By Bria Manning
Seven years ago, shortly after college football journalist Ross Dellenger moved to Washington, D.C., the NCAA began its lobbying effort. Sensing a big story, Dellenger began meeting with senators and representatives. One chief of staff insisted on being the one to ask the questions, with the first one being: “What does the NCAA do?”
“And I knew from that point a bill would take a very long time,” Dellenger said. “And seven years later, here we are.”
The Protect College Sports Act and the continuing uncertainty of college sports were the focal points of Dellenger’s discussion with NCAA president Charlie Baker and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri) at the 2026 APSE Summer Conference in Arlington, Virginia, on Friday, July 17.
Schmitt, as one of the co-authors of the bill, is particularly tuned into the college sports landscape and all its question marks. But had you asked him three years ago what Congress’ role in college sports is, he would have expressed skepticism.
“But the truth of the matter is, the only entity on the planet that can grant any kind of antitrust exemption status or liability protection for the NCAA or any governing body to enforce rules is Congress,” Schmitt said.
While the House of Representatives has had some aversion to the bill, the Senate has earnestly begun kicking up momentum in favor of it.
But should it not pass?
“The trajectory of this in three years will be even further unrecognizable from what people see,” Schmitt said.
Women’s and Olympic sports could go away or become club sports, and scholarship opportunities will dwindle, as the revenue-sharing model currently relies heavily on football to subsidize all sports.
That, Schmitt said, is the biggest problem to solve.
As unsustainable as that issue alone is, the ripple effects felt throughout college sports since the 2021 advent of name, image and likeness have culminated into a Herculean effort, with two more issues sprouting for every one issue solved.
Baker gave examples ranging from eligibility cases in state courts, transfers resulting in low graduation rates and lack of culture in athletic programs, and the inability to regulate agents looking to make money from representing student-athletes.
“I think there’s been a cascading series of events here, some of which are positive things that we’ve done and some of which are other things that have happened in the atmosphere and the challenges associated with having a level playing field,” Baker said.
“People want Division I to be Division I,” he added. “And for it to be Division I, you got to be in an environment where people think the rules are the same, both on the field and off for everybody.”
College sports are an anomaly compared to others in that they are exceedingly operated with a professional lens but without the same level of regulation. Contracts exist in every other sport besides college sports, for example. Every professional sport operates under a single unit – that unit being a league – besides college sports, which has various conferences negotiating for themselves.
The two main buckets Schmitt and his committee had when writing the Protect College Sports Act were governance and revenue. Those buckets, though, were made with one ultimate goal in mind: providing stability to college sports.
“You want to keep this ability for a student-athlete to transfer,” Schmitt said. “You want to make sure that the scholarships are protected, the healthcare is protected, so there’s sort of a student-athlete protection side of it, and then there’s just sort of like, ‘What are the reasonable rules?’”
While the Protect College Sports Act has reached the Senate floor, July is a vital month to get it out of the Senate before the monthlong August recess. The more votes garnered from the Senate as the bill makes its way to the House, the better. The more supportive the SEC and the Big Ten can be, the better.
