College athletics needs structure.

I don’t think that’s particularly controversial anymore.

The transfer portal has become free agency. NIL has changed recruiting. Revenue sharing has changed athletic departments. Eligibility disputes are being decided in courtrooms, and schools are trying to compete while operating under rules that can differ from one state to another.

The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 is Congress latest attempt to establish national guardrails.

There is a lot in this proposal worth taking seriously.

But something this consequential shouldn’t simply be about saving college sports.

It needs to protect the college athlete and the college education too.

And before Washington locks a new system into place, there are several questions that deserve serious answers.

Start With What’s Good

The bill gets several important things right.

It would establish a federal right for athletes to earn NIL compensation instead of relying on a patchwork of state laws.

It provides scholarship protections and five years of post eligibility healthcare benefits. It creates protections against predatory agents, including a 5% cap on agent fees. It establishes and requires student athlete representation on certain governing bodies.

It also addresses something I’m passionate about: preserving opportunities beyond football and men’s basketball.

Women’s sports and Olympic sports cannot become collateral damage simply because college football has become a multibillion dollar business.

Those protections matter.

But protecting college athletics requires more than protecting roster spots.

We need to protect what the entire system is supposed to be built around.

Education.

Put the Student Back in Student Athlete

This is where I’d like to see the conversation go deeper.

The bill provides academic protections, including scholarship guarantees and assistance allowing former athletes to return and complete degrees.

That’s a good foundation.

But I’d go further.

If we’re going to federally define eligibility, we should be having an equally serious conversation about academic progress.

Are athletes accumulating meaningful credits toward a degree?

Are they receiving legitimate academic support?

Are transfers putting them behind academically because credits aren’t carrying over?

Are schools graduating the athletes who generate millions of dollars for their programs?

The objective shouldn’t be simply keeping somebody academically eligible enough to play Saturday.

The objective should be putting that young man or woman on a legitimate path toward graduation.

Most college athletes aren’t becoming professional athletes.

The degree isn’t the consolation prize.

For the overwhelming majority, it’s supposed to be one of the primary benefits of the entire experience.

If we’re going to reform college sports, academic progress should be part of how we measure whether the reform actually worked.

One Free Transfer Makes Sense With Real Exceptions

The transfer portal needed a correction.

The proposed legislation guarantees athletes one transfer without losing eligibility. A second transfer generally requires sitting out a year, although exceptions exist for circumstances such as a sport being discontinued or sexual assault and harassment.

I think the principle deserves serious consideration.

Players shouldn’t be trapped somewhere that isn’t working.

Coaches leave. Coordinators change. Family circumstances change. Programs change.

Athletes deserve mobility.

But unlimited movement has consequences too.

It’s difficult to develop players when rosters are constantly being rebuilt.

It’s difficult to establish culture.

And academically, repeatedly transferring between institutions can create its own problems when credits and degree requirements don’t align.

One unrestricted transfer, combined with carefully defined hardship and circumstance exceptions, attempts to balance player freedom with roster and academic stability.

That’s the kind of balance college sports desperately needs.

5 Years Should Mean 5 Years

The legislation would also establish a 5 year eligibility period, generally beginning at age 19 or high school graduation, with exceptions for circumstances such as military service, pregnancy and religious missions.

Again, clarity matters.

We’ve already watched eligibility disputes become lawsuits.

Eventually there has to be a finish line.

And this is where I believe another line should be unmistakable:

Once an athlete becomes a professional athlete, his or her college playing career should be finished.

We’ve recently seen exactly what can happen when that boundary becomes unclear.

College athletics shouldn’t become a place where professional athletes return after NFL opportunities don’t work out.

College eligibility should have a beginning and an end.

Players deserve to know exactly where both are before making life changing decisions.

The Money Question Can’t Be Avoided

This may be the most difficult part of the entire debate.

Players deserve compensation.

That argument has been settled culturally, commercially and increasingly legally.

But once schools are directly sharing tens of millions of dollars with athletes, we also have to ask how that money should move through an athletic department.

Football generates enormous revenue at many institutions.

So does men’s basketball.

But college athletics is larger than two sports.

Women’s basketball is growing. Baseball matters. Softball matters. Wrestling matters. Volleyball matters. Track and field matters. Swimming matters.

Those athletes shouldn’t become expendable because their television contracts aren’t as large.

The bill attempts to address that problem by protecting women’s and Olympic sport roster spots and scholarships and by creating additional financial incentives connected to investment in those sports.

That’s meaningful.

But the larger question of equitable athlete compensation remains complicated.

Equality does not necessarily mean every athlete receives the identical check regardless of sport, market value or legitimate NIL opportunities.

At the same time, a system shouldn’t protect revenue producing sports by slowly starving everything else.

Whatever framework emerges needs transparent standards governing institutional revenue sharing, strong protections for women’s opportunities and Olympic sports, and continued freedom for athletes to pursue legitimate outside NIL opportunities.

That’s a difficult balance.

But avoiding the question won’t make it disappear.

Athletes Need a Real Voice

This is where critics of the bill deserve to be heard.

Labor organizations and athlete advocates have argued that the legislation gives the NCAA and conferences significant authority while insulating certain rules from antitrust challenges without providing athletes sufficient bargaining power over those rules.

That’s not a minor criticism.

If we’re building a system that determines how athletes can transfer, how long they can play and how institutional compensation is regulated, the athletes living under that system need meaningful representation.

The bill does move in that direction by requiring current or recent athletes to occupy at least one third of certain association governing bodies.

That’s significant.

The question is whether representation on governing boards provides enough influence when compensation and working condition questions are being decided.

That’s a debate worth having rather than pretending the opposing side doesn’t exist.

Don’t Turn This Into Republicans vs. Democrats

College sports doesn’t need another culture war argument.

This proposal was introduced through bipartisan negotiations involving Senators Ted Cruz, Maria Cantwell, Chris Coons and Eric Schmitt, and it advanced from committee with votes from members of both parties.

It also has critics from organized labor and athlete advocacy organizations who argue that certain provisions could restrict athletes’ economic rights.

Both facts matter.

The question shouldn’t be which political team wins.

The question should be:

What system gives college athletics the best chance of surviving without forgetting the athletes and educational institutions it’s supposed to serve?

That’s the conversation worth having.

Save the Opportunity, Not Just the Business

College football has become big business.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with acknowledging that reality.

Coaches make millions.

Television networks pay billions.

Conferences negotiate massive media contracts.

Athletes now participate financially in an ecosystem their labor helps create.

We’re not going backward.

And we shouldn’t.

But we also shouldn’t confuse modernization with professionalization of every aspect of college athletics.

College sports can compensate athletes while still expecting them to be students.

It can allow mobility without creating unlimited free agency.

It can generate enormous football revenue without abandoning Olympic sports.

It can establish eligibility limits while creating reasonable exceptions.

And it can establish national rules while still giving athletes meaningful influence over the system governing them.

That’s the balance policymakers are trying to find.

The Protect College Sports Act contains pieces of that framework.

The remaining debate is whether those pieces fit together fairly and whether the final structure adequately protects education, athlete opportunity, competitive integrity and economic rights at the same time.

Because Congress may not get many chances to redraw the foundation of college athletics.

Whatever system ultimately emerges will affect athletes who haven’t even entered high school yet.

So this isn’t something to rush because everyone agrees the current system is chaotic.

Stability matters.

Fairness matters.

Education matters.

And most importantly, the athletes themselves matter.

College sports needs guardrails.

The challenge now is making sure those guardrails protect the entire road not just one side of it.