Big Ten and SEC back historic college sports bill as key Senate battle looms
The Big Ten and the Southeastern Conference (SEC), the two most financially and politically influential conferences in American college sports, have endorsed the Protect College Sports Act of 2026 following several days of negotiations with a group of senators. The shift was announced on Friday, July 31, after separate discussions among the university presidents and chancellors from the two conferences. According to the Associated Press, the endorsement came after final concessions in provisions governing athletes' name, image and likeness agreements, commonly known by the acronym NIL, as well as payments made through organizations and business partners affiliated with universities. The development has given the proposal, which only a day earlier appeared close to political deadlock, a realistic chance of reaching a vote before the full Senate.
The bill, however, has not been passed. It must first clear the procedural hurdle of securing at least 60 votes to end debate in the Senate, followed by a final vote. Even if it passes the upper chamber of Congress, the same text must also be approved by the House of Representatives before it can be sent to the president of the United States. The political calendar is adding further pressure: senators were attempting to reach an agreement before the summer recess beginning after August 7, while the window for major legislative initiatives ahead of the November elections is becoming increasingly narrow.
Reversal after weeks of open opposition
The Protect College Sports Act, officially registered as bill S. 4668, was introduced by Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state, together with Senators Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Chris Coons of Delaware. On June 18, the proposal passed the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by a vote of 19 to 9, marking one of the most significant steps so far toward federal regulation of college sports. At the time, the Big Ten and SEC did not support the text, warning of the risk of new lawsuits, insufficiently clear antitrust protections and controversial models for the joint sale of media rights. Their opposition was also significant because several senators represent states that are home to leading programs from those conferences.
The reversal came after intensive negotiations with Cruz, Cantwell and Schmitt, as well as their staff members. In a joint statement reported by CBS Sports, the conferences said they supported the proposal "in its current draft" and expressed appreciation for the work invested in reaching a compromise. According to the same report, the presidents and chancellors of Big Ten and SEC member institutions voted separately on the endorsement after receiving wording intended to prevent payment limits for athletes from being circumvented through affiliated entities. CBS Sports also reported that the White House called for the bill's passage on Friday, increasing political pressure on the parties involved.
The endorsement of the two conferences does not mean that all differences have disappeared. The Associated Press reported that the details of the latest compromise still need to be fully developed and that the complete final text of the amendments was not immediately made public. It is therefore currently impossible to determine with certainty how each new provision would operate in practice, particularly in relation to the existing court settlement that already regulates direct payments to athletes. Nevertheless, the joint position of the Big Ten and SEC significantly changes the political calculation because their leaders can now actively seek support from senators representing states in which their member institutions operate.
NIL agreements and "affiliated entities" at the center of the compromise
The acronym NIL refers to athletes' right to earn money through the commercial use of their own name, image and likeness in advertising, sponsorships, public appearances and other business arrangements. In 2021, the NCAA opened the way for such agreements, but the system quickly developed into an uneven market governed by a combination of federal court rulings, differing state laws and the rules of sports organizations. Alongside legitimate advertising deals, arrangements also emerged that critics describe as disguised incentives for athletes to join or remain at a particular university. Donor-funded NIL organizations, marketing partners and other entities formally separate from universities but closely connected to their athletic programs assumed a particularly important role.
The definition of such "affiliated entities" was precisely the key obstacle for the Big Ten and SEC. According to CBS Sports, the conferences sought stronger oversight of agreements through which corporate sponsors, multimedia rights holders or other partners could pay athletes outside the official revenue-sharing limit. Their objective was to ensure that the calculation of a team's total cost would include not only money paid directly by the university, but also payments from organizations acting in its interest. The negotiations therefore addressed stricter advance reviews of agreements, a clearer relationship between the payer and the university, and more effective penalties for circumventing the rules.
Connection to the House v. NCAA settlement
The debate over the new bill cannot be separated from the settlement in House v. NCAA, which federal judge Claudia Wilken approved in June 2025. The settlement, worth approximately $2.8 billion, provides compensation to former and current athletes and, for the first time, allowed NCAA Division I universities to directly share a portion of their revenue with athletes. The initial annual limit was approximately $20.5 million per institution, with gradual increases over a ten-year period. According to more recent figures reported by the Associated Press, the limit for the current season is $21.3 million.
A negotiating version of the Protect College Sports Act introduced the possibility of an additional athlete-retention fund of up to $25 million, five million of which would be designated for women's sports. Such a fund would allow universities to provide additional payments to athletes already on their rosters in order to reduce transfers to other programs. The Associated Press warned that the addition could more than double the amount that the largest institutions can distribute directly, raising questions about its compatibility with the economic model of the House settlement. Plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey Kessler told the news agency that he could not assess the provisions' effect on the settlement without reviewing their complete wording.
Uniform rules for transfers, eligibility and agents
According to a summary published by the Senate Commerce Committee, the bill would establish national rules governing transfers and athletic eligibility. It would provide for one unrestricted transfer during undergraduate studies, while athletes would generally have five years in which to compete in five seasons. The sponsors' intention is to reduce constant roster changes and legal disputes over exemptions, although the practical value of those provisions will depend on the final rules for injuries, graduate studies and other special circumstances. The proposal would also permit penalties for unauthorized contact with athletes who are under contract with or enrolled at another institution.
At the federal level, the bill would confirm athletes' right to earn NIL income and prohibit schools from revoking eligibility solely because an athlete hired a representative. Under the version approved by the committee, Division I athletes and prospective athletes would be required to report annual NIL compensation exceeding $600, while schools and sports organizations would be required to provide information about their rights. The proposal would also cap agents' commissions at five percent of the value of an agreement and require the clear disclosure of key terms, fees and athletes' obligations. False, misleading and fraudulent claims by agents would be expressly prohibited, and athletes would be able to initiate private civil actions for certain violations.
Scholarships, health care and protection after the end of a career
One of the proposal's most extensive sections concerns universities' educational and health care obligations. According to the committee's official summary, Division I institutions would be required to allow athletes to use their athletic scholarships for up to ten years after they stop competing so they can complete their studies. During their athletic careers, institutions would have to cover out-of-pocket medical expenses associated with an injury or illness resulting from participation in college sports, provide a second medical opinion and arrange a final examination after the athlete stops competing. Five years of health coverage after the athlete's final competition would also be required for sports-related injuries and illnesses.
The proposal provides for an annual medical fund of $60 million to assist lower-revenue institutions and support treatment for former athletes suffering from serious long-term consequences. The text includes standards relating to concussions, brain injuries, heat-related illnesses, rhabdomyolysis, sickle cell conditions and asthma, as well as obligations concerning the prevention of abuse, sexual violence and harassment. Athletes would be given access to an independent ombudsman and clear channels for reporting problems. The bill also includes whistleblower protections against retaliation by schools, conferences and athletic associations.
These provisions represent an important departure from a model in which many rights depended on the regulations of individual institutions or voluntary NCAA standards. A statutory obligation could give athletes a stronger basis for enforcing their rights, but it would also create additional costs for smaller athletic departments. The medical fund is therefore an important part of the compromise, particularly for schools without revenues comparable to the largest American football and basketball programs.
Women's and Olympic sports as a key part of the package
The bill's sponsors emphasize that the reform is not intended solely for American football and men's basketball, the sports that generate most television and commercial revenue. According to official data from the Senate Commerce Committee, all Division I institutions would be required to maintain a minimum number of sports programs and roster positions. Athletic departments with more than $80 million in annual revenue, a category covering 74 major universities, would be prohibited for nine years from reducing the number of women's and Olympic sports programs, scholarships and roster positions below their levels in the 2024/2025 academic year. These provisions are intended to prevent the cost of direct athlete compensation from leading to the elimination of less profitable sports.
The protection of Olympic sports has broader significance because the American college system serves as a development base for a large number of elite athletes. The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee supported an earlier version of the bill after stronger protections for those programs were added. An additional five million dollars from the proposed retention fund would be specifically reserved for women's sports, although the final method of distribution and its relationship to the federal Title IX law remain legally sensitive issues. The House settlement itself did not resolve how gender equality rules apply to direct payments to athletes, meaning new lawsuits remain possible regardless of the bill's outcome.
Media rights, antitrust protection and fear of a "super league"
The Protect College Sports Act would also permit the joint sale of media rights with limited antitrust protection, modeled on certain arrangements used by professional leagues. According to the official summary, such an organization would have to include at least 75 percent of universities at the highest level of American football, while membership would be offered to schools and conferences on equal terms. Participation would not be mandatory, which was one of the demands made during negotiations with the major conferences. A portion of the revenue would have to be directed toward catastrophic-injury insurance and distributed to a wider group of institutions, while the bill would also require an option for free local broadcasts of American football and basketball games.
At the same time, the proposal seeks to limit the creation of a closed competition for the wealthiest programs, often described as a "super league." Negotiations addressed a prohibition on a model in which private capital would finance the separation of a group of schools into a new commercial competition. An earlier version also included restrictions on mergers or takeovers involving major conferences. The goal is to preserve the broader structure of college sports, traditional rivalries and access to revenue for programs outside the Big Ten and SEC, but the provisions concerning media rights and conference expansion were among the most politically contentious.
What comes next in the Senate
The next move belongs to the Senate leadership, primarily Republican Majority Leader John Thune, who decides whether and when the proposal will be placed on the agenda. Ending debate on most bills requires three-fifths of all senators, or 60 votes in the 100-seat Senate, according to the Senate's official webpage explaining the cloture procedure. If that threshold is reached, the proposal can proceed to a final vote, where a simple majority of senators present and voting is generally sufficient. The endorsement of the Big Ten and SEC improves the prospects of assembling a bipartisan coalition, but it does not guarantee that all 60 required votes are already secured.
The committee vote showed that the divisions do not follow simple party lines. Opponents cited legal consequences and the interests of universities in their states. Even after a possible Senate passage, the House of Representatives would remain, and both chambers must approve identical text.
It is particularly significant that the version approved by the committee explicitly states neutrality on the question of whether college athletes are employees. The bill therefore does not settle the broader debate over employment status, union organization and collective bargaining, even though it regulates a large portion of the financial relationship between athletes and institutions. That issue could remain the next major battleground in American college sports, regardless of the fate of the Protect College Sports Act.
The support of the Big Ten and SEC is therefore an important but not final moment. It has returned the proposal from near-certain deadlock to the center of the Senate agenda and removed opposition from the two actors with the largest revenues, television contracts and political influence. Whether that reversal will be sufficient to produce 60 votes will depend on the final compromise text, the willingness of Senate leaders to provide time for debate and senators' assessment of whether a federal framework offers more stability than new legal risks.
Sources:
- Associated Press – report on the Big Ten and SEC endorsement and the proposal's current status (link)
- CBS Sports – details of the negotiations, the conferences' joint statement and the issue of affiliated entities (link)
- U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation – committee vote result and explanation of the proposal (link)
- U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation – official overview of provisions concerning NIL, agents, health care, transfers and media rights (link)
- Associated Press – negotiating amendments, the athlete-retention fund and the relationship to the House settlement (link)
- The Washington Post – background and financial framework of the House v. NCAA settlement (link)
- United States Senate – official explanation of the cloture procedure and the 60-vote threshold (link)
- GovInfo – official information on bill S. 4668 and its sponsors (link)