The right strategy is to overhaul the old system and build a better one with pragmatic national rules that recognize athlete safety and welfare.
College sports stakeholders have been calling on Congress to create a federal framework that is durable, fair, and centered on our athletes’ welfare. That need has become apparent with the emergence of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, which has opened the doors for new revenue streams and changed the high school and college landscape forever. A sensible federal baseline can give states, universities, the NCAA, and the College Sports Commission (CSC) clear rules to abide by and enforce, while reducing the chaos of the current fragmented patchwork system, which is mired by litigation.
Several bipartisan bills have been proposed by members of Congress and the most recent to gain traction is the Protect College Sports Act, introduced in late May by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who chairs the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), a ranking member of the committee. The Act provides the most focused approach to athlete protections to date and has the support of many, but is also receiving pushback from influential entities. The fact that the Big Ten and SEC support the concept of a national framework while opposing this bill “as drafted” says a lot about where this debate stands.
The bill contains several promising protection measures, but its shortcomings demonstrate why those of us who do this work must play a larger role in shaping any federal framework.
What the Act Gets Right
The bill’s strongest feature is that it puts our athletes’ medical, physical and financial welfare front and center. The medical provisions are especially significant: Division I schools would have to cover out-of-pocket medical costs for sports-related injuries during participation and for five years after an athlete’s final competition, and the bill adds catastrophic injury coverage, second-opinion coverage, and an end-of-college physical.
It is a welcome development that the Act includes a $60 million medical trust fund for smaller schools and long-term conditions, which recognizes that the worst injuries are rare, expensive, and part of the real risk structure of college sports.
A serious injury or illness can reshape a rising star’s life – financially, physically, and emotionally. Congress needs to recognize that an athlete’s needs do not disappear when eligibility ends.
The scholarship protections are equally important. The bill would prohibit revoking or reducing a grant-in-aid because of athletic performance, injury, illness, or roster management decisions. In a system that has too often treated education as conditional on physical durability, that is a meaningful reform. It also aligns with the principle that our athletes should not lose access to their education because they are injured doing the work the institution asked them to do.
The NIL framework is also a genuine strength, as the bill recognizes that NIL rights are a fixture of the college sports economy. It protects the athlete’s ability to market and profit from NIL rights, while also creating disclosure rules, agent regulation, and limits on deceptive conduct.
Sen. Cantwell has stated that under the Act, “NIL contracts must include key terms like what the athlete must do under the contract and how much they will be paid.” That directness is the appropriate starting point for a modern college sports law.
Big Ten and SEC Respond
The joint response to the Act from the Big Ten and SEC shows that the biggest conferences are not rejecting federal reform; they are rejecting this draft’s approach. While they may have made some valid points in their criticism, some say they might have an ulterior motive for their stance.
The conferences warned that the bill does not meaningfully preempt state law, shifts rulemaking to Congress in a way that limits flexibility, and may increase litigation rather than reduce it.
Some commentators have questioned whether the conferences are genuinely motivated by concerns for athlete welfare and the integrity of college sports or if their position reflects legal and commercial objections. It is more likely that, considering they lead a multibillion-dollar industry driven by viewership and ticket sales, these conferences are apprehensive about the bill’s media rights pooling provisions. The Act contains provisions that would legally foreclose avenues for future commercial expansion and restrict contractual freedom.
Critics believe this is the key reason the conferences said they “support a sustainable national framework for college sports,” but do not support the bill “as drafted.”
Why Sports Lawyers Matter
Though it will be an uphill battle for the bill to advance through Congress and reach the president’s desk (and the president has signaled support for the legislation), the co-sponsors could amend and improve the Protect College Sports Act before it becomes law.
The debate on the merits of the Protect College Sports Act provides a forum for sports lawyers to advocate for the interests of their clients. The federal framework should not be written solely by institutions, conferences, or lobbyists whose incentives are often said to be tied to preserving discretion and minimizing exposure. Lawyers who represent athletes understand the long tail of sports-related harm: delayed symptoms, lifetime care, lost earning capacity, and the gap between what a school promises and what an injured athlete actually needs.
Sports lawyers can push for clearer medical coverage obligations, stronger and larger benefits, catastrophic injury protections, better dispute resolution, and enforcement mechanisms that are meaningful rather than symbolic. Just as important, they can help ensure that the federal baseline reflects the lived reality of our athletes who suffer injuries that do not end when the season ends.
Steps Congress Should Take Before the Clock Runs Out
If Congress wants a durable framework, it should welcome input from those of us who have spent their careers handling the consequences of athletic injury. That perspective is essential to drafting rules that actually protect athletes and withstand scrutiny.
The right strategy is to overhaul the old system and build a better one with pragmatic national rules that recognize athlete safety and welfare. The Protect College Sports Act comes closer than any proposal to date to achieving that goal, but Congress should accept input from sports lawyers who understand both the opportunities created by NIL and the long-term consequences of athletic injury. Their experience can help ensure that future reforms adequately protect athletes who may become the next generation of professional sports leaders.
Through this collaboration between lawmakers and litigators, college sports may finally achieve the stability it has lacked for far too long.
Join the conversation!