HB9137, the “Protect College Sports Act of 2026,” would create a federal framework governing name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, athlete representation, transfer rules, eligibility, health protections, and media-rights arrangements in college athletics. The bill applies primarily to Division I institutions for many of its NIL, disclosure, medical, and scholarship provisions, while some provisions extend to Division II and III or to Football Bowl Subdivision schools. It would prohibit schools, conferences, and intercollegiate athletic associations from restricting student athletes’ ability to earn NIL compensation, entering into NIL agreements, or obtaining agents or legal representation, subject to specified exceptions for student conduct and use of institutional marks and facilities.
The bill also imposes new disclosure and transparency requirements. Division I institutions would have to report anonymized NIL agreement data and broader athletics financial and student-outcome information to their governing athletic association, which in turn would maintain a searchable public database to help estimate fair market value for NIL deals. The bill modifies the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act to add athlete-agent registration, contract requirements, a private right of action, and limits on fees and misleading representations. It also creates an Office of the Student Athlete Ombudsman, whistleblower protections, and a congressional commission to study the future of college athletics and recommend changes, including to the revenue-share cap tied to the 2025 NIL litigation settlement.
On athlete welfare, the bill requires Division I schools and certain associations/conferences to provide extensive medical coverage for sports-related injuries, including post-eligibility coverage for a period of years, and to maintain health and safety standards on concussions, heat illness, rhabdomyolysis, sickle cell trait, asthma, hazing, abuse, and sexual misconduct. It further protects academic freedom by barring athletic staff from pressuring athletes over course or major selection and limits scholarship revocation or reduction based on athletic performance, injury, or roster management, while allowing revocation for transfers or conduct/eligibility violations. The bill also sets transfer protections, eligibility rules, and limits on mid-season football coaching transitions.
Title II would substantially revise the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 to permit pooled college media-rights agreements under a new “covered entity” structure, while imposing governance, voting, revenue-allocation, and women’s/Olympic sports protection requirements. It would require local broadcast access in each participating institution’s market, bar certain conference mergers or acquisitions, and require media rights for non-football/non-basketball sports to be actively used or revert to the originating entity. The bill also includes antitrust liability protections for compliance with its rules, but conditions those protections on adoption of implementing bylaws and regulations.
Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the text, the bill appears designed to be protective of student athletes and to impose structure on college sports governance, but it also contains significant federal preemption and antitrust provisions that could draw scrutiny from states, institutions, conferences, and athlete advocates over control of NIL markets, transfer restrictions, revenue distribution, and the scope of the new federal framework.
The bill would significantly alter federal law governing college athletics by creating new statutory NIL rights and compliance obligations, amending the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, and expanding the Sports Broadcasting Act to authorize pooled college media-rights arrangements under detailed federal conditions. It would also preempt conflicting state laws or rules on NIL compensation, transfers, and eligibility, while preserving certain state-law areas such as civil rights, tort, criminal, privacy, contract, trademark, copyright, and consumer protection claims unless they conflict with the bill. Institutions, conferences, intercollegiate athletic associations, athlete agents, and student athletes—especially at Division I schools—would be directly affected by new disclosure, medical, scholarship, transfer, and enforcement requirements.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call evidence to gauge support or opposition. From the bill text alone, the measure is framed as a student-athlete protection and college-sports reform bill, suggesting a pro-athlete policy orientation, but it also reflects a compromise approach that preserves some institutional control, creates antitrust safe harbors, and ties several provisions to the 2025 NIL settlement. The absence of recorded discussion means any broader sentiment among lawmakers or stakeholders cannot be confirmed from the supplied materials.
Likely points of contention include the bill’s federal preemption of state NIL and transfer laws, the extent to which it limits or standardizes athlete compensation, and the antitrust exemptions granted to conferences and institutions. Schools and conferences may object to the detailed federal oversight, disclosure obligations, revenue-sharing rules, and restrictions on conference mergers, while athlete advocates may focus on whether the bill goes far enough on compensation, mobility, and labor rights. Additional friction may arise over the revenue-share cap, the mandatory use of pooled media rights, the required protections for women’s and Olympic sports, and the bill’s treatment of athlete-agent regulation and private enforcement rights.