The Protect College Sports Act Misses a Key Opportunity: Student Voices
The Protect College Sports Act doesn – The 2023 film *AIR*, which dramatizes Nike’s pivotal partnership with Michael Jordan, ends with a poignant moment: Ben Affleck, portraying Nike founder Phil Knight, frets that allowing Jordan to share revenue from branded products could spark a chain reaction in the sports industry. Jordan’s landmark deal, which the movie highlights as generating $400 million annually, symbolized a shift in how athletes are viewed—not just as performers, but as valuable market assets. This transformation laid the groundwork for a broader redefinition of athlete compensation, enabling players to leverage their personal brands for financial gain and reshaping the dynamics of sports marketing.
Today, the collegiate sports system faces a similar turning point. Once criticized for profiting from athletes’ labor without fair remuneration, college athletics has recently embraced new opportunities through Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies. These rules, enacted in 35 states, allow student-athletes to earn money from endorsements, merchandise sales, and other personal branding ventures. The Supreme Court’s 2021 decision, which struck down restrictions on athlete compensation, catalyzed this change. Now, players are not only monetizing their talents but also asserting control over their economic futures.
A Bill That Centers Power Away From Athletes
Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have introduced the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act to address concerns about the growing financial stakes in collegiate sports. The legislation proposes measures such as limiting athletes to one transfer between schools without penalties, restricting coaches from being “poached” mid-season, and setting guidelines for agent commissions at 5 percent. These provisions aim to create a framework that balances athlete interests with institutional needs.
However, despite its focus on athlete welfare, the bill fails to recognize the central role students play in shaping the future of college sports. The NIL market thrives on their participation, yet the proposed law sidelines their voices by centralizing decision-making in the NCAA. This oversight risks perpetuating a system where athletes are treated as secondary stakeholders, with their financial gains and perspectives dictated by external entities rather than being directly integrated into policy discussions.
“By failing to bring athletes to the table, the law shuts out the very people who create college athletics’ value.”
The bill’s emphasis on control is evident in its grant of antitrust protections to the NCAA, a move that could shield the organization from legal challenges. This is significant, as the NCAA has recently faced lawsuits over its regulations, including its investigation of NIL collectives in Tennessee and Virginia in 2024. Critics argue that the act gives the NCAA the legal leverage it has long sought, potentially allowing it to restrict athlete earnings and maintain dominance over the collegiate sports landscape.
Challenges in the NIL Ecosystem
While NIL policies have created new avenues for athletes to profit, they have also introduced complex challenges. The rise of NIL collectives—groups formed by donors, alumni, fans, and businesses to manage and distribute revenue—has sparked debates over how fairly players are compensated. Some argue that these collectives prioritize institutional interests over individual athlete needs, leaving players in the dark about how profits are allocated.
Meanwhile, the recent “House settlement” has led to a disparity in revenue sharing, with football and basketball programs receiving disproportionate shares of funds. This imbalance has raised concerns about the long-term sustainability of other sports, which may struggle to remain competitive in a system increasingly dominated by high-profile revenue-generating teams. Additionally, the clearinghouse established to approve NIL deals based on market value has been contested in court, questioning its effectiveness in ensuring fairness and transparency.
Transparency remains a major hurdle. Although NIL deals and revenue sharing are not yet publicly reported in a standardized manner, media reports suggest that top-tier college football players could be earning as much as $30 to $40 million individually. Such figures have ignited fears among university leaders and coaches about the financial pressures this could place on academic programs and institutions with fewer resources.
A Call for Inclusive Reform
The Protect College Sports Act represents a step toward stability, but it overlooks a critical component: the need for student athlete representation in shaping the rules that govern their earnings. Unlike professional sports leagues, which have collective bargaining agreements, college athletes currently lack a formal mechanism to negotiate terms that reflect their unique contributions and needs.
This gap is particularly glaring in an era where athletes are not just competitors but key players in the financial ecosystem of collegiate sports. By centralizing authority with the NCAA, the act risks entrenching a system where student athletes are expected to adapt to policies without having a say in their creation. The result could be a disconnect between the rules and the realities of student life, where academic success and athletic performance are often intertwined.
Moreover, the act’s antitrust provisions may inadvertently protect the NCAA’s monopoly over college sports, even as it allows athletes to profit from their personal brands. This duality has sparked controversy, with advocates arguing that the NCAA’s growing financial power could undermine the spirit of amateurism that defines college athletics. The lack of collective bargaining also means that athletes may not have the leverage to address issues like workloads, academic support, or fair compensation in the long term.
Toward a More Equitable Future
To move forward with NIL policies that truly benefit athletes and sustain the collegiate sports system, Congress should take two pivotal steps. First, it should ensure that student voices are not only heard but actively involved in the decision-making process. This could involve creating advisory boards or incorporating athlete representatives into regulatory discussions, giving them a platform to advocate for their interests.
Second, Congress should expand the scope of athlete rights beyond the current provisions. While the Protect College Sports Act offers some safeguards, it stops short of addressing the broader implications of antitrust protection. By allowing the NCAA to restrict athlete earnings without facing legal consequences, the bill risks locking athletes into a system that prioritizes institutional profits over their individual growth and autonomy.
Ultimately, the success of NIL policies hinges on their ability to balance economic opportunities with equitable outcomes. Without direct input from student athletes, the legislation may fail to address the structural inequalities that persist in the system. As college sports continues to evolve, the voices of those at its core—players and students—must be amplified to ensure that the new era reflects their values and aspirations.
