College Sports Needs Accountability, Not Just Federal Protection

OPENING STATEMENT

College sports needs rules. What it does not need is a federal shield that protects institutional authority without imposing comparable institutional accountability.

Whether it ends up passing - the Senate voted to advance the bill to debate but The House has left Washington until after the midterms - let’s take a look at what a new framework may mean. 

The bill responds to a genuine problem. College athletics now operates through an unstable mix of NCAA rules, state NIL laws, litigation and the House settlement. The PCSA would replace much of that fragmentation with national standards governing NIL, transfers, eligibility, agents and athlete compensation. It would preempt conflicting state laws in several of those areas and provide targeted antitrust protection for institutions, conferences and athletic associations enforcing the new rules.

There is real value in uniformity. Athletes should not face materially different rights because they cross a state line. Legitimate NIL transactions should be distinguishable from disguised recruiting inducements. The bill also includes meaningful academic, scholarship, medical, health-and-safety, whistleblower and ombudsman protections.

But stability is not neutral. It depends on who receives protection, who accepts restraint and who bears the risk when the system fails.

The bill would protect national limits on athlete compensation from many antitrust challenges. If Congress protects the ceiling, it should also establish a meaningful floor for athlete compensation or benefits. Institutions should not have broad authority to restrain earnings while retaining discretion to pay less. Or even nothing.

The same imbalance appears in the bill’s treatment of financial sustainability. Schools could use a retention pool of $22.5 million above the House-settlement revenue-sharing cap, plus as much as $5 million more tied to spending on women’s, Olympic and other non-revenue sports. Yet athlete compensation remains the expenditure Congress regulates most directly.

One likely, and deeply ironic, consequence deserves attention: although Sen. Ted Cruz told ESPN last weekend the PCSA would stop boosters from appearing in back alleys with bags of cash, its compensation cap could instead become a floor, reviving the black bags and $100 handshakes required to compete above it.

An athletic department is not financially responsible because it limits athlete pay; it is responsible when it manages the entire balance sheet. Any serious sustainability framework must examine coaching and administrative compensation, buyouts, facilities, debt, donor dependence and institutional subsidies, not just athlete pay. The bill’s restriction involving certain coaching compensation regulates where some money may come from, not how much may be spent, leaving room to restructure funding without reducing the underlying pressure.

Congress could build on financial data schools already report and measure institutional health over time. Departments approaching distress could be required to submit corrective plans and restrain discretionary spending before reducing revenue sharing, scholarships, rosters or sports. If a school violates the cap, penalties should reach the presidents, athletic directors and other decision-makers responsible, not athletes who had no role in the violation.

Mobility requires the same balance. The bill guarantees one transfer without lost eligibility but generally imposes a year of ineligibility after a second transfer, subject to listed exceptions. Its five-year eligibility framework also includes certain approved absences. Those standards may reduce churn, but rules designed for predictability must still account for injury, mental-health needs, family hardship, international education systems and athletes cut after a transfer window closes. A rule without a practical hardship process turns circumstances beyond an athlete’s control into a permanent penalty. Athletes should also be able to present their own waiver requests, rather than depend on their institution.

NIL enforcement presents another risk. The bill requires disclosure of larger transactions and creates an anonymized database intended to help athletes assess fair market value. That database should inform the market, not define or cap an athlete’s value. Disclosure mistakes should trigger proportionate consequences, with eligibility penalties reserved for repeated or knowing misconduct. Athletes who relied in good faith on prior rules or approvals also need transition protection, and their compensation data should not be repurposed beyond compliance.

The PCSA can create needed order. But Congress should not confuse fewer lawsuits with a fairer system. Antitrust protection, compensation restraints and limits on mobility form a bargain. That bargain must be reciprocal: enforceable athlete rights, due process, Title IX clarity and department-wide financial discipline in exchange for institutional stability.

The real question is whether the people writing and enforcing the rules will be subject to the same discipline they impose on athletes.

EXHIBIT A

Oregon State’s women’s basketball unionization hearing could become another pivotal test of college athletics’ evolving employment model. Testimony began this week with the Oregon Employment Relations Board set to reconvene October 19-20 before issuing an anticipated decision in late November. The United College Athletes Association argues players receiving a reported $543,000 collectively for team-related work meet Oregon’s definition of public employees, while OSU maintains NIL and financial aid are not wages. If the board recognizes the athletes as employees, the implications could stretch well beyond one team,raising questions around collective bargaining, taxes, scholarships, Title IX, recruiting and competitive equity nationwide.

EXHIBIT B

We’ve talked a lot about the influx, impact, and changing rules around international students. Now a new congressional proposal could dramatically reshape the makeup of college rosters, particularly in sports such as golf and tennis that rely on international recruiting. It also may impact basketball, where international rosters have increasingly played a key role in success. The TEAM USA Act, introduced by Sen. Jon Husted and Rep. Tim Walberg, would cap international student-athletes at 20% of each roster beginning in 2029-30. On a typical Division I golf team of eight or nine players, that could mean just one international player. Supporters frame the measure as protecting opportunities for American students, but its practical effects could reach far beyond scholarship allocation, altering recruiting pipelines, competitive balance, and the global character that has long helped define college athletics.

ON THE DOCKET

I’m keeping an eye on Rylan Griffen’s temporary restraining order hearing, which is set for Monday, Sept. 28. It raises a consequential question beyond the individual eligibility of the Texas A&M basketball player, as its scope bars the NCAA from enforcing roster-limit rules. Unlike traditional NCAA eligibility rules, those limits stem from the court-approved House settlement and its injunctive relief. A court may be more willing to pause rules established by a private association; intervening in requirements imposed through another federal court’s settlement order is a different matter, and potentially one that’s far more complicated.

FOOTNOTES

10 

Number of schools that have a FOOTBALL payroll at or above the PCSA’s cap for ALL of a school’s programs, according to an analysis by The Athletic