Protect College Sports Act of 2026

Enumerated powers · raises concerns · severity: significant

Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) may extend to certain aspects of college sports, particularly those involving interstate broadcasting and NIL agreements that affect interstate commerce. However, the bill's provisions go beyond regulating commerce and impose detailed mandates on educational institutions, such as requiring specific roster sizes and transfer rules, which are not directly tied to interstate commerce. The limited antitrust exemption for pooling media rights is a direct exercise of Congress's power to regulate commerce, but the other provisions may exceed enumerated powers by regulating purely internal affairs of educational institutions.

Bill of Rights · raises concerns · severity: minor

The bill's prohibition on restricting NIL agreements protects student athletes' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association, as NIL deals often involve expressive activities. However, the bill also imposes restrictions on athletes, such as the requirement to report compensation over $600 and the cap on agent fees, which may implicate privacy and contractual freedoms but are not direct violations of the Bill of Rights. The bill does not infringe on the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments, but the Tenth Amendment is implicated because the bill imposes federal mandates on states and private institutions, potentially infringing on reserved powers.

Individual liberty · passes · severity: minor

The bill enhances individual sovereignty by prohibiting institutions from restricting student athletes' ability to enter NIL agreements, thereby protecting their right to profit from their own name, image, and likeness. This aligns with the principle that individuals should have control over their own labor and property. However, the bill also imposes some restrictions, such as the reporting requirement and agent fee cap, which are minor and serve legitimate regulatory purposes, but they do not significantly undermine individual sovereignty.

Decentralization · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill fails the decentralization test because it consolidates decision-making at the federal level for matters that could be handled by states, conferences, or institutions. For example, NIL regulations and transfer rules could be addressed by individual states or athletic conferences without federal intervention. The bill's requirement for a 75% participation threshold for antitrust exemption also centralizes control in a federal framework. The questions: (1) Individuals cannot handle this alone, as it involves complex interstate athletics; (2) Local communities cannot handle this; (3) States could handle NIL and transfer rules, but the bill preempts state action; (4) The bill consolidates upward, failing the test.

Due process and takings · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill's enforcement mechanisms are not fully specified, but it creates a regulatory framework that could lead to penalties or loss of eligibility without clear due process protections. The bill also imposes permanent revenue-sharing limits and roster requirements that could be seen as taking property (e.g., revenue opportunities) from institutions without just compensation, though this is not a direct taking under the Fifth Amendment. The lack of clear procedural safeguards for enforcement raises due process concerns.