Protecting Athletes Should Not Limit Their Opportunities

A law designed to protect college athletes should not make it harder for them to find opportunities.

That principle is central to how I evaluate the Protect College Sports Act of 2026, a proposal intended to bring clearer national standards to a college athletics industry navigating NIL, revenue sharing, eligibility disputes, and financial uncertainty. Athletes need stronger protections. They also need room to negotiate, build their brands, and pursue opportunities that do not arrive automatically.

The Senate passed S. 4668 on September 28, 2026, by a vote of 77 to 22. It reached the House on October 5. As of October 27, 2026, the legislation has not become federal law. This analysis concerns the Senate-passed proposal, which could still change.

Three aspects deserve particular attention: NIL representation and agent fees, transfer eligibility, and the future of women's and Olympic sports.

Clearer NIL representation standards are welcome

Sections 101 through 103 address NIL protections, amendments to the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, and agent registry requirements for intercollegiate athletic associations. Among other provisions, the bill would strengthen written-contract requirements and prohibit deceptive agent conduct.

These are sensible objectives. A student-athlete should know exactly who represents them, how the representative is compensated, what services are promised, and how to raise concerns. Transparency is essential in a market where athletes and families may be reviewing significant agreements for the first time.

Through my work with Finish Line Sports Group, I have navigated state registration requirements for athlete representation. The differences between jurisdictions introduce practical complications for agencies attempting to operate responsibly across state lines. A more consistent framework could improve accountability while reducing unnecessary confusion.

At the same time, standardization should not come at the cost of access to representation. That is where one particular provision raises concerns.

The proposed 5% commission cap misses an important distinction

Section 102 proposes to prohibit an athlete agent from charging more than 5% of the value of an endorsement contract. Protecting athletes from excessive fees is an appropriate goal, but not every source of athlete compensation involves the same work.

Consider the difference between an institutional revenue-sharing agreement and an independently sourced endorsement. In a revenue-sharing negotiation, an athlete's representative may review an offer, evaluate terms, and seek improvements to an opportunity already on the table. The work is important, but it begins from an existing proposal.

Independent endorsements may start with no offer, contact, or established relationship. Building that opportunity can require research, media-kit creation, a tailored pitch, identifying decision-makers, persistent outreach, campaign planning, contract negotiation, and management of the finished partnership. These steps happen behind the scenes, long before an athlete receives payment.

For example, imagine a $1,000 brand agreement that takes meaningful time to research, secure, and execute. A 5% fee would leave $50 for the agent. The concern is not that every such deal must carry a high commission. It is that restricting compensation in this way may discourage representatives from spending time on the smallest deals.

Those deals matter. For an athlete without a massive following, a first paid partnership can provide experience, visibility, and a foundation for future relationships. If the market makes those opportunities financially impractical to pursue, the athletes who need help the most could be among those who lose access.

I support a 5% commission cap for institutional revenue-sharing agreements as a policy approach. I do not support automatically applying the same limit to independently sourced endorsement agreements. This is a distinction I believe legislation should make, not a statement that the current bill already treats the two categories differently. The actual Senate-passed fee provision addresses endorsement contracts.

Transparency, clear authorization, and fair contract terms should protect the athlete. An inflexible cap risks undermining the incentive to create opportunities rather than simply negotiate existing ones.

Transfer eligibility should protect more than roster stability

Section 112 would generally permit one transfer between four-year institutions without delaying athletic eligibility. A second transfer would normally cost the athlete eligibility during the first academic year after the move, subject to exceptions including a discontinued sport, head-coach departure, sexual assault or harassment, and pursuit of a graduate degree.

There is a legitimate case for stability. Coaches need to plan their rosters, schools invest in their programs, and constant turnover can disrupt teams. Still, an athlete's decision to transfer can involve circumstances that go far beyond athletics.

Academic fit, family needs, finances, health, and personal development may all change over a college career. A rule designed to discourage unnecessary movement should not create unnecessary hardship for an athlete making a reasonable decision about their future.

The question is not whether transfers should be completely unrestricted or whether institutions deserve predictability. It is whether a national standard can balance those interests with genuine athlete choice. Exceptions and fair avenues for review matter as much as the basic eligibility rule.

Women's and Olympic sports deserve enforceable protections

Section 125 addresses the preservation of women's and Olympic sports, including standards related to sport sponsorship, roster opportunities, and financial aid. The text includes qualifications and possible waivers that are important to any assessment of its real effect.

College athletics cannot be evaluated only by the sports producing the largest media contracts. Women's basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, track and field, swimming, and many other programs provide opportunities that are integral to the college sports system.

That is why the bill's attention to these sports is important. A national model should account for the athletes whose programs may not produce the most revenue but whose scholarships, education, and competitive opportunities are equally significant.

Legislative protection, however, must mean more than an encouraging headline. The details of enforcement, exceptions, and institutional obligations will determine whether the stated commitment actually preserves opportunities over time.

Measuring reform through the athlete's experience

Supporters of the Protect College Sports Act have emphasized national consistency, scholarship protection, and long-term stability. Critics have questioned whether some restrictions could weaken athlete choice and negotiating power. Those perspectives should be considered on their merits rather than reduced to a simple choice between regulation and no regulation.

At Finish Line, we are building a boutique representation and marketing group focused on athletes whose potential, personality, and mission deserve greater visibility. We see the work required to develop relationships, present athletes professionally, and turn an introduction into a meaningful partnership. That experience shapes my concern about rules that unintentionally make smaller opportunities harder to create.

A law designed to protect college athletes should not make it harder for them to find opportunities.

Written agreements, honest representation, stronger protections for women's and Olympic sports, and a clearer national framework all have value. But athlete-centered reform must preserve meaningful choices, recognize the difference between types of compensation, and avoid pricing smaller opportunities out of the market for professional support.

If college sports legislation is going to shape the next generation of athlete representation, its success should be measured by the outcomes it creates for athletes, especially those who do not already have opportunities waiting for them.