Blab Sports
Senator Schmitt Leads Bipartisan Push for Uniform College Sports Rules
In late May 2026, U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R‑Mo.) introduced the Protect College Sports Act, a bipartisan proposal aimed at establishing nationwide rules for college athletics. The bill is co‑sponsored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz (R‑TX) and Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell (D‑WA). It seeks to address a series of legal challenges that have eroded the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) enforcement power and threatened the financial viability of non‑football programs.
The legislation follows a wave of lawsuits that have forced courts, rather than the NCAA, to decide which rules can be applied to student athletes. Schmitt told First Alert Forward that “college sports have become rulemaking by lawsuit, with courts, not the NCAA, deciding what rules can stand.” He argued that without federal intervention, schools could cut women’s and Olympic sports that do not generate revenue.
Saint Louis University (SLU) is cited as an example of a program that has benefited from the current legal environment. The Billikens’ men’s basketball team reached the NCAA tournament in 2025 and won a first‑round game, boosting the school’s visibility. Former SLU center Robbie Avilia said, “You’re getting treated as a professional to play. Some guys fall into that trap on the money stuff, but we have a good group here, whoever is paid what who cares, we keep the main thing the main thing. We are focused on basketball.”
The Protect College Sports Act proposes a narrow antitrust safe harbor that would allow schools and conferences to adopt uniform rules for transfers, eligibility and coaching changes without the threat of immediate litigation. The bill also includes new guardrails on free transfers and tighter rules around roster stability. Legal experts note that the safe harbor could shift power from athletes to schools, depending on how it is written. Mark Milton of the Milton Law Group said, “Congress is the only entity at the federal level that can grant the NCAA antitrust exemption, which is essentially every time the NCAA gets sued by a student athlete, it’s usually rooted in some sort of antitrust claim. And so without that exemption, the NCAA, every time they make a rule, they’re going to continue losing in court.”
The proposal also addresses name, image and likeness (NIL) oversight. While SLU’s NIL budget is not publicly disclosed, insiders say the program has become one of the more aggressive NIL players outside the power conferences, in part because SLU does not have football costs. Ross Chaifetz of the Chaifetz Ownership Group described the NIL landscape as an “arms race,” noting that “boosters are doubling down, literally quadrupling NIL money says we are putting our money where our mouth is.”
The bill’s sponsors argue that uniform rules will protect women’s and Olympic sports that rely on smaller budgets. Schmitt warned that “if we don’t do something, you’re just going to have women’s sports eliminated, you’ll have Olympic sports eliminated, because they just don’t generate revenue.” The legislation would also create a single set of NIL standards across the country, potentially reducing the state‑by‑state variation that has made compliance difficult for schools.
Opponents of the bill caution that the safe harbor could limit athletes’ leverage and that the fine print matters. Milton added, “The fine print matters, especially if the government starts defining ‘fair market value’ and ‘legitimate business purpose.’” He questioned whether the definition of fair market value could be applied to activities such as signing cards at a car dealership.
The Protect College Sports Act is currently in the Senate Committee on Education and the Workforce. It has received support from several college administrators, including Notre Dame’s athletic director, who testified at a hearing. The bill’s bipartisan nature has drawn attention from the broader sports community, with some coaches and athletes expressing cautious optimism.
The NCAA’s loss of enforcement power has been a long‑term trend. Courts have repeatedly ruled that the NCAA’s eligibility rules violate antitrust law, and the organization has settled lawsuits that allow it to pay certain athletes. The Protect College Sports Act seeks to reverse that trend by giving Congress the authority to establish enforceable rules.
The bill’s future depends on Senate approval and potential amendments. If passed, it could reshape the regulatory landscape for college athletics, create a more predictable environment for schools and athletes, and protect programs that have historically struggled to compete financially.
The next steps for the legislation include a Senate floor vote and possible negotiations with the House. The outcome will determine whether the current legal challenges to the NCAA’s authority will be addressed at the federal level or continue to be resolved in the courts.
Tags: Protect College Sports Act, Senator Eric Schmitt, NCAA, college athletics, antitrust, NIL, transfer rules, women's sports, Olympic sports, Saint Louis University, Ted Cruz, Maria Cantwell, college sports legislation, sports law
The legislation follows a wave of lawsuits that have forced courts, rather than the NCAA, to decide which rules can be applied to student athletes. Schmitt told First Alert Forward that “college sports have become rulemaking by lawsuit, with courts, not the NCAA, deciding what rules can stand.” He argued that without federal intervention, schools could cut women’s and Olympic sports that do not generate revenue.
Saint Louis University (SLU) is cited as an example of a program that has benefited from the current legal environment. The Billikens’ men’s basketball team reached the NCAA tournament in 2025 and won a first‑round game, boosting the school’s visibility. Former SLU center Robbie Avilia said, “You’re getting treated as a professional to play. Some guys fall into that trap on the money stuff, but we have a good group here, whoever is paid what who cares, we keep the main thing the main thing. We are focused on basketball.”
The Protect College Sports Act proposes a narrow antitrust safe harbor that would allow schools and conferences to adopt uniform rules for transfers, eligibility and coaching changes without the threat of immediate litigation. The bill also includes new guardrails on free transfers and tighter rules around roster stability. Legal experts note that the safe harbor could shift power from athletes to schools, depending on how it is written. Mark Milton of the Milton Law Group said, “Congress is the only entity at the federal level that can grant the NCAA antitrust exemption, which is essentially every time the NCAA gets sued by a student athlete, it’s usually rooted in some sort of antitrust claim. And so without that exemption, the NCAA, every time they make a rule, they’re going to continue losing in court.”
The proposal also addresses name, image and likeness (NIL) oversight. While SLU’s NIL budget is not publicly disclosed, insiders say the program has become one of the more aggressive NIL players outside the power conferences, in part because SLU does not have football costs. Ross Chaifetz of the Chaifetz Ownership Group described the NIL landscape as an “arms race,” noting that “boosters are doubling down, literally quadrupling NIL money says we are putting our money where our mouth is.”
The bill’s sponsors argue that uniform rules will protect women’s and Olympic sports that rely on smaller budgets. Schmitt warned that “if we don’t do something, you’re just going to have women’s sports eliminated, you’ll have Olympic sports eliminated, because they just don’t generate revenue.” The legislation would also create a single set of NIL standards across the country, potentially reducing the state‑by‑state variation that has made compliance difficult for schools.
Opponents of the bill caution that the safe harbor could limit athletes’ leverage and that the fine print matters. Milton added, “The fine print matters, especially if the government starts defining ‘fair market value’ and ‘legitimate business purpose.’” He questioned whether the definition of fair market value could be applied to activities such as signing cards at a car dealership.
The Protect College Sports Act is currently in the Senate Committee on Education and the Workforce. It has received support from several college administrators, including Notre Dame’s athletic director, who testified at a hearing. The bill’s bipartisan nature has drawn attention from the broader sports community, with some coaches and athletes expressing cautious optimism.
The NCAA’s loss of enforcement power has been a long‑term trend. Courts have repeatedly ruled that the NCAA’s eligibility rules violate antitrust law, and the organization has settled lawsuits that allow it to pay certain athletes. The Protect College Sports Act seeks to reverse that trend by giving Congress the authority to establish enforceable rules.
The bill’s future depends on Senate approval and potential amendments. If passed, it could reshape the regulatory landscape for college athletics, create a more predictable environment for schools and athletes, and protect programs that have historically struggled to compete financially.
The next steps for the legislation include a Senate floor vote and possible negotiations with the House. The outcome will determine whether the current legal challenges to the NCAA’s authority will be addressed at the federal level or continue to be resolved in the courts.
Tags: Protect College Sports Act, Senator Eric Schmitt, NCAA, college athletics, antitrust, NIL, transfer rules, women's sports, Olympic sports, Saint Louis University, Ted Cruz, Maria Cantwell, college sports legislation, sports law
