On September 28th, 2026, the United States Senate voted 77–22 in favor of passing The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 (PCSA). Despite its overwhelming support in the Senate, the bill faces an uphill battle once it reaches the House, where a slim Republican majority is likely to meet opposition. As the debate intensifies around this legislation, its impact could have lasting effects on the future of intercollegiate athletics.
It is expected that the House of Representatives will vote on a version of the PCSA after this November election, in the lame-duck session. Although there is expected to be strong opposition to the legislation in the House, there is reason for its supporters to be optimistic about its chances of becoming law: nearly all Republican Senators voted in favor of the PCSA (only two did not), while the Democratic Senators split their votes with about half voting for and half voting against the Act. Likewise, President Donald Trump has publicly indicated that he supports the PCSA and has made college sports a legislative and political priority.
The Protect College Sports Act
The PCSA was introduced in the Senate this past May to address concerns surrounding intercollegiate athletics, primarily name, image, and likeness (NIL) regulation and athlete eligibility. If enacted, the bill would further change the collegiate sports landscape by increasing the revenue-sharing cap and implementing NIL, transfer, and eligibility restrictions. For college athletes, these changes could affect contracts, eligibility restrictions, and the ability to transfer. Athletes should follow the PCSA’s progress in becoming federal law and consider its potential effects on their circumstances. NIL representatives likewise should remain aware of the potential regulations that would take effect if the PCSA is passed.
Increased Revenue-Sharing Pool
The proposed PCSA will codify portions of the House settlement, including the $21.6 million revenue-sharing cap (for 2026–27), which increases annually. It will also allow schools to exceed the institutional NIL revenue-sharing cap by up to $22.5 million per year to retain athletes who have spent at least one year at the institution. This so-called retention fund is conditioned on the institution meeting graduation rates and academic progress requirements established by the NCAA or, if higher, the institution’s conference. In addition, $5 million would be reserved for women’s and Olympic sports. Together, these provisions would nearly double the aggregate amount schools may directly pay athletes, subject to limitations and restrictions.
Third-Party NIL Compensation
Much has been made about universities going “above the cap” and providing athletes with above-cap NIL compensation. The primary mechanism for schools to do so has come from third-party NIL sponsorships, typically facilitated by the university and/or with a university sponsor. Such agreements are currently required to be reviewed by the College Sports Commission (CSC)’s NIL Go clearinghouse. The CSC is able to reject deals that are not within a fair market range of compensation.
The PCSA will grant the NCAA and CSC the authority to limit such “non-authentic” third-party NIL compensation that is directed from universities. Likewise, the revenue sharing cap will be more strictly enforced through the antitrust exemption provided by the PCSA.
Athlete Eligibility
Consistent with the NCAA’s new age-based eligibility model—which was adopted earlier this year—the PCSA prescribes that college athletes will be limited to five years of competition within a five-year period. The five-year clock begins when an athlete turns 19 or the date of the athlete’s first collegiate enrollment (including at NCAA, NAIA, and NJCAA schools). Certain exceptions are made for pregnancy, religious missions, or military service. Furthermore, athletes are permitted only one transfer without losing eligibility. A second transfer would require the athlete to sit out for a season, absent specific circumstances such as a coach’s departure, evidence of harassment, or graduate school aspirations, in which an athlete would be permitted a second transfer.
Scholarship Protections
Under the PCSA, universities may not revoke or condition an athlete’s scholarship based on performance or ability, injury or illness, or any other roster management decisions. The bill permits a school to revoke or condition the scholarship if an athlete transfers or is not meeting the program’s academic standards or other internal policies. To enforce the Act’s provisions, athletes would have a private right of action. The prevailing party would be entitled to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and, in some instances, equitable or declaratory relief.
Agency Requirements
The PCSA would amend the Sports Agency Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA) to impose requirements on agents representing student-athletes. Agent fees would be capped at 5% of the NIL contract’s value, and agents would have to include specific provisions in a representation agreement in order for such a contract to be enforceable and valid. Contract duration would be limited to the time during which the student-athlete is eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletics. Before representing a student, all agents would be required to register with a state or professional sports league. Additionally, the Act provides that the NCAA may fine or decertify agents who fail to follow these requirements and decertified agents would be prohibited from representing or contacting NCAA student-athletes.
Preemption
The PCSA’s enactment would preempt conflicting state laws regulating NIL compensation, transfers, or student-athlete eligibility requirements. Other state laws affecting intercollegiate athletics would be preempted only if they prevent compliance with the Act. States would retain more power in areas including drug testing, gambling, and campus misconduct rules. By preempting state NIL laws, the PCSA would provide more legislative certainty to industry stakeholders and effectively aims to end the policy gridlock of states enacting, amending, and repealing state NIL laws to favor their preferred in-state institutions.
Medical Coverage & Safety Standards
All DI universities would be required to cover all out-of-pocket medical costs, second opinions, and catastrophic injury insurance for college athletes. Upon conclusion of a student-athlete’s participation in intercollegiate sports, schools would also be required to cover a physical to help document and diagnose injuries or conditions relating to that participation. The bill would extend an institution’s post-eligibility medical coverage for five years for any injury or illness that occurred during the athlete’s involvement in the sport.
Implications of the PCSA and Looking Forward
For collegiate athletes and sports agents, the Protect College Sports Act’s potential implications center on athlete eligibility, NIL compensation, scholarship protections, and agency requirements. The bill’s greater oversight of collegiate athletics would place increased responsibility on athletes and agencies to remain informed and compliant with its provisions. Moreover, when reviewing current revenue-sharing, third-party NIL, or agency agreements, athletes and agents alike should be cognizant of how the PCSA may affect those agreements, as well as leverage points in future contract negotiations. By way of example, athletes that may have already transferred may not want to agree to a one-year revenue sharing deal for the forthcoming season. At the culmination of the next season, their ability to transfer without sitting out for a year would be limited under the PCSA and their negotiation power with their current school may be significantly diminished.
Although the bill faces opposition from various groups within Congress, the debate may help reveal the future direction of collegiate athletics, whether through this legislation or amended or alternative proposals. Whatever the outcome, athletes and agencies should stay up to date on legislative developments and review the proposed limitations on their current agreements, what modifications (if any) may be needed if the PCSA becomes law, and future strategic goals to most effectively navigate the new landscape.
Related Professionals
Joshua M. Frieser, Esq.
Principal Attorney, Frieser Legal
josh@frieserlegal.com | (414) 200-9199
Joshua M. Frieser, Esq. is a sports and business lawyer and Principal Attorney at Frieser Legal. His practice is focused on the representation of athletes, agents, and sports businesses. While working to solve the unique legal needs that they have, Josh represents athletes in regulatory affairs proceedings and NIL licensing agreements, as well as in related intellectual property and business planning matters. In addition to serving as counsel to college and professional athletes, Josh represents sports agents and sports industry ventures as outside counsel.
________________________
W. Cameron Annear
Sports Law Certificate Intern, Frieser Legal
Cam Annear is a Sports Law Certificate Intern at Frieser Legal and a second-year law student at Marquette University Law School. Cam earned his Bachelor of Arts from Elon University, where he majored in Political Science with a minor in Public Policy. Cam is pursuing his J.D. with a Sports Law Certificate from the National Sports Law Institute. He is an active member of the Moot Court Association and Sports Law Society. Outside of his academic and professional pursuits, Cam enjoys watching sports and practicing his golf game with friends.