Protect College Sports Act: Advocates Mount Final Push

Supporters of the Protect College Sports Act are mounting a final lobbying effort to secure passage in the House before a new Congress takes office in January, but the legislation’s prospects remain uncertain following the midterm elections. Find out the latest information below.

Protect College Sports Act Encounters Bipartisan Resistance

After clearing the Senate by a 77-22 vote on Sept. 28, the measure now sits before the House with little consensus on its future.

On Thursday, Front Office Sports reported that New York Yankees President Randy Levine and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) both contacted House members this week. Cody Campbell, Texas Tech Board of Regents Chair, and his Saving College Sports organization have also continued their multimillion-dollar advertising campaign.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has identified college sports legislation as a potential priority during the lame-duck session, providing supporters a possible opening before the current Congress concludes.

Failure to secure presidential approval before the 119th Congress adjourns would force supporters to reintroduce the legislation next year.

Despite its Senate margin, the proposal has drawn criticism from both parties. Democrats’ midterm gains further complicated negotiations. Meanwhile, outgoing House Majority Leader Steve Scalise has expressed reservations about the legislation.

Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, elected governor earlier this month, offered a particularly blunt assessment: “I hate that bill.”

Intensified College Sports Lobbying

Levine, vice chair of President Trump’s Roundtable on Fixing College Sports, sent an approximately 800-word letter to House members advocating passage. He argued that federal legislation wouldn’t preclude future collective bargaining.

He also told The Wall Street Journal that he was increasingly confident in the bill’s chances, citing backing from 400 institutions.

The USOPC separately emphasized the measure’s importance in protecting Olympic and Paralympic sports.

Campbell acknowledged that the proposal is imperfect but characterized it as a bipartisan solution capable of providing stability and safeguarding vulnerable schools and women’s and Olympic programs.

“We continue to work with leadership and members on both sides of the aisle,” Campbell said.

What the Legislation Means for Division III

Although the bill primarily targets Division I athletics, Section 106 also reaches Division II and III institutions that sponsor Division I teams.

At Johns Hopkins, for example, the men’s and women’s lacrosse programs compete in Division I while the university’s other varsity teams participate in Division III. Under the bill, those institutions would have to cover specified out-of-pocket medical expenses, independent second opinions and catastrophic injury insurance for their DI student-athletes.

That said, the proposal doesn’t introduce revenue sharing or impose Division I financial requirements on Division III institutions.

For D3 athletics, the legislation’s broader relevance lies in how federal intervention may transform the NCAA and the relationship between its three divisions.