Given all the gridlock in Washington these days, it is remarkable that the U.S. Senate managed to pass something with a 77–22 vote.
The Protect College Sports Act, sponsored by Sens. Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell, promises to bring order to the chaos of intercollegiate athletics. Transfers, NIL deals, runaway spending and the constant fundraising required to compete in major college football and basketball have created a system that increasingly resembles the pros.
Never underestimate how much legislators care about sports.
But here's the question: Is Congress trying to protect college athletes, or the institutions that have spent decades with their mouths on the revenue spigot.
Because those aren't necessarily the same thing.
The legislation does include meaningful protections for athletes, including federal NIL rights, medical coverage and scholarship guarantees. But it also gives colleges and athletic organizations new tools to control spending, regulate transfers and protect themselves from certain antitrust lawsuits.
And women's sports?
Despite all the political rhetoric about protecting them, this legislation doesn’t focus much on our issues.
At a time when women's sports are attracting unprecedented attention, investment and commercial opportunity, how is it possible that Congress can undertake a sweeping overhaul of college athletics without putting the economic future of women's sports at the center of the conversation?
The bill includes provisions intended to preserve opportunities in women's and Olympic sports. Large athletic departments would generally have to maintain existing scholarship opportunities and roster spots in non-revenue sports for nine years. At midsized schools, the requirement lasts four years.
But those protections largely preserve existing participation levels, rather than require new investment. Schools also retain flexibility to eliminate individual sports as long as they maintain the required overall opportunities.
That's protection with an expiration date.
The Women's Sports Foundation has been asking lawmakers for stronger guarantees for months, particularly around Title IX and the distribution of money to athletes.
“In the absence of clear Title IX guidance and dedicated incentives to invest in women’s sports, the bill risks exacerbating existing gender inequities and reducing broad-based sports opportunities,” the organization warned.
The legislation preserves Title IX, the landmark federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education. But it does not settle the increasingly important question of how that law applies when schools distribute millions of dollars directly to athletes.
That is no small omission.
The bill also creates a federal policy encouraging schools to prioritize American athletes when allocating athletic opportunities. That could have implications for sports with substantial international participation, including women's ice hockey and tennis.
Meanwhile, the legislation devotes considerable attention to giving schools and athletic organizations greater control over their businesses, including targeted antitrust protections and the ability to pool and sell media rights.
These are institutions that spent decades pouring money into facilities, coaching salaries and recruiting advantages. The NCAA had plenty of opportunities to address the growing imbalance before athletes finally gained meaningful access to compensation. Next up: Congress can vote on the bill after it returns on Nov. 9.
As always, when someone promises to protect college sports, read the fine print.
Then ask who gets protected.
