On June 18, 2026, the Senate Commerce Committee passed the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act of 2026 (“PCSA”), advancing the legislation to the full Senate. Senators Cantwell, Cruz, Coons, and Schmitt, who introduced the PCSA, claim that their goal is to restore order to college athletics. College sports have changed greatly following the Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston. Alston held that NCAA compensation restrictions are subject to full rule-of-reason antitrust scrutiny. Numerous court rulings overturning other NCAA rules, including transfer restrictions, compensation caps, and name image and likeness funding, soon followed. While the ultimate outcome of the PCSA remains uncertain, the passage by the Senate Commerce Committee is a significant step toward reshaping the college sports landscape.
Antitrust Exemptions
As drafted, the PCSA contains two antitrust exemptions – one to allow certain NCAA rule enforcement and one related to the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. Section 118 of the PCSA provides an antitrust exemption for the NCAA, conferences, or member institutions to enforce the bill’s rules governing athlete compensation caps (Section 114), the revenue-share ceiling (Section 115), eligibility (Section 113), transfer restrictions (Section 112), anti-tampering provisions (Section 117), agent registry requirements (Section 103), and the prohibition on mid-season coaching defections (Section 110). The exemption only applies if an association has codified rules implementing those provisions. The practical effect is to immunize the NCAA from the category of Sherman Act Section 1 challenges that produced Alston and its progeny. Plaintiffs may still sue under the bill’s private right of action (Section 119) for non-compliance with the statute’s affirmative requirements, but they cannot separately attack the underlying restriction as anticompetitive.
The second antitrust exemption is Title II’s amendment to the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, allowing schools and conferences to jointly pool and sell intercollegiate broadcast rights. This mirrors the exemption Congress granted to the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL in 1961. That exemption generally prevents organizations from being sued for antitrust violations arising from joint broadcast-rights negotiations. The PCSA makes the exemption conditional on 75% of FBS schools opting in and the negotiating entity meeting governance, revenue-distribution, and women’s-sports-protection requirements.
While not an antitrust exemption, an additional relevant provision prevents conferences earning more than $1 billion in revenue from acquiring or merging with other conferences.
Criticism of the PCSA
The bill has fractured college athletics into an unusual coalition of opponents, with powerhouse conferences and player advocacy groups opposing the bill.
The SEC and Big Ten, the two wealthiest entities in college sports, released a joint statement opposing the bill as written, arguing that it could result in fewer revenue share payments and more litigation. The Big 12 and ACC, on the other hand, endorsed the legislation. The split can be largely understood through economics: conferences that have already maximized the value of their media rights oppose pooling under the Sports Broadcasting Act and those that have not, support it.
Player groups have arrived at their opposition through a very different analysis. The National College Players Association called it “an unprecedented federal assault on college athletics” that takes away athletes’ ability to use the free market to maximize their earnings. Athletes.org argued the Act places restrictions on athletes without giving them the opportunity to negotiate for their own rights and opportunities. The core objection is that the bill gives the NCAA a statutory antitrust shield without requiring that those rules be negotiated with athletes through any collective process. In major professional sports, antitrust protection for labor-market restraints flows from collectively bargained agreements. Here, Congress would grant it unilaterally.
Implications for the Future
In some ways, the PCSA moves beyond the pre-Alston landscape towards a regulated college sports environment that provides for player compensation, with limits, and NCAA rules that are less draconian than the past. The bill also codifies the settlement in House v. NCAA, which permitted revenue sharing between schools and student athletes, subject to a payment cap. The PCSA also includes agent rules and medical payment plans to protect student athletes. However, the bill dodges the key question of whether student athletes are school employees and avoids collective bargaining issues. The PCSA caps athlete compensation without giving student athletes a chance to form a players’ union and collectively bargain for various provisions. For example, the PCSA’s transfer rule restricts player movement (effectively overturning the settlement in Ohio v. NCAA that rejected athlete transfer restrictions) from school-to-school without giving student athletes the chance to negotiate those restrictions in exchange for other benefits. If passed, the PCSA will provide clarity and certainty in some areas of college athletics while leaving key questions, particularly about student athlete involvement in the future of college sports, unanswered.
