The Protect College Sports Act passed through the US Senate Monday with a 77-22 margin, moving us one step closer to limited-nonsense college athletics reform.
That is bad news for college football and basketball athletes, who could see their anti-trust protections reduced and potential earnings capped. But for college tennis and other Olympic sports programs, the bill would have major benefits.
Here’s a list of the largest areas of impact on college tennis:
Cap exceptions for Olympic Sports
The revenue share system that already exists from the House v. NCAA settlement allows schools to pay players up to $21.5 million from athletic revenues in 2026-27. But in reality, reporting indicates some schools spend north of $50 million for just their football rosters through NIL collectives and booster donations. These come in back channels and are not openly reported. The PCSA seeks to remove this avenue, only allowing NIL deals that serve a legitimate marketing initiative.
The act would increase the revenue share cap to up to $49 million per year over a 10 year period, with $5 million reserved for Olympic sports.
In the old college sports world, much of that money would have been used for Olympic sports budgets, improving athletic facilities and for other costs associated with the athletic department. Now, 94% of athletic departments are spending more money than they bring in. This has led to programs such as men’s and women’s tennis being cut at Arkansas, needing temporary funding to maintain their existence.
Sec. 114(2)(B)(i) – “An institution may further exceed the revenue share cap for the purpose described in subparagraph (A) by up to an additional $5,000,000 per academic year in proportion to the amount of name, image, and likeness compensation provided by the institution through the revenue share cap described in subsection (a)(1) and the retention fund amount described in subparagraph (A) to a student athlete or group of student athletes competing in non-revenue generating intercollegiate sports programs, including women’s and Olympic intercollegiate sports programs.”
Reduced ability to cut programs
To combat the trend of cuts in Olympic sports, the bill proposes a clause that prevents departments from making cuts, outside of extreme decline in revenue, based on the benchmark of the 2024-25 season.
Sec. 125 (B) (1) – “[Institutions must] maintain at least as many total grant-in-aid opportunities and total roster spots for non-revenue generating intercollegiate sports programs, including women’s and Olympic intercollegiate sports programs, during each academic year as the member institution provided during academic year 2024–2025.”
Comparable facilities and amenities
The bill seeks to snuff out programs looking to cut corners in Olympic sports departments.
Sec 109 – “Intercollegiate athletic associations and conferences shall maintain comparable standards for medical care, lodging, meals, rest, transportation, publicity and promotion, and, if applicable, athletic facilities for championship events or tournaments, across similarly situated men’s and women’s athletic programs.”
Reduced transfer portal
The bill would restore the format where players get one transfer during undergraduate and a possible graduate transfer without having to sit out a year. In the world of 5-in-5, athletes effectively have two opportunities to transfer.
Otherwise, a one-year window of ineligibility will take place. Exceptions include instances of head coach departure, sexual assault or harassment by a university affiliated person, or the discontinuation of a sport.
Sec. 112 – “An institution, a conference, an intercollegiate athletic association, or any representative of such entity shall permit a student athlete to transfer from one four-year institution to another four-year institution — once without losing or delaying eligibility to participate in intercollegiate sports…”
Protecting opportunities for Americans
It seems like Patrick McEnroe demanded this one be inserted into the bill after all the hard work he did to promote it. The clause seems like more of a suggestion than a rule. In any case, it pretty clearly pertains strongly to college tennis.
Sec. 128 – “It is the policy of the United States that any institution of higher education participating in intercollegiate athletics should prioritize domestic students in the selection of student athletes and the awarding of athletic opportunities, including grant-in-aid and roster positions, on the varsity sports teams of that institution.”
The bill also outlines that student athletes must be completing a degree, but the language fails to be concrete or clear.
Opposition’s claims
- Does not include limitations on football and basketball coach contracts, which make up for a much larger portion of athletics budgets compared to player payment
- No revenue share cap increase over the 10 year period, where in pro sports, the salary cap normally increases over time
- Unfair restriction on the free market
- Revenue sports fund non-revenue sports
Steps forward
The United States House of Representatives is adjourned until after midterm elections in early November, so a timeline for the bill’s passing is uncertain.
