The United States Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act 77-22 on Sept. 28—a landmark bill aiming to set a new rulebook for money and player eligibility in college sports. Led by senators Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., the bill would codify several significant rules of the NIL era into federal law if passed in the House of Representatives.
The new legislation holds the potential to define a new precedent for pay caps, the use of outside money, transfer limits and eligibility windows—all frequently contested issues since the introduction of name, image and likeness to college sports in 2021.
The centerpiece of the bill is a proposed limited antitrust exemption for the NCAA. This would prevent courts from continuing to strike down its eligibility and transfer rules—a frequent occurrence since NIL’s introduction. Also under this exemption, schools would be able to pay athletes up to $50 million a year. That number comes from three places: $21.6 million in revenue sharing from the House v. NCAA settlement, a new $22.5 million retention fund, and $5 million set aside for Olympic and women’s sports.
Athletes would then get one penalty-free transfer and a strict limit of five years to play. Football coaches can’t take a new job until the season ends, and agents can’t take more than 5%. Cantwell noted “that some college agents are now taking 20% to 25% of athletes’ NIL deals,” as reported by The Hill. Conferences could also have the option to team up and sell their TV rights together, but only if 75% of FBS schools sign off.
One thing the bill leaves out: whether athletes are employees.
Some of the biggest names in college sports have campaigned for the bill. Former University of Alabama football head coach Nick Saban and University of Colorado football head coach Deion Sanders are the faces of the ad campaign, and the White House formally endorsed the bill in August. This month, basketball coaches John Calipari of Arkansas, Mark Few of Gonzaga—a longtime WCC rival of Santa Clara men’s basketball—and Kelvin Sampson of Houston even went to Capitol Hill to lobby for it.
Calipari in particular doesn’t support everything in the bill. He told NewsNation he disagrees with parts of it, but just wants it done now: “Just pass the bill, and we will make adjustments as we go forward.” His argument is that unlimited transfers have pushed coaches to pass on high school recruits and go after transfers, older players and Europeans instead. Few called the bill “not perfect,” but “far, far away the best thing we got out there right now.”
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., has been the loudest critic, saying the bill would “protect a system of exploitation” and let schools, conferences and the NCAA work together to keep athlete pay down. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., a former Stanford football player, said it gives the NCAA a broad antitrust exemption and doesn’t get much back. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted against moving it forward and has called it a step toward federal control of college sports.
Outside Congress, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO and the Congressional Black Caucus oppose the bill. The NAACP says it takes away athletes’ bargaining rights and would hurt Black athletes the most. Reports cite a lack of communication with college athletes about what this bill needs. Jason Stahl, executive director of the College Football Players Association, told Fox Sports the bill was “made without athletes’ input, and it reads like that.”
Even though the bill successfully passed the Senate, it’s far from a done deal. The House isn’t expected back until Nov. 9, after the midterm elections, and if it isn’t a law by Jan. 3 when the new Congress is sworn in, the bill will expire.
The House is unlikely to touch the bill at all in the first place. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La, said he would bring the House back on 48 hours’ notice if the Senate passed any major legislation before the midterms. However, returning to Washington D.C. would also allow a vote on Rep. Thomas Massie’s, R-Ky, resolution to impeach Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said, “The last thing we need to do is campaign on sports.”
Potential Impacts on Santa Clara University
Santa Clara University doesn’t have a football program or a large booster base to bring in funding, but the bill will still hit home. The biggest potential for change is found in how sports build rosters. With players now limited to one transfer every five years without penalty, athletes might become far more selective or wary about transferring.
The transfer portal has historically helped Santa Clara, most notably in basketball. Brandin Podziemski spent a year at Illinois before transferring to Santa Clara, where his standout season landed him in draft conversations, and eventually aided in his heading to the Golden State Warriors as the No. 19 pick in the 2023 NBA Draft. Would he still have taken a chance and left the Big Ten if it meant ruling out a future return to a Power Five conference?
With Santa Clara known for providing an environment where power conference athletes can get a fresh start or have a breakout season, this raises the question of whether the bill could make it harder to attract players who use mid-majors as stepping stones in their collegiate careers.
But, the same rules could also work in Santa Clara’s favor. While the Broncos have found success in the portal, they’ve also lost serious talent. Following the 2024-25 season, guard Tyeree Bryan left Santa Clara for Texas Tech and center Christoph Tilly left for Ohio State. Just this past season, the portal enticed standout guard Christian Hammond to NC State.
Additionally, under the bill, Bronco forward Elijah Mahi would be granted a 5th year, and his eligibility concerns would no longer exist.
Some argue that players having to sit out after one transfer, along with price ceilings on what teams can spend, could help mid-major programs keep their stars and develop them, rather than “become unpaid development leagues for the giants,” as Cantwell suggested.
If the bill works as supporters intend, the pendulum may swing back toward the mid-majors and Santa Clara, but only time will tell. The money cap won’t change; the $50 million ceiling caps the richest programs, but most schools won’t come close.
When asked to comment on the bill, Santa Clara Athletics issued a prepared statement, saying it would hold off on commenting for the time being due to the fluidity of the case, but is eagerly awaiting the final decision.
The billionaire behind the Bill
Cody Campbell played offensive line for the Texas Tech Red Raiders before making his fortune in oil and gas. He co-founded Fort Worth-based Double Eagle Energy, which sold its Permian Basin assets to Diamondback Energy in 2025 in a deal worth about $4 billion.
Today, he chairs Texas Tech’s Board of Regents, and his name is on the school’s football field. He also co-founded the Matador Club, the university’s NIL collective. ESPN reported it has paid Texas Tech athletes more than $60 million since 2022.
According to The Dallas Morning News, boosters led by Campbell spent more than $25 million on the 2025 football roster, including $12 million on 21 transfers. This led to direct results—the Red Raiders won their first outright conference title since 1955 and made the College Football Playoff for the first time in program history.
Campbell’s nonprofit, called Saving College Sports, ran the TV ads with Saban and Sanders pushing Congress to pass the new bill. The Texas Tribune has called him a key White House advisor on the issue.
His main argument for supporting the bill is that if football and men’s basketball money keeps piling up at the top, college sports will disappear for most of the Americans who grew up watching them.
Campbell’s own school stands to gain the most. The roughly $50 million cap on direct athlete pay limits the richest conferences, and Texas Tech, with one of the country’s best-funded collectives, can spend close to that line.
Whether college sports needs saving depends on who’s asking. For Campbell, the answer is yes, but for the other 500,000 student-athletes competing at the NCAA level, plenty of uncertainty remains about what needs to be done.