S. 4668Senate bill · 119th CongressIn the Senatecrossed party linesSports and Recreation

Protect College Sports Act of 2026

Sponsored byTed CruzR-TXIntroduced Jun 2, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 5, 2026) — Held at the desk.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jun 24, 2026

This bill establishes requirements for name, image, or likeness (NIL) agreements for college student athletes and provides a limited antitrust exemption for schools and conferences to pool and sell certain college sports media rights. The requirements address elements of the court-approved agreement to settle In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (i.e., House settlement).

First, the bill statutorily prohibits institutions, conferences, or interstate intercollegiate athletic associations (e.g., the National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA]) from restricting student athletes from entering NIL agreements (subject to specified limitations). Students must report to their institution NIL compensation greater than $600.

The bill requires agents to register with a state and caps agent endorsement contract fees at 5%.

The bill also provides student athletes with one transfer without losing athletic eligibility and restricts football personnel from becoming the head football coach at a different institution during the same season.

Further, the bill prohibits institutions, conferences, or specified entities acting for the benefit of an institution from providing athletes with compensation that circumvents the limit on sharing revenue with student athletes established under the House settlement. The bill also makes the limit permanent and provides for an annual inflation adjustment.

The bill generally prohibits Division I conferences from reducing the number of varsity or Olympic sports teams that a member institution must sponsor. Specifically, large institutions ($80 million or more in annual athletics revenue) must offer and maintain at least as many grant-in-aid opportunities and roster spots for sports that do not generate positive net revenue as the institution provided during academic year 2024-25. The bill provides for a waiver of this requirement under certain circumstances of financial hardship and the requirements expire nine years after the enactment of the bill.

Additionally, the bill establishes (subject to specified conditions) a limited antitrust exemption for institutions or conferences that form joint agreements to transfer their sports telecasting rights to a third party. Such an agreement requires participation from at least 75% of the institutions in the Football Bowl Subdivision.

Face Value

as reported to the Senate
68Broad

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Areas of law−24

    Amends 4 separate titles of the US Code: 5, 9, 17, 36.

  • Length−8

    82 sections, against 20 before length counts against a bill.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

4 recorded
  • of the Billdecisive vote

    Senate · Sep 28, 2026

    Whether the bill passes the Senate. This is the vote most people mean.

    77 – 22

    Bill Passed

    Every vote →
  • On the

    Senate · Sep 24, 2026

    Whether to end debate so a final vote can happen. Needs 60 senators — this is the vote most bills die on.

    74 – 25

    Cloture Motion Agreed to

    Every vote →
  • On on the

    Senate · Sep 15, 2026

    Whether to end debate on whether to start debating it. Needs 60 senators; failing here kills the bill without a vote on the bill.

    74 – 24

    Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to

    Every vote →
  • On the

    Senate · Sep 17, 2026

    Whether to start debating it at all. Not a vote on the bill itself.

    77 – 22

    Motion to Proceed Agreed to

    Every vote →

Who lobbied on this

2 organizations

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • Charter Communications Inc.no position stated
    “…Draft of Communications, Video, and Technology Accessibility (CVTA) Act, all provisions. H.R. 1870 - SPEED for BEAD Act, all provisions. S. 4668 - Protect College Sports Act of 2026, all provisions. H.R. 8646 - Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related…” filing ↗
  • “…S. 2932, Student Athlete Fairness and Enforcement (SAFE) Act, Provisions relating to broadcasting. S.4668, Protect College Sports Act, Provisions relating to sports on broadcast.” filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

6 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
6
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Yea8d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
6
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea14d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
5
AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Nay14d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
5
harbor_districtDemoOH-4voted Nay14d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
3
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Yea8d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
1
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea8d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
Your position on S. 4668100% Yea · 2 VoteWire users