rulesets and instead puts the power in the hands of the NCAA to enforce the standards as set by the PCSA. As of publication, there is no clear policy for whether the conferences must approach Congress or the NCAA to request and pass changes to the transfer rules.

The bill also stops short of taking a stance regarding the employment status of student-athletes, something both Republicans and Democrats will take issue with when the bill reaches the floor.

In what will likely be the most poured-over section of the PCSA, Section 122 of the bill maintains "neutrality" on the issue of student-athletes being employed by their respective universities, stating the PCSA "does nothing to alter employee or non-employee status for student-athletes."

The bill's "neutral" stance leaves a lot open for interpretation, and will likely see a lot of change when marked up by the committee on Wednesday.

Republicans will likely push for student-athletes to not be considered employees, while Democrats will likely push for employment status and/or the ability to collectively bargain with the NCAA– two opposing ideas which will be the political crux of the bill's survivability.

NIL marketplace, institutional spending and coaching staff movement restrictions

This restriction of movement and market is not only on student-athletes.

One of the more controversial aspects of the PCSA is a provision regarding the employment statuses of coaches in-season. Essentially, the PCSA strongly encourages coaches to wait to move institutions until after the sport's postseason, and punishes coaches who terminate their contracts early to accept a different job.

In what has already been dubbed by some as the "Lane Kiffin Rule", Section 110 states:

An individual described in subsection (a) who accepts employment, appointment, or designation as head coach of a varsity sports team for intercollegiate football at another institution during the same competitive season is ineligible to participate in intercollegiate athletic competition for intercollegiate football as head coach for the hiring institution through the conclusion of the competitive season, including any postseason competition, of the prior institution or the hiring institution, whichever occurs later.
... In the event an individual who accepts employment, appointment
or designation as head coach of a varsity sports team for intercollegiate football at another institution violates this section, that individual shall be ineligible to assume the duties as head coach of the varsity sports team for intercollegiate football at the hiring institution for the subsequent competitive season after the season in which the violation occurred and be subject to additional penalties sufficient to ensure compliance with this section.

Given the nature of college football's schedule, it's likely the calendar would have to undergo significant change to stay compliant with Section 110– with Section 206 aiming to end the college football season "not later than January 8 of any year to the extent practicable.’’

Another talking point is the restrictions on player agents, as Sec. 102 makes an adjustment to the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act to include a maximum limit of five percent of any negotiated endorsement deal an agent makes for a student-athlete. Current market rates sit at approximately 15-20 percent, which would mean a dramatic change in the agent economy.

Currently, there is no language in the bill regarding maximum salaries for school administrators or coaches, but it is very likely the committee will discuss the possibility considering the written caps on players and agents. The bill does acknowledge in Section 115 the expansion of the revenue share cap agreement created by the U.S. District Court of Northern California to settle In Re College Athlete NIL Legislation, which could affect such matters:

Upon expiration of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Agreement approved by the court in ‘‘In Re College Athlete NIL Legislation’’, No. 20–cv–03919 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2025), the annual revenue share cap shall be adjusted annually for inflation by the percent increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for All-Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor for the most recent 12-month period for which applicable data is available.

Enforcement is also a question here, as the bill is not clear on if the District Court of Northern California, Congress or the NCAA would be responsible for setting the revenue share caps of the various conferences.

Pooled media deals and encouraged conference practices

Now for the meat and potatoes of the entire bill: the establishment of a collective media deal to fund various aspects of the NCAA experience.

Under the PCSA, the member conferences of the NCAA at the FBS level would be encouraged to pool together their media rights deals in order to fund various parts of the league. The number needed for adaptation would be 75 percent of individual member institutions (about 104 total), with rules also restricting conferences from expanding to a point where it compromises the 75 percent threshold.

Under this arrangement, the PCSA "provide[s] that each member conference or member institution has 1 vote on each type of decision or determination", with an additional student-athlete council made up of "no more than 10 individuals who, as of the date of designation are student athletes or were student athletes during the preceding 10-year period," with recommendations on how to vote on "major" and "non-major" decisions.

Once the pool has been agreed upon, Section 203 outlines a process where each member institution receives more media rights revenue during each year "than the largest amount of collective media rights revenue (excluding revenue from the College Football Playoff) that the institution received in any single academic year during the period of academic year 2021-2022 through academic year 2024–2025."

After that, "not less than" 15 percent of the collective media revenue that remains will be split amongst the FBS membership who participated in football in 2024-25 in a way which is "based on the performance of each institution during the academic year with respect to the institution’s contribution to the collective media rights revenue."

Those monies will then be used towards the creation of conference medical funds (as we outlined earlier) and guaranteeing the scholarships of "Olympic" and women's sport athletes.

From Section 203, subsection (e)(1):

Any member institution that receives collective media rights revenue shall, consistent with applicable intercollegiate athletic association rules, offer and maintain at least as many grant-in-aid opportunities and roster spots for non-revenue generating intercollegiate sports programs, including women’s and Olympic intercollegiate sports programs, during each academic year as the member institution provided during the 2024–2025 academic year.

This section will likely face challenges in committee. As currently written, those sports would be dependent on the conferences agreeing to pool their media rights together in order to be able to offer scholarships and resources to student-athletes, with no easy solutions should it not be activated.

The bill also takes aim at potential breakaway or over-expansion efforts, with language meant to keep monied conferences such as the Big Ten and SEC from leaving the NCAA or otherwise trying to dodge pooling efforts.

From Section 205:

(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful under the antitrust laws, as defined in section 1(a), for any conference that reported more than $1,000,000,000 in revenue on its fiscal year 2025 tax return to merge or consolidate with, or to acquire the assets, media rights (including media rights of an institution), or membership of, another conference, if as a result of the transaction, the number of institutions that are members of the conference would be less than the membership requirements under section
5(b)(1)(A).

‘(b) DEFENSES NOT APPLICABLE.—A transaction prohibited under subsection (a) may not be justified by efficiencies, procompetitive effects, or any other defense under the antitrust laws, as defined in section 1(a).

‘‘(c) EFFECT.—Any transaction consummated in violation of subsection (a) shall be void.’’

Member institutions are indeed free to not join the collective pool, as later definitions state, but do so at the risk of leaving their student-athletes in any sport that is not football or basketball vulnerable of losing their scholarships and any potential day-to-day resources member schools would be privy to– at least in the initial draft of the bill.

This aspect of the bill will likely be explored further in committee, as it essentially restricts the market of certain conferences and could be liable to lawsuits should the law be passed.

There are also mechanisms to preserve historic rivalries of the culture, including mandates to play "traditional rivals" with member institutions outside of a member's conference at least twice every four years if they are a "top 10" historic rival, and "not less than 1 intercollegiate athletic competition within intercollegiate football each year" with "top 5 historic opponents" in a different member conference.

In an effort to maintain the sport's regionalism, the bill also requires conferences to maintain their memberships if "more than 6 of the top 10 historic opponents in intercollegiate football of a member institution were intra-conference opponents of the member institution in intercollegiate football during the most recently completed season."

Section 204 of the PCSA also issues guidance for member institutions who agree to pool their rights to make college football and/or basketball games "commercially available by purchase or license, on a non-exclusive basis" on at minimum one "local outlet" in their designated market.

Most of these changes to media deals and schedule creation would require changes to language in the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which has come under fire recently due to the NFL's aggressive schedule and media contract negotiation tactics– a move which gave Congress imperative to summon commissioner Roger Goddell to Congress later this week to testify about the league's potential anti-consumer actions.

It is currently difficult to envision how some of these provisions would be enforced, especially given a lot of football games at the FBS level are scheduled as far as a decade in advance and grant-of-right deals with existing broadcasters would likely have to be worked in.

Overall, the bill seeks to strengthen the NCAA's ability to enforce its bylaws by giving the league the support of the federal government via limited anti-trust exemptions, while also giving its individual members more equity in the success of the highest level of intercollegiate sports and assuring fans of stability in the day-to-day make-up of the conferences (as well as making it easier to follow their respective teams.)

However, the bill also provides alternatives if the NCAA cannot enforce certain aspects.

Section 116 of the PSCA designates the creation of the "Congressional Commission on the Future of College Athletics", a bipartisan committee made up of legislators and current or former student-athletes who would be tasked with exploring changes to the intercollegiate sports model– and suggest alternative enforcement bodies if necessary. (This all, of course, presumes the law is signed and enacted.)

It's to be seen how much serious support the bill has; early indications is that it will be nearly a party-line vote as currently constructed, with Republicans voting for the bill and Democrats mostly against it.

Wednesday's committee meeting will shed some light on how legislators view the bill, and we could see changes as soon as this week depending on the feedback.

The full text of the bill can be read here.