The Protect College Sports Act may be dying as quickly as it was first given birth. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said Thursday night that he no longer sees the bill going for a full vote of the Senate before the August Summer break in two weeks. Late last week, Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) proclaimed his confidence that the bill had the needed 60 votes to pass the Senate and that a vote would likely be scheduled for the end of this week.<\/p>\n
The Senate\u2019s Summer vacation is scheduled to go from August 10th<\/sup> to September 11th<\/sup>. While any approved legislation would not have likely impacted 2026-27 college athletic seasons, the brakes have clearly been slammed on any momentum that existed over the last two to three weeks.<\/p>\n Part of the delay is a continuous re-negotiation of the terms of the bill with representatives from the SEC and, to a lesser extent, the Big 10. SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey and Big 10 Commissioner Tony Petitti have been opposed to the specifics of the legislation, and likely the overall spirit of the bill, since the beginning. The two commissioners have made it clear that they felt their conferences were being targeted by the bill with sections like a ban on forming super leagues that would lock out smaller conferences from competition. Sankey also did not like the concept of the legislation urging conferences to go to the marketplace as one for media negotiations. That is intended to close the widening TV revenue gap between the Big 10\/SEC and the rest of the 23 conferences.<\/p>\n Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark and ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips both said, at their respective conference media days, that they favored the legislation<\/a> and would continue to work with members of the Senate to iron out what they thought would be the final details.<\/a><\/p>\n Sankey, in his opening speech at SEC media days in Tampa on Monday, provided a laundry list of things in the proposed bill that he still opposed. He did not rule out the SEC leaving the NCAA behind, playing in-conference competition only, with its own TV deal, and its own self-governance if the bill was not changed.<\/p>\n Among the changes that Sankey wanted that have recently been made to the bill is a way for schools to go well above and beyond what is supposed to be the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap for athletes. That cap was agreed to by all conferences, including the SEC and Big 10, last Summer as part of the House v. NCAA settlement.<\/p>\n Many schools are blowing past the cap already with outside donor money. The changes to the PCSA would provide a path within the rules to do it, allowing schools to spend another $20 million on player retention. The schools would still have to come up with the money on their own, and many athletic departments now report operating in the red as we head to the second full year of revenue-sharing.<\/p>\n The section that banned super conferences was also relaxed. It now includes the Big 12 and ACC and allows FCS schools the ability to move up to the FBS level. It also specified that the FBS conferences could go to 19 schools, allowing each of them to add schools, based on whatever the current membership number is. The language also disincentivized schools from making the move because it required they play as an independent for five years before joining a new conference.<\/p>\n The most important part of the bill is that it gives the NCAA and each conference antitrust exemption protection, allowing them all to enforce the rules without the constant threat of daily lawsuits, as exists now.<\/p>\n While Sankey has opposed the bill without actually having a vote to make a difference, many senators within his SEC geographical footprint have been confirmed \u201cyea\u201d votes.<\/p>\n There is one other potential proposal out there. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) has a proposal that addresses just one of the topics in the PCSA. It provides college athletes five years to finish their eligibility, with no waivers, other than for things like religious reasons or maternity leave for female athletes. It also allows for just one \u201cfree\u201d transfer to another school. If an athlete wants a second transfer, they would have to sit out a year. That would limit the yearly use of the transfer portal by some college athletes.<\/p>\n The Tuberville bill also provides antitrust exemption protection for the NCAA and all conferences. Tuberville went so far as to write to each of the Republican senators this week, urging them to oppose the PCSA and move their support to his bill. Those who support the bill from the former college football coach laud its simplicity in tackling just the one issue.<\/p>\n Constitutional lawyers whom Last Word<\/em> has spoken with before the events of this week have told us that Tuberville\u2019s bill would have little chance of success against legal challenges. It prohibits student athletes the same freedom of movement (transfers) that the rest of the student population is allowed to take advantage of.<\/p>\n The PCSA bill has the same concept, and it is possible that the section would be struck down in court, but the rest of the bill would have a legal chance.<\/p>\nThe Commissioners Pick Their Sides<\/h3>\n
No Matter the Question, the Answer Is Money<\/h3>\n
The Tuberville Factor<\/h3>\n