By now, we are all becoming more familiar with the proposed law, the Protect College Sports Act of 2026, which is currently working its way through the U.S. Senate.
This Senate bill, which is receiving rare bipartisan support, is essentially designed to bring some sensibility to what has seemed like the wild wild west, also known as college athletics. At least that is what the supporters of this Bill will lead us to believe.
But then there are the decenters who see this bill for what it is. A chance to slow down the money of young Black athletes and their movements, particularly in football and men’s basketball, where some student-athletes are making millions in NIL and revenue-sharing deals before they have a chance to make an impact in their sport.
The Senate voted last week, 77-22, to begin debating the Protect College Sports Act of 2026, which doesn’t bode well for the latitude student-athletes are currently afforded thanks to the courts. The NCAA and its constituents needed better structure and a fairer revenue-sharing model that went beyond college scholarships, even as institutions collectively made billions.
The proposed Senate bill would cap revenue sharing for the Power 4 schools at 22% or roughly $21.5 million. Student-athletes would be allowed only one free transfer, during which they wouldn’t have to sit out a year. And then it would be the law that student-athletes would have five years to compete, no more.
It’s like these power programs need protection from themselves. It doesn’t appear that major college sports are in any jeopardy of going out of business anytime soon, with the billion-dollar TV deals that conferences like the Big Ten and SEC enjoy.
Some folks, who are behind this movement to govern and limit the money student athletes can make, shouldn’t surprise you. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz and Washington Democrat Maria Cantwell have put aside their deep party differences to come together to co-sponsor the Senate Bill, surely to the delight of Donald Trump, who has been intentional about helping his deep-pocket donor friends not to have to spend as much money on Black athletes who play for their alma mater.
That kind of collaboration for the greater good dates back centuries, but the collective support by coaches Nick Saban, John Calipari, and Deion Sanders is among the many co-signing against the more level playing field that they have all used to their benefit.
Let’s keep it real: It ain’t as much fun when the wabbit got the gun.
And essentially, that’s what happened once the high courts ruled that players now be compensated for name, image, and likeness, that college athletics now had to share some of the billions in profits, and that student-athletes now have the right to move freely each year to the highest bidder.
Just like that, coaches were no longer holding all the cards and weren’t the only ones free to hop from job to job. Also gone were the days of coaches getting five years to win. That window has now been reduced to two or three years because coaches can now quickly remake their rosters via the transfer portal.
“Whoever does it, whether it’s the government, NCAA, the institutions, the conferences, I think we just need to all get on one page and move forward so that we can have some type of consistency.”
Eddie Robinson, Jr. – Alabama State football coach
It’s nothing like job security or the lack thereof to make someone two-faced.
Right now, this seems to be primarily an issue for the Power 4 schools and Notre Dame, the schools with deep-pocketed boosters who can pay student-athletes millions of dollars. But if the Protect College Sports Act makes it through the Senate and then Congress whenever it returns to session, other lower-level FBS schools, FCS programs, and even HBCUs can be affected, too.
For those programs, if there is suddenly oversight into how much student-athletes can be paid or how much they can move around at the highest level, it could mean a slightly more level playing field for the have-nots.
“Obviously, you want it to be fair to everyone,” Arkansas-Pine Bluff football coach Alonzo Hampton told me this week. “We don’t have certain things that they have. I get a chance to see both sides because my son is at Clemson. So, I see it. It is what it is.”
Many SWAC coaches didn’t have strong opinions on the Protect College Sports Act because it doesn’t directly affect them at this point. It means they can still see the issue from the student-athletes’ point of view, which obviously isn’t good.
“I feel like it’s a great opportunity for college players to generate revenue for the efforts that they are giving to the university,” Alabama State coach Eddie Robinson, Jr. said to me recently. “I think it’s a positive that the kids are able to make the revenue.
“It doesn’t matter. Congress has always been Congress. They are going to make the decision that they feel is for the overall group. Whatever those decisions are, we have to play by those rules.”
Alonzo Hampton, Arkansas-Pine Bluff football coach
“Now the system is involved with how we govern it so that we can be fair to everyone … Obviously, the golden rule is the man with the gold makes the rules. So, the big schools are going to make the rules. They’ve got the money.”
And clearly, there is a movement to curtail how it is given to Black student-athletes.
Fortunately, enough people with power and influence are speaking up on their behalf. All four Black Democratic Senators — Cory Booker, Raphael Warnock, Lisa Blunt Rochester, and Angela Alsobrooks—voted against the bill. Joining the movement against such a bill has been the AFL-CIO labor union.
The NAACP has also been vocal in opposition to the bill, calling it a form of sharecropping.
“There’s no instability in the game,” said NAACP President Derrick Johnson. “It’s just greed by the conferences.”
