A 77-22 vote that could reshape college athletics
On Monday, September 28, 2026, the United States Senate did something it has talked about doing for years: it passed sweeping federal legislation to regulate college sports. The Protect College Sports Act cleared the chamber by a bipartisan 77-22 vote, bringing Congress closer than ever to enacting national standards governing where — and for how much — intercollegiate athletes play.
The bill now heads to the House of Representatives, which is expected to take it up after the November 3 midterm elections, and then to the desk of President Trump, who has signaled he would sign it. If it becomes law, it would represent the most significant federal intervention in college athletics in history — and the NCAA's biggest legal victory in decades.
What the bill actually does
The legislation, co-authored by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), is wide-ranging. Its centerpiece is a limited antitrust exemption for the NCAA, its conferences, and member schools — a protection akin to those enjoyed by professional sports leagues — allowing them to set and enforce rules around athlete eligibility, transfers, and compensation without constant fear of being taken to court.
Here are the key provisions:
- Revenue-sharing cap raised: The limit on what each school can directly pay athletes rises from the $21.3 million set by a 2025 NCAA settlement to $48.8 million — more than double. The figure includes a $22.5 million fund for retaining current players and up to $5 million earmarked for women's and Olympic sports.
- One free transfer: Athletes will be allowed to transfer between schools once without sitting out a season.
- Five-year eligibility rule: The NCAA's five-year competition window is restored, with the clock starting the academic year after an athlete turns 19 or when they first enroll full-time, whichever comes first.
- National NIL standard: A federal name, image, and likeness framework overrides the current patchwork of conflicting state laws. NIL earnings over $600 must be disclosed to the athlete's institution.
- Agent regulation: Agent fees are capped at 5%, with a formal agent registry.
- Coaching restrictions: Coaches are barred from leaving for a different school during the season.
- Scholarship guarantees: Schools must honor scholarships for 10 years following an athlete's final season.
- Medical protections: Division I schools must cover out-of-pocket medical costs for sports-related injuries, during participation and for five years afterward. A $60 million medical trust fund, drawn from the NCAA's coffers, will assist smaller schools and athletes with long-term conditions, alongside mandated catastrophic injury coverage, access to second opinions, and post-career physical examinations.
- Program protections: Athletic departments with more than $80 million in annual revenue are prohibited from cutting roster spots, grant-in-aid opportunities, or women's and Olympic sports teams below 2024-25 levels for nine years.
- Conference stability: Power 4 conference membership is capped at 20 schools, with a three-year waiting period on conference switching that expires at the end of 2031.
Why supporters say it was necessary
The bill's backers — including the NCAA itself, major conferences, powerhouse programs, and the White House — describe college athletics as a system in crisis. "College sports is at a breaking point," Cruz wrote in a post on X last week, promising the bill would "restore order to a system being torn apart by too few rules and too much litigation. It establishes national standards for transfers, eligibility, tampering, inducements, and revenue sharing while protecting athletes' right to earn [name, image and likeness] compensation."
At a mid-September news conference, Cruz was blunter: "Right now, it is the Wild West." Proponents point to more than 100 non-revenue sports teams eliminated since 2023 as evidence that the current model is devouring the programs it was meant to sustain. Television commercials featuring figures like Alabama coaching great Nick Saban have aired during college football broadcasts this month, and Cruz appeared on ESPN's College GameDay to make the case directly to fans.
"It would be nice if college sports could somehow magically fix itself, but this is a matter of law, federal law, and only Congress can fix it. Now I know some argue that college sports are doing just fine. They point to high television ratings, enthusiastic fan bases, and packed stadiums. But popularity does not demonstrate that the system is healthy. It simply proves that the system is worth saving." — Sen. Ted Cruz
President Trump, who called for the bill's passage on Truth Social on September 17, praised the Senate vote as "a really big deal," adding: "It will not only save college sports, it will save the colleges themselves."
The opposition: who voted no, and why
Despite the lopsided vote, the bill has determined critics. The 22 senators who voted against it were joined by labor organizations, athlete advocacy groups, and civil rights organizations, who argue the legislation restricts athlete rights while leaving institutional spending — coaching salaries, recruiting budgets, administrative bloat — largely untouched.
The numbers they cite are striking: coaching salaries rose 370% between 2005 and 2023, recruitment costs climbed 322%, and travel expenses increased more than 200%. None of those categories face caps under the bill. During six hours of Senate debate, an amendment to cap head coach salaries at $5 million was voted down 52-47 — a defeat critics say reveals the bill's true priorities.
"We have a bill that's going to protect the wealth and the gravy train for a lot of folks but puts burdens on college athletes." — Sen. Cory Booker
Critics also note that the protections for women's sports expire after nine years, and that the bill's limits on athlete movement and earnings could face fresh legal challenges of their own. The antitrust exemption, they warn, may simply move the courtroom battles to new ground rather than ending them.
The money behind the vote
The legislative push was among the most heavily lobbied in recent sports history. Lobbyists spent at least $31 million on college athletics issues, including the bill, with involvement from 36 members of the NCAA's four most powerful conferences and more than 60 colleges, according to OpenSecrets data. Notre Dame, Ohio State, and Western Michigan University were among the heaviest spenders.
That investment paid off in the Senate, where negotiations led by Cruz and Cantwell stretched over more than a year and steadily accumulated bipartisan co-sponsors. The chamber invoked cloture 74-24 on September 15 before the final 77-22 passage on September 28.
What happens next
The bill's future is not yet certain. The House is on recess until after the November 3 midterm elections, and its appetite for the Senate's version is unclear. The legislation could be amended, delayed, or left to the next Congress. But the Senate vote has shifted the center of gravity: for the first time, a comprehensive federal framework for college sports has cleared one chamber with a veto-proof-style margin and a president signaling he will sign it.
If enacted, the law would end the era in which state legislatures set competing NIL rules and courts decided eligibility case by case. It would give the NCAA the legal shield it has sought for a decade — and give athletes a national standard for compensation, medical care, and scholarship security that no court ruling had ever provided.
Whether that trade represents order restored or power entrenched depends on whom you ask. The 77 senators who voted yes see a system worth saving. The 22 who voted no see athletes paying the price. The House, and then the president, will decide which vision becomes law.
Sources
