College sports may be approaching its biggest federal overhaul in generations.

On September 28, the U.S. Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act of 2026 by a bipartisan 77–22 vote, advancing legislation designed to establish national rules for an industry that has spent the past five years navigating NIL money, unrestricted transfers, direct payments from schools, court battles and dramatically different state laws.

And just two days before the Senate vote, President Donald Trump was sitting inside Neyland Stadium watching No. 1 Texas take on No. 14 Tennessee.

That wasn’t entirely disconnected from what was happening in Washington.

Trump has publicly backed the Protect College Sports Act, and his administration used the weekend surrounding the Texas–Tennessee game to continue pushing Congress to act on college athletics. The White House formally called for passage of the legislation on September 28.

The bill has now cleared the Senate, but an important distinction remains:

It is not law yet.

The House of Representatives must pass it before it can reach Trump’s desk. The House is currently expected to consider the issue after returning from its pre-midterm recess.

So what exactly would change?

Quite a lot.

How College Sports Got Here

To understand the Protect College Sports Act, you have to go back to 2021.

On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court upheld a decision preventing the NCAA from restricting certain education-related benefits for athletes.

Nine days later, the NCAA adopted an interim NIL policy.

Beginning July 1, 2021, college athletes could make money from their name, image and likeness without automatically losing NCAA eligibility.

That fundamentally changed college athletics.

Athletes could sign endorsement agreements, promote businesses, monetize social media accounts, appear in advertisements, sell merchandise and build businesses around their personal brands.

But the new system didn’t come with one comprehensive federal rulebook.

States passed their own NIL laws. NCAA policies changed. Court decisions continued to reshape the rules. NIL collectives associated with schools became major players in recruiting.

Meanwhile, the transfer portal became increasingly important.

In April 2024, Division I rules changed again, generally allowing academically eligible athletes to become immediately eligible at a new school even if they had transferred previously.

Then came another seismic change.

The House Settlement Changed Athlete Compensation Again

In June 2025, a federal judge approved the landmark House v. NCAA settlement.

The settlement included approximately $2.78 billion in back damages and allowed Division I schools participating in the new system to begin sharing athletic department revenue directly with athletes.

For the 2025–26 academic year, the initial revenue-sharing amount was approximately $20.5 million per school, based on 22% of average revenue from certain major-conference media, ticket and sponsorship sources.

That meant college athletics had crossed another historic line.

Athletes weren’t simply receiving scholarships and outside endorsement money anymore.

Schools themselves could directly share millions of dollars with their athletes.

But the House settlement didn’t answer every question.

Among the biggest unresolved issues were conflicting state laws, future antitrust litigation, NIL enforcement, transfers and whether college athletes could ultimately be considered employees under labor law.

That is the environment in which Congress stepped in.

Who Introduced the Protect College Sports Act?

The bipartisan legislation was developed primarily by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, the Republican chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the committee’s ranking Democrat.

They announced an agreement in May alongside Sens. Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Chris Coons of Delaware. Additional senators from both parties subsequently joined as co-sponsors.

The Commerce Committee advanced the legislation 19–9 in June.

After further negotiations—including discussions involving the SEC and Big Ten—the legislation was revised during the summer.

Then came the breakthrough.

On September 28, the Senate passed it 77–22.

It was a remarkably broad vote for legislation affecting billions of dollars and some of the country’s most powerful universities and sports organizations.

NIL Is NOT Going Away

Perhaps the biggest misconception about the bill is that Congress is attempting to eliminate NIL.

It isn’t.

The legislation would actually create a federal right for college athletes to earn NIL compensation.

Instead of athletes navigating different rules depending on which state their university happens to be located in, the legislation would establish a national framework.

Athletes could still sign legitimate endorsement agreements.

A quarterback could still appear in a commercial.

A golfer could still promote an equipment company.

A basketball player could still monetize a large social-media following.

An athlete could still build his or her own personal brand.

What Congress is trying to distinguish is commercial NIL from payments that function primarily as recruiting or retention incentives.

Deals above $600 would generally have to be disclosed, and the legislation contains rules designed to determine whether third-party NIL agreements have a legitimate commercial purpose and reasonable market value.

The bill would also cap athlete-agent fees at 5% and impose registration and certification requirements intended to protect athletes from deceptive representation.

In simple terms:

NIL stays. The goal is to put national rules around it.

What Happens to the Transfer Portal?

This could be one of the most noticeable changes for fans.

Under the legislation, athletes would generally receive one transfer without losing or delaying eligibility.

After a second transfer, an athlete would ordinarily have to sit out one season.

There are important exceptions, including circumstances involving a head coach leaving, a sport being discontinued and sexual assault or harassment.

That’s a significant shift from the recent era of broad immediate-transfer eligibility.

The idea is to preserve meaningful athlete mobility while reducing what supporters of the legislation view as perpetual roster movement.

For coaches, it could mean greater roster predictability.

For fans, it could mean players remaining associated with schools longer.

For athletes, however, it would also mean less freedom after the first transfer—which is one reason the provision remains controversial.

There Would Also Be a Five-Year Eligibility Framework

The legislation establishes a national eligibility framework generally limiting athletes to five years of eligibility, with exceptions for circumstances such as pregnancy, religious missions, active-duty military service and serious athletic injuries or medical conditions.

This is partly intended to establish a clearer national boundary between college and professional athletics.

Rather than eligibility standards repeatedly being reshaped through waivers, lawsuits and state-level action, Congress would establish the baseline.

Schools Would Still Pay Athletes Directly

The bill does not attempt to return college sports to the pre-NIL amateur model.

Direct athlete compensation is now part of the system.

The legislation essentially builds upon the revenue-sharing structure created by the House settlement while creating additional rules around spending.

Revisions to the bill included a $22.5 million retention fund, with schools potentially unlocking another $5 million in retention spending on a dollar-for-dollar basis through qualifying NIL spending on women’s and Olympic sports.

That creates a potential maximum of $27.5 million through that particular retention mechanism.

The broader objective is to create boundaries around how schools compensate and retain athletes rather than pretending the money can be removed from college athletics.

Scholarships Get Stronger Protections

Some of the legislation’s biggest provisions have received less attention than NIL and football.

Athletes would receive significant new scholarship protections.

According to the Senate Commerce Committee’s description of the legislation, schools could not simply take away an athlete’s scholarship because of an injury or poor athletic performance.

Athletes would also receive scholarship support for as long as 10 years after their eligibility to return and finish their degrees.

That could be particularly meaningful for athletes whose playing careers interfere with completing their education.

Athletes Would Receive Post-College Medical Protection

Another major change involves healthcare.

Division I schools would be required to cover qualifying out-of-pocket medical costs related to athletic injuries and illnesses while athletes compete and for five years after their eligibility ends.

The proposal also establishes a national medical-support structure intended to help lower-resource programs and athletes dealing with significant long-term sports-related conditions.

The revised legislation specifically clarifies that these requirements are a minimum, meaning schools and conferences could provide more extensive coverage.

Women’s and Olympic Sports Are a Major Part of the Bill

Football and men’s basketball generate most of the headlines.

But one of Congress’s central concerns is what happens to everything else.

As athletic departments redirect tens of millions of dollars toward direct athlete compensation, schools face pressure to reduce expenses elsewhere.

The Protect College Sports Act includes mechanisms intended to protect women’s sports, Olympic sports and other non-football programs.

The legislation requires certain minimum sports protections, while the pooled-media provisions contain additional requirements aimed at maintaining non-football opportunities and roster spots.

Supporters argue those guardrails are necessary because a college athletics system driven almost entirely by football and basketball economics could put smaller programs at risk.

Critics question whether the protections go far enough or will be equally effective across institutions.

What the Bill Does NOT Do

There are several important things the legislation does not do.

It does not eliminate NIL.

It does not prohibit athletes from making significant amounts of money.

It does not eliminate school revenue sharing.

It does not completely eliminate the transfer portal.

And critically, it does not resolve whether college athletes should be legally classified as employees.

That question has enormous implications.

Employee status could eventually involve minimum-wage laws, employment benefits, workers’ compensation and potentially collective bargaining and unionization.

The legislation largely sidesteps that larger labor-law question rather than definitively resolving it.

That means one of the biggest debates surrounding the future of college athletics could continue even if the bill becomes law.

The Antitrust Issue May Be the Most Important Part

Behind NIL and transfers sits a less flashy—but potentially enormous—issue:

antitrust law.

For years, many of the changes in college sports have happened because athletes challenged NCAA compensation restrictions in court.

The Protect College Sports Act would provide schools, conferences and athletic associations with certain antitrust protections when enforcing rules authorized by the legislation.

The Congressional Budget Office says the bill would provide antitrust exemptions involving specific NIL, eligibility, compensation and media-rights arrangements.

Supporters argue this legal certainty is necessary.

Their argument is straightforward: Congress cannot establish national rules if every rule can immediately become the subject of another antitrust lawsuit.

Critics see the issue differently.

They argue athletes have gained many of their economic rights precisely because they were able to challenge NCAA restrictions in court, and limiting future antitrust litigation could reduce athletes’ leverage.

That disagreement may ultimately be more consequential than the debate over the transfer portal itself.

So Why Was Trump at Texas vs. Tennessee?

President Trump’s appearance at Texas–Tennessee on September 26 came at a particularly significant moment.

The matchup featured No. 1 Texas against No. 14 Tennessee at Neyland Stadium and quarterback Arch Manning, making it one of the biggest college football games of the weekend.

But the trip also occurred immediately before the Senate’s expected vote on the Protect College Sports Act.

Trump had already publicly supported federal action on college sports, and reporting ahead of the game specifically connected the appearance with the administration’s push for the legislation.

Trump then promoted the bill while attending the game, expressing confidence that House Speaker Mike Johnson could help move it through the House.

Two days later, the White House formally called on Congress to pass it.

And that same day, the Senate voted 77–22 in favor.

Trump’s appearance therefore placed the president at the center of college football immediately before one of the most consequential congressional votes the sport has seen.

It is worth noting that college-sports policy was not necessarily the sole reason for the trip. Trump has frequently attended major sporting events during his second term, and the Texas–Tennessee game was itself a nationally prominent matchup. The visit also occurred during the run-up to the 2026 midterm elections.

Would This Actually Make College Sports Better?

That depends largely on which problem you’re trying to solve.

Supporters believe the biggest improvement would be certainty.

Instead of 30-plus states potentially establishing different NIL rules, there would be one national framework.

Instead of constantly changing transfer standards, athletes would know the rules.

Instead of pretending athletes aren’t part of a multibillion-dollar business, federal law would explicitly protect NIL compensation while maintaining direct revenue sharing.

Athletes would gain scholarship guarantees, post-eligibility medical coverage, agent protections and clearer contractual rights.

Schools would gain greater legal certainty.

Coaches would potentially gain more roster stability.

And non-revenue programs would receive protections intended to reduce the likelihood that football’s rapidly increasing expenses consume the rest of an athletic department.

But those potential benefits come with tradeoffs.

Athletes could face tighter restrictions on multiple transfers.

Schools and governing bodies would receive certain antitrust protections.

Federal rules would preempt numerous state NIL laws.

And critics argue athletes should have greater bargaining power over rules governing their compensation and mobility.

So this isn’t simply Congress “fixing NIL.”

It is Congress attempting to answer a much bigger question.

What Is College Sports Supposed to Be Now?

That may be the real significance of the Protect College Sports Act.

The old version of college athletics is already gone.

Athletes can make money from their personal brands.

Schools can directly share millions in revenue with players.

Transfers have become a major component of roster construction.

Boosters and collectives influence recruiting.

Conference realignment has transformed traditional rivalries.

Television contracts generate billions.

The Protect College Sports Act doesn’t attempt to reverse all of that.

Instead, it attempts to establish boundaries around the new system.

Athletes can be compensated.

NIL remains.

Revenue sharing remains.

Transfers remain.

But Congress would establish national rules governing how those systems operate.

For supporters, that represents stability after years of litigation and constant rule changes.

For critics, it risks giving the NCAA, conferences and universities too much legal authority over athletes without giving players equivalent collective bargaining power.

Both sides therefore agree on at least one thing:

The current college sports model has fundamentally changed.

The argument now is over who gets to write the rules for whatever comes next.

And after the Senate’s 77–22 vote, Washington is closer than ever to doing exactly that.

As of October 1, 2026, the Protect College Sports Act has passed the U.S. Senate but has not yet become federal law. It must still clear the House of Representatives before reaching President Trump’s desk.