OPENING STATEMENT
Picture a golf coach in spring 2028 with two strong recruits and one open international spot. One is a proven winner. The other is a 17-year-old who needs two years to become one. Under a currently proposed rule, the coach stops picking the better player and starts picking the safer bet.
Congress has spent the year debating who gets paid in college sports. The TEAM USA Act that was introduced in September asks a more basic question: who gets on the team.
The bill's sponsors state that the legislation is designed to preserve athletic scholarships and roster spots for American athletes, noting that international recruitment has grown significantly. Patrick McEnroe has testified that coaches who recruit already-developed talent can crowd out American teenagers, especially those whose families can't buy another pathway. I agree that American athletes should have a real shot at those spots. My disagreement is with the tool.
Here is what H.R. 10351 would do. Starting July 1, 2029, no more than 20% of a varsity roster could be international, and there could be no more than one international athlete on teams smaller than 10. Any school in federal student-aid programs would be covered, which reaches well past Division I - and walk-ons count. Apply that to ordinary roster limits and golf (nine players) gets one slot, about 11%. Tennis (10) gets two. Hockey (26) gets five.
Exposure varies by sport. NCAA data show international athletes made up about 36% of Division I men's tennis in 2024-25, although that figure uses a different definition than the bill, so it shows concentration and says nothing about how many athletes would lose a place.
Unfortunately, there are so many ways that this cap will work against its goal - and we hear about it every day from the international student athletes that we work with. Among them:
Scarcity rewards finished products. When a coach has one or two international slots, the safest use is the most accomplished recruit. The developing teenager with real potential, the 10-bagger, gets squeezed out first . A rule meant to reduce reliance on ready-made talent could make coaches even less willing to build talent.
More roster spots carry no promise of more access. The bill requires no added scholarship, no minimum award, and no lower-income recipient. What I envision is open spots going to families who already paid for elite coaching and travel. A larger share of Americans on the roster does nothing for the family that could never afford the on-ramp to begin with.
The exit door may be shut. The condition follows the institution, so a released athlete can't count on another covered school having room under its own cap. We already see the significant and negative implications of student-athletes getting dropped from rosters. In this scenario, some will look abroad or turn pro earlier. The relatively new PGA TOUR University ties college golf to professional opportunity, so a lost spot can change a career path. In hockey, the CHL route into Division I opened August 1, 2025, and the cap would then limit who can use it. Development could move overseas, and the U.S. would lose it.
"International" covers more people than most readers expect. The definition reaches anyone who is not a U.S. national or permanent resident. It also reaches anyone who is receiving, or has received, support from a foreign Olympic or Paralympic committee. The text has no lookback limit and no grandfather clause for current athletes . A multiyear commitment made today could look very different by 2029.
I absolutely support protecting opportunities for American athletes. But I oppose a flat nationality cap as the way to do it. A cap changes who fills the roster and leaves cost, development, and access exactly where they were. Supporters are right that scarce spots matter. That is the reason to spend them where they build the most talent, American or international.
So this is the question we need to ask, if this is really about opportunity: for every spot this frees up, what makes sure an American athlete who couldn't afford the pathway can actually take it? Protecting opportunity means developing more athletes. A cap that shrinks the pool to protect it won't get there.
EXHIBIT A
The SEC is reportedly weighing a roster spending cap of about $70 million, with tiered fines that could reach $10 million for schools that exceed $70.5 million. The upside is governance. A conference-enforced cap could outlast the House settlement and give schools one rulebook. But the legal risks could be significant. A conference cap that reaches beyond the settlement invites antitrust scrutiny, and the Protect College Sports Act's conditional antitrust safe harbor seems unlikely to arrive. Spending has concentrated in football and men's basketball, so a single ceiling is likely to be shaped around those two sports. That raises a direct question about how schools will allocate under it and how they will demonstrate Title IX compliance. Conference-level governance may be the future. Whether it can carry the full weight of these obligations remains unanswered.
EXHIBIT B
Tennessee's mock CBA drew a lot of attention this week. Here is my view. AD Danny White deserves credit for giving players a seat at the table. Ahead of most of his peers, he treated athletes as parties to the deal, not subjects of it. But the document itself has no legal force and there are real structural obstacles. Athletes' employment status remains contested. One school cannot impose market-wide limits without antitrust risk, which is why any real cap needs a multi-employer unit. Title IX still applies to every program on campus. Treat it as a blueprint. The negotiation is the point, and the law has to catch up.
ON THE DOCKET
I'm intrigued this week by two stories, from two ADs, at two tiers - with one problem. Memphis AD Ed Scott, whose school might be considered in the middle of Division I, told a podcast that his program has about two years before staying outside the Power 4 becomes unsustainable. He points to roughly $9 million in distributions against about $65 million at Ole Miss. Merrimack, which has only been in Division I for a few years, plans $50 million to $75 million in campus improvements with intention to expand to about 1,000 athletes by 2030. Both are building revenue because distributions won't close the gap. Watch three things: realignment pressure on mid-majors, stadium monetization, and the legal fights over who controls the money.
FOOTNOTES
“I’ve watched donor fatigue occur across conferences. When people give money to the athletic department, they give because they support athletics. When they give money to NIL, they support the signing of a player. An equation has started to develop along the lines of: I gave money for X, I’m disappointed in the performance, my return wasn’t what I expected, so I don’t know if I’m going to 'invest' again next year.”
