Congress Takes Another Shot at Federal NIL Reform: What to Know About the Protect College Sports Act of 2026

Over the years, college sports have only increased in popularity, and with that popularity has come significant growth in revenue from attendance, sponsorships, and television deals. Following the House settlement, the line between “amateur” college sports and professional sports has become even more difficult to define. Whether it is watching a Cinderella team make a last-second shot during NCAA’s March Madness or joining 100,000 fans on a fall Saturday to cheer on an alma mater, college sports remain deeply embedded in American culture. Beyond football and basketball, the collegiate athletics system also has served as one of the world’s most important development pipelines for Olympic and non-revenue sports.

The new post-House NIL era has not come without challenges. Unclear and inconsistent rules have contributed to litigation involving athletes, universities, conferences, and governing bodies. At the same time, the NCAA and other stakeholders have continued to push Congress for a federal framework that would replace the current patchwork of state laws and provide more predictable rules for NIL, revenue sharing, transfers, eligibility, enforcement, and media rights.

When it comes to federal name, image, and likeness (NIL) legislation, the third time was not the charm for the SCORE Act. After being scheduled for a House floor vote for the third time, only to be removed from consideration again, the much-discussed and debated SCORE Act appears to have been left on the proverbial cutting room floor. However, Congress has not stopped trying. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), along with Sens. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), introduced the Protect College Sports Act of 2026, a broader proposal aimed at bringing federal structure to college athletics.

The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 is moving quickly. On Wednesday, June 3, 2026, roughly a week after a draft of the bill was released, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a hearing on the act with several key players in collegiate athletics, including former University of Alabama head football coach Nick Saban. The bill has already drawn support from some corners of college athletics, while the SEC and Big Ten have withheld support and raised concerns about whether the bill provides sufficient federal preemption and other protections.

The following are a few of the key provisions of the draft bill that are likely to become the subject of significant legal and policy debate:

• NIL Protections

The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 would establish a federal statutory right for student-athletes to earn compensation from the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness. This would represent a significant step toward nationalizing NIL rights and replacing the current state-by-state approach with a uniform federal framework. The bill would also prohibit institutions, conferences, and athletic associations from limiting a student-athlete’s eligibility or scholarship status solely because the athlete participates in NIL activities.

However, the proposed NIL protections are not without limitations. NIL agreements involving collectives, boosters, associated entities, and similar third parties would remain subject to review for valid business purposes and fair market value. In that respect, the bill appears to preserve NIL rights while also attempting to distinguish legitimate endorsement activity from arrangements that function more like recruiting inducements or compensation designed to avoid the revenue-sharing cap. The bill would also require disclosure of NIL agreements above the $600 threshold, which tracks the current NIL Go reporting framework.

• Eligibility, Transfers, and Coaching Movement

The Senate bill would create national eligibility and transfer standards. The bill would generally allow student-athletes one penalty-free transfer, while a second transfer could result in a one-year loss of eligibility unless an exception applies. The bill would also establish a five-year eligibility framework for participation in intercollegiate athletics. Those exceptions would include, among others, discontinuation of the athlete’s sport, departure of the head coach, certain misconduct, and pursuit of a graduate degree.

The bill would also regulate certain mid-season coaching transitions, particularly in football. Although this provision is not strictly an NIL provision, it fits within the bill’s broader attempt to reduce the instability that has come from transfer disputes, coaching movement, tampering allegations, and NIL-related recruiting battles.

• Revenue-Share Cap and House Settlement Enforcement

One of the more important additions in the Senate bill is the way it connects federal legislation to the House settlement. The bill defines the revenue-share cap by referencing the Benefits Pool Limit in the House settlement and would extend that cap after the settlement expires or terminates, with inflation-based adjustments. This is a key distinction from earlier NIL-only proposals because the bill is not merely addressing endorsement deals; it is also trying to give legal durability to the new post-House compensation model.

• Antitrust, Preemption, and Employee Status

One of the most significant legal components of the bill is its limited antitrust protection. The proposed legislation would provide legal protection for certain rules governing NIL activity, revenue-sharing limits, transfers, eligibility, recruiting, and enforcement. This would give the NCAA, conferences, and related governing bodies more authority to enforce rules that may otherwise be vulnerable to antitrust challenges.

The bill also would preempt conflicting state laws and create a uniform federal standard for NIL and related college athletics issues. That would address one of the most persistent challenges in the NIL era: the patchwork of state laws that has created inconsistent obligations for athletes, schools, collectives, brands, and agents. But the bill does not wipe out state law entirely. It preserves certain areas, including contract, tort, privacy, consumer protection, trademark, and copyright law.

The bill is also notable for what it does not do. Unlike some prior federal proposals, it does not appear to categorically declare that student-athletes are not employees. Instead, the bill states that it is neutral on employee or non-employee status. That neutrality may help explain the bill’s bipartisan posture, but it also means that a major legal issue in college sports would remain unresolved.

• Broadcasting Rights

The bill also addresses one of the central economic drivers of modern college athletics: media rights. In general, the bill would allow schools and conferences to voluntarily pool and jointly negotiate certain media rights, while preserving existing media agreements. To receive the protection of that framework, the pooled-rights structure would have to satisfy participation, access, revenue distribution, local availability, and non-revenue-sport protections.

From an NIL perspective, the practical significance is that broadcast revenue and athlete brand value are increasingly connected. More exposure generally means more commercial opportunity; less exposure may mean fewer NIL opportunities, particularly for athletes outside football and men’s basketball.

Potential Future

The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 is still only a draft, and, much like earlier collegiate NIL bills, its ultimate form may change significantly through hearings, committee revisions, amendments, and negotiations with stakeholders across college athletics. Whether the bill will become law remains to be seen. Prior NIL bills have stalled, and early hesitation from the SEC and Big Ten suggests that even a bipartisan bill may still face a difficult path. For now, schools, collectives, athletes, brands, and agents are still operating in the messy interim between the old amateurism model and whatever comes next.

The NIL debate is no longer about whether student-athletes can participate in the marketplace. The next phase will be about who regulates that marketplace, how those rules are enforced, and whether the legal structure can keep pace with the economics of modern college sports.