Bipartisan college sports bill with antitrust protections, player salary cap set to be introduced in days

DESTIN, Fla. — The bill comes last.

After years in limbo, a bipartisan college sports bill from Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and ranking member Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., are expected to be introduced within days, sources familiar with the legislation told CBS Sports Tuesday night. The bill’s language is being finalized and is now going through the regular pre-introduction process.

The bill is expected to carry the prize that college sports leaders have been chasing for the better part of a decade: a limited antitrust exemption for player eligibility and transfer rules — a legal shield that would allow the industry to write its own rules and enforce them without being challenged in the court system by players seeking more years on the playing fields and in the courts.

The rest of the bill remains a mystery, frustrating university leaders who supported the repealed SCORE Act, which also promised antitrust protections. As with any bipartisan bill, consensus was part of the Cantwell-Cruz bill-writing process, and what did and didn’t make it into the upcoming legislation is very important to power players.

What is known among those leaders is that the bill will deal with player movements in the transfer portal and eligibility windows, legally limiting player movements to as few as one transfer per job. The NCAA is close to adopting an age-based eligibility model that would allow players to compete for up to five seasons.

Getting wages under control

Sources familiar with the upcoming bill told CBS Sports that the upcoming bill would also impose a hard, forced salary on players.

Schools began sharing a portion of their fees with players as a result of the House v. The NCAA last year, but without NIL agreements, including those linked to booster groups and multimedia rights holders, allowed universities to deviate from the system and supplement player salaries without the $20.5 million that schools are allowed to share with players.

Additionally, the College Athletic Commission, which is tasked with administering those deals, has come under fire from athletic directors after similar NIL deals were flagged in the system. CSC recently won a lawsuit involving the contracts of 18 Nebraska football players that it found to be affiliated with an “affiliated organization,” barring the players from contracts totaling more than $1 million. Athletic directors have expressed concern about rival schools breaking the rules. Booster and third-party funds have been channeled into the program, resulting in paydays that exceed those of the profit-sharing program.

The bill will not kill the name, image and money to match it, sources said. Legitimate, true NIL market deals would not be dealt with at all. What can kill you is the fixation with media rights holders and other related parties.

Asking for help

Texas A&M athletic director Trev Alberts, who helped create the College Athletic Commission as a member of its implementation committee, made that clear. Schools agreed to the rules, which specify NIL deals related to a “legitimate business purpose,” however a few defected from the plan.

“We have a simple choice to make,” Alberts said Tuesday. “Do we want to be dominated or not? And we’re sending a strong message that college athletes refuse to be dominated.”

President Donald Trump’s order earlier this year also drew a line between fraudulent NIL programs and the safe harbor for fair market value deals.

Perhaps the most controversial language in the bill is the expected introduction of media rights consolidation, sources told CBS Sports. The bill would allow schools and conferences to pool their broadcast inventory and sell it together. It’s the same idea that Cantwell has continued since March, when he and Seni. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., released a discussion draft of the College Sports Competitiveness Act. Supporters estimate that the combined rights could generate more than $9 billion in new revenue, with cuts aimed at preventing schools from cutting scholarships to women’s and Olympic sports.

Cantwell’s framework gave schools the option of being included in inclusion rights, rather than being forced to participate.

Concerns about coaches’ salaries

One question hangs over the draft: coaches’ pay. Earlier this month, the presidential committee circulated a draft of ideas for discussion that would put a cap on coaching salaries, which have increased over the past decade, with 13 major league football coaches expected to be paid at least $10 million next season. A person familiar with the document was not sure if the provision dealing with coaches’ salaries made it into the version presented, but said lawmakers “will try to get it if they haven’t.” Schmitt named “air training contracts” between the forces that broke the model.

The biggest question that pervades college athletics is the unknown. What do athletic directors and conference commissioners expect from the bill?

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey said he was briefed on the Senate’s deliberations. Speaking Tuesday on the second day of the SEC’s spring meetings, Sankey declined to comment on what was inside. When asked how knowledgeable he is, he answered with two words.

“I was informed,” he said.

Will the bill pass?

Many conference and university leaders signed a letter endorsing the upcoming bill last week without seeing the final draft. The leaders signed the commissioners of the ACC and the Big 12, two of the four major conferences in college sports. Notably absent were the signatures of Sankey and Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti.

“I was asked for a week and a half to sign in support of a bill that I don’t see. I think that’s a terrible way to take office,” Sankey said. “It would be important to learn what might be identified.”

Last week, for the second time in less than a year, House leadership pulled the NCAA-backed SCORE legislation before a floor vote — this time after the Congressional Black Caucus came out against the bill, which would have given the NCAA its antitrust protections. Sankey said he “spoke freely” with SEC athletic directors and coaches about the fall.

The Cruz-Cantwell effort has a better chance of reaching the president’s desk.

Obstacles still face the bill, including the committee hearings that usually accompany the slow legislative process. A tight calendar is the main stress. Trump’s April 3 executive order set an August 1 deadline for new national rules and threatened federal funding for schools that are not in line. Sankey called it “well-intentioned to try to motivate people to have solutions at that time.”

The Senate’s summer recess begins in August, and legislators will be on the campaign trail for the midterm elections when they return to Washington, DC.

Sankey and other commissioners warned of what could happen if federal legislation fails to cross the line. He said on Tuesday that the absence of a federal law “creates a big rift because congresses will have to make decisions.”

Big Ten and SEC leaders have discussed autonomy and the creation of new bylaws that will cool the ever-changing world of college athletics at the conference level. Those rules may differ from conference to conference, setting the stage for further concerns about competitive imbalances.