Order in the Court: How the Protect College Sports Act of 2026 Aims to Bring Uniformity to NIL Commercialization Through Federal Law
Emily Bruner
In today’s college athletics landscape, it is hard to imagine a time when college athletes and universities, which generate millions of dollars in revenue, were banned, deemed ineligible, or even stripped of a Heisman Trophy.[1] From its inception in 1906, the NCAA evaded antitrust laws under the guise of amateurism.[2] This system began to erode with the ruling in Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston,[3] when the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA restricting student benefits to solely education-related benefits violated antitrust laws, and was accelerated with the House v. NCAA settlement,[4] which permitted college athletes to receive compensation from outside companies for brand deals.[5] This quickly evolved into school boosters forming “collectives” to pool donor money and pay the athletes.[6]
While college athletes have wanted to benefit individually from their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) for decades, even NIL proponents have acknowledged that the current governing NIL framework is unworkable and fragmented across states.[7] In response to public demand, the United States Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA) on September 28, 2026.[8] If the House of Representatives passes this bill and the President signs it, NIL would move away from the fragmented state regulatory system toward a more sophisticated, fair, and clear framework. The PSCA passed through the Senate along largely bipartisan lines and received public endorsements from the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA, indicating broad support for change to preserve college athletics.[9]
In recent years, federal and state courts have faced mounting lawsuits from NCAA athletes challenging the NCAA’s eligibility and transfer rules.[10] Because of the timeliness of a college season and the irreparable harm that comes with losing one, judges have deferred to granting preliminary injunctions and allowing athletes to compete. By the time litigation is ready to proceed, the NCAA has either worked to have the claim dismissed via exception—further dismantling its own rules—or the point has become moot.[11] The fundamental issue with this system is that athletes do not get consistent rulings across states, and lawsuits have dissected and dismantled enforcement of the NCAA’s long-standing bylaws and constitution.
If enacted, this bill would codify a federal right for student-athletes to receive NIL compensation and bring stability to college sports by establishing a uniform national standard that preempts state law. Currently, the rules governing an athlete’s NIL opportunities, compensation, a school’s responsibilities, and a collective’s permissible conduct depend on the state where the university is located.[12] Rather than letting conflicting state statutes and court rulings continue to shape the NCAA's future, the PCSA would enable consistency.[13]
The PCSA allows continued NIL commercialization while balancing competing interests among athletes, universities, and the NCAA. Key components of the act include: adopting the revenue-sharing cap from the House settlement, capping agent fees for NIL deals at 5%, prohibiting agents from misleading athletes about their NIL value to encourage transferring, ensuring athletes can finish out their academic careers through scholarships, and covering medical expenses.[14] On the more contentious issues, the PCSA would grant athletes five years of eligibility, limit transfers to one “free” transfer before requiring a year of sitting out,[15] and prohibit coaches and key staff from leaving during the college season. Lastly, the PCSA would amend the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 and provide limited antitrust protections to allow schools to negotiate their media rights.[16]
The continued opportunity for athletes to profit from their NIL, with the guardrails provided by the PCSA, will allow the “uniquely American tradition,” as NCAA president Charlie Baker would claim, to continue.[17] The PCSA’s most significant effect would be the formal commercialization of NIL. The issue is no longer whether athletes should be paid, but whether rules are enforced uniformly. The NCAA would no longer serve as the final arbiter on transfer or eligibility issues because college sports will become a commercial endeavor.
Opponents of the PCSA criticize the act for limiting these athletes' earning potential. Although true, there is something to be said about the NCAA being the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and the immense earning potential the PCSA still allows.[18] The major difference will be the scrutiny that collectives, or boosters, face in payments to athletes, as they will have to be submitted to ensure they fulfill a “valid business purpose.”[19] Overall, codifying the PCSA would let college sports move forward in a way that benefits everyone and bring the much-needed uniformity college sports have sought since NIL was allowed.
[1] Cody Nagel, Reggie Bush Heisman reinstatement rekindles memories of most controversial NCAA penalties ever administered (Apr. 24, 2024)
[2] Id.
[3] 594 U.S. 69 (2021)
[4] College Athlete Compensation: Impacts of the House Settlement (Aug. 15, 2025) https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11349
[5] Ralph D. Russo, Justin Williams, and Stewart Mandel, Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes (Jun. 6, 2025) https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6367741/2025/06/06/house-ncaa-settlement-approved-revenue-sharing/
[6] Stewart Mandel, Cap? What cap? How college football programs blow past player spending limits (Sept. 17, 2026) https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7590329/2026/09/17/college-football-revenue-sharing-nil-cap-budgets/
[7] Jason Burger, Nick Saban testifies on bill to regulate NIL practices in college sports (Jun. 3, 2026) https://www.koco.com/article/nick-saban-testifies-bill-to-regulate-nil-practices-college-sports/71487970
[8] U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Protect College Sports Act (Sept. 28, 2026) https://www.commerce.senate.gov/press/rep/release/senate-overwhelmingly-passes-protect-college-sports-act/
[9] Id.
[10] See, Pavia v. NCAA (2025) and Elad v. NCAA (2025) (challenging that NCAA’s rule restricting transferring violated Sherman Act); see also, Chambliss v. NCAA (2026) and Zakai Ziegler v. NCAA, (challenging the NCAA’s authority to enforce its own eligibility rules).
[11] Referencing Chambliss and Pavia.
[12] Marvin Yates, The new Economics of College Athletics (An Update on Name, Image, and Likeness Laws) (Sept. 29, 2026) https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2026/09/29/breaking-down-the-protect-college-sports-act-passed-by-the-senate/
[13] Id.
[14] Id. The PCSA would also ensure women’s and Olympic sports are protected by requiring schools to maintain a minimum number of sports and mandating that schools who generate over $80 million in revenue are keeping the same number of roster spots and scholarships for non-revenue sports as they did in 2024.
[15] Id. “[A]lthough athletes could transfer again without penalty if they are pursuing a graduate degree, their sport is cut, their head coaches leaves, or they are sexually assaulted or harassed.”
[16] Id.
[17] Becky Sullivan, The Senate passes the Protect College Sports Act, but the bill’s future is unclear (Sept. 28, 2026) https://www.npr.org/2026/09/28/nx-s1-5977851/protect-college-sports-act-senate-bill-vote
[18] Id. at supra note 6.
[19] Id.