Senate Passes Protect College Sports Act 77-22, Bill Now Stalls Until the House Returns After Midterms

What the Senate actually did

After roughly a year of negotiations between Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., the Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act Monday night by a vote of 77-22, according to NPR, CBS News and The Hill. The bill now heads to the House, which is on recess until after the November midterms. Its prospects there are genuinely unclear.

The legislation grants the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption so it can enforce a five-year eligibility window, cap athletes to one penalty-free transfer per career, and set national rules on name, image and likeness payments, according to NPR and the LA Times. It also caps agent fees at 5%, per The Hill.

On the money side, sources describe the new revenue-sharing structure slightly differently. CBS News reports schools can share about $21.6 million with athletes for the 2026-2027 school year plus a $22.5 million athlete retention fund. The LA Times reports the cap rises to roughly $50 million per school, up from $21.5 million, with an additional $27 million retention allowance. The Hill separately describes a $50 million annual spending cap. The figures vary by outlet, likely reflecting different components of the same settlement-based formula, but the direction is consistent: schools get significantly more room to pay athletes directly than the $21.5 million baseline set by last year's House v. NCAA settlement.

Who's for it

President Trump has pushed for the bill publicly, calling it a "really big deal" on Truth Social and telling reporters in mid-September, "we have no choice. We have to get that done," according to Fox News. The NCAA thanked Cruz, Cantwell and Sens. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., and Chris Coons, D-Del., by name in a statement reported by CBS News.

Former Alabama coach Nick Saban testified to the Senate Commerce Committee in June that "every rule becomes another lawsuit, every standard becomes another risk" without federal action, according to the LA Times. Cruz framed the status quo bluntly on the floor: "The system we have today is unsustainable, plain and simple... young men and women are losing opportunities to compete and receive an education," per CBS News.

Who's against it

Twenty-two senators voted no, and the opposition isn't confined to one side of the aisle. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., a former Stanford football player, argued on the floor and on X that the bill "pulls the rug out" from athletes who generate billions for their schools while getting no seat at the table, according to The Hill and Newsweek. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said it would "preserve the exploitative model of college sports," per The Hill.

The Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP have both come out against the bill, according to CNBC and The Hill. The CBC's objection is specific: the caucus said it could not back legislation benefiting "major athletic institutions that continue to remain silent while Black voting rights and Black political power are being systematically dismantled across the South," CNBC reported. This statement is tied to the CBC's earlier move to sink a similar bill, the SCORE Act, in the House. It's the same coalition that has to sign off if this bill is going to clear the House.

On the right, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has argued politicians should simply stay out of college sports and let athletes compete under market conditions without a federally blessed antitrust shield for the NCAA, according to Fox News. Handing a private governing body legal protection from the same courts that forced it to loosen its rules in the first place is not exactly a small-government solution, even if the current transfer-portal chaos is real.

Sam Ehrlich, a Boise State University professor who tracks college sports litigation, put it more sharply to NPR: "I think the better way to frame it is 'The Protect the NCAA Act.' It gives the NCAA significant institutional power to be able to continue to control college sports at the expense of athletes."

The unresolved question

Both sides have valid points. The NCAA and its allies are right that five years of conflicting court rulings, unrestricted transfers and untracked booster money have produced a genuinely unstable system. The bill's critics are right that a federal antitrust shield handed to the same organization that lost most of those court cases is a real transfer of power away from the athletes who won them.

CBS News reported the House timeline is unclear. NPR confirmed the chamber won't even take it up until after the midterms. The Congressional Black Caucus has already proven, with the SCORE Act, that it can stop similar legislation cold. Whether Cruz and Cantwell's coalition can hold in the House, where the CBC has real leverage and where Trump's endorsement carries less bipartisan weight than it did in the Senate, remains to be seen.