Protect College Sports Act leaves out a key component: The athletes’ voices

That the Protect College Sports Act has gotten to the point where the Senate could vote on it this week is already an upset.

The bipartisan bill written with the intent of providing federal regulation for the college athletics industry received needed approval from the Big Ten and SEC on Friday after a week of nonstop negotiations, pulling it out of what The Associated Press described as “a certain death spiral.”

As the industry has sought congressional help to set limitations to the transfer portal and athlete compensation, this could be a start, according to Jeff Schemmel, founder and president of Atlanta-based College Sports Solutions, a college athletics consulting group.

“I think everyone — I don’t care if you go Big Ten, SEC down to FCS (Football Championship Subdivision) — everyone recognizes that we have to get control of this,” Schemmel said Sunday. “And the best way is to have Congress help us and create some legislation that covers everybody in this country.”

If ratified, the bill will be a win for conferences, schools, athletic departments, fans and, to a large degree, athletes. Among other outcomes, it would restore the one-time transfer exception, meaning athletes could transfer once and compete immediately but then be subject to a sit-out year for additional transfers.

It would also place a harder ceiling on the compensation received by athletes, adjusting the revenue-sharing cap created by the House settlement.

From that agreement, in which schools could pay athletes from a portion of their revenues (it was $20.5 million per school in 2025-26), athletic departments got around that limit by having multimedia rights partners, corporate sponsors and apparel brands strike deals with athletes for compensation beyond the cap. The Protect College Sports Act would close that loophole and also significantly increase the cap to $48.8 million.

It’s what the schools desperately want — a federally mandated limit on what they can pay athletes.

Here’s the concerning part, though.

The NCAA and the conferences have been the primary entities working with congressional leaders on the bill to be granted a limited antitrust exemption. Athletes have not been directly involved in the crafting of the legislation. They’ve surely been heard, but conferences have been the primary negotiators with lawmakers.

While the original cap was established through a settlement in which athletes’ interests were represented, this bill is something like MLB working with Congress to establish a salary cap without the involvement of the players union.

Attorneys might already be sharpening their knives for a fight.

“I don’t think there’s any question that we are in an era of litigation and somebody’s going to challenge probably every piece of this legislation,” Schemmel said.

And it’s funny how the bill doesn’t introduce a cap for how much athletic directors or coaches can make nor how frequently they can switch schools.

You don’t need to prod a coach very much to hear laments about the transfer portal, athletes’ skyrocketing salaries and “the Wild, Wild West,” but they don’t seem to mind their own rising pay scale or their freedom to jump schools as they please.

While the legislation brings back the one-time transfer exception for players — again, without direct athlete input — its only restriction on head coaches who job-hop from one school to the next is that they have to do so after their seasons end and not during them. (It is called “the Lane Kiffin rule,” giving the LSU coach the honor he so rightfully deserves.)

“I think there are some parallels there that we have to consider and have to talk about that are specific to coaches,” Schemmel said.

The Protect College Sports Act could be a productive start. For instance, it has placed limitations on agent fees (5%) that will hopefully remove the predators in the field. It includes a mandate on medical coverage and protects nonrevenue sports. It’s worth noting that the ACC Student-Athlete Advisory Committee came out in support of the bill.

But, especially in football, which generates the majority of the revenue, collective bargaining continues to seem to be the solution. Not only do athletes deserve a share of the revenue by starring in the lucrative television dramas that they put on every fall Saturday, but also a hand in helping determine what that share is and what comes with it.

“I think that collective bargaining is going to continue to be on the table, for sure,” Schemmel said.

Schemmel envisions an eventual football “super league” that would allow conferences such as the Pac-12 to reassemble in their previous memberships for the other sports. He also sees the potential for the Protect College Sports Act to be adjusted in the future.

“I think there’ll be lots more to come, but we have to make a good first step, and I think this is it,” he said.

A good second step would be directly including athletes.