Administrators like former University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin and lawmakers like Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin have called the current state of college sports a “Wild West.”
Congress is looking to install a new sheriff in town with the Protect College Sports Act, which passed the U.S. Senate this week with bipartisan support that included Baldwin and Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson.
The bill would create uniform federal regulations for college sports and grant the NCAA an antitrust exemption that would give it the power to enforce many of its rules that had been struck down in more than 150 state and federal lawsuits from players and other stakeholders over the last five years.
Understanding Wisconsin, Together.
WPR’s “Wisconsin Today” newsletter keeps you connected to the state you love without feeling overwhelmed. No paywall. No agenda. No corporate filter.
Cases like the 2024 settlement in House v. NCAA allowed players to be paid by their schools and transfer more freely between teams, leading to massive increases in spending and roster turnover that have allowed the programs with more money to lure away better players from smaller schools.
To try and curb that spending and bring more year-to-year stability, the Protect College Sports Act would set new transfer rules and set a new cap on how much schools can spend on athletes. The Senate voted down an amendment to the bill that also would have capped salaries for coaches.
Marquette University sports law professor Matt Mitten told WPR’s “Wisconsin Today” that better enforcement of college recruiting, transferring and athlete compensation rules would help restore more competitive balance.
“The essence of sports is everyone plays by the same rules, and that hasn’t been happening,” Mitten said. “There’s such a strong incentive for each school to do whatever it takes to win, including violating the terms of the House settlement.”
The Wisconsin Badgers claimed the Miami Hurricanes violated those rules when UW-Madison cornerback Xavier Lucas transferred to the University of Miami after his freshman season in January 2025.
UW-Madison later filed a lawsuit against the University of Miami, claiming they tampered with Lucas while he was under a two-year contract with a financial obligation to play for the Badgers.
The NCAA did not enforce the deal. The lawsuit remains ongoing in Dane County Circuit Court.
“The act does create a private right of action in federal court for student-athletes if a school, conference or the NCAA wouldn’t be complying with an eligibility rule established by this federal legislation,” Mitten said.
The bill would also bring back limits on how often players can transfer between schools.
On one hand, that could reduce turnover on team rosters and help schools retain more athletes from year to year. On the other hand, it would limit an individual player’s ability to work their way up to bigger and better opportunities if they started their collegiate career at one of Wisconsin’s smaller universities.
“Let’s say they weren’t heavily recruited in football, coming out of school,” Mitten said. “They could start at the Division III level. It turns out they’re better than projected, and then you can keep moving around, and eventually, potentially be at the University of Wisconsin-Madison or even Marquette if it’s basketball.”
For non-revenue sports like many women’s and Olympic sports, the Protect College Sports Act would not allow schools to cut roster spots from those programs below where they stood as of the 2024-2025 season when the House settlement went into effect.
For example, when then-Wisconsin Badgers athletic director Chris McIntosh successfully lobbied the state Legislature for NIL funding earlier this year, he hinted that the school could look at cuts to some of its non-revenue sports if it didn’t receive the money he was seeking. Such cuts would be banned under the Protect College Sports Act.
The bill now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, where it faces opposition from lawmakers including Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan.
He released a statement last month along with other members of the Congressional Labor Caucus opposing the bill.
“The bill, as it stands, does not adequately resolve the core issues of defining and improving players’ control, involvement and input on the conditions of participating in college athletics,” the statement read. “This legislation is a step in the wrong direction, as it shifts control to those at the top at the direct expense of the players that have made this industry successful.”
The House is not expected to address the bill until after the November midterm elections.
Source: www.wpr.org
