The Big Ten and SEC agreed Friday night to support the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA), reviving a bi-partisan bill that appeared to be headed for failure ahead of the Senate's pre-recess deadline this coming Friday. School presidents from both Big Two conferences voted to back the bill after securing last-minute concessions on language governing third-party NIL deals and "associated entities."
After weeks of doubt about whether the Big Ten and SEC would support the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA), including a barrage of phone calls with the bi-partisan bill’s sponsors and from President Donald Trump, the Big Ten and SEC issued a statement of joint support:
"The Big Ten Conference and Southeastern Conference support the Protect College Sports Act as currently drafted, following detailed and productive negotiations with Senators Cruz, Cantwell and Schmitt and their respective staffs. We appreciate the substantial work that has gone into this effort."
The central sticking point?
According to CBS Sports the major concern regarded language in the bill preventing “associated entities,” which are multimedia companies or school-affiliated corporate sponsors like Nike or Under Armour from circumvention of the revenue-sharing cap.
"This kind of redirection of sponsorship money from the school to a specific athlete has become common and enables the school to get more than the $20.5 revenue cap to its players.
"Don't give us the money, give it to players X, Y, and Z,” senator Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri) noted. “That's how (schools) end up with football rosters that are like double or triple (the revenue share cap is)."
The fix will be an “attestation requirement from outside entities, apparel companies and multimedia partners, certifying that deals with individual players are separate from any institutional arrangement and subject to the Collegiate Sports Commission's review process.”
The fix the two power conferences agreed to effectively increased the current $21.3 million revenue cap for 2027 established by the House settlement, by $22.5 million with a retention pool exception, with a $5 million exemption for non-revenue sports NIL.
"If you're SEC or Big Ten, you're going to have schools that are above that. You're going to have schools that are below that. That's probably about the mean,” Schmitt said, noting, “It isn't so far out of reach that ACC, Big 12 or even Group of Six is going to be a challenge."
Schmitt said the market essentially validated about $50 million, which is where negotiations landed.
According to CBS, the Big Ten and SEC initially asked to bump the revenue share amount by $25 million and Notre Dame AD Pete Bevacqua pegged what revenue share should be at $50 million when asked what the hard cap would be if collectives were eliminated.
Putting this into FSU context
Revenue sharing is optional for schools and must be funded by the schools themselves. There are schools unable to fund the current amount of revenue sharing allowable, let alone the proposed $48.8 million.
Like most collegiate programs FSU athletics relies on more than $20 million in contributions from Seminole Booster members just to balance its annual budget, not counting the $22.5 million for revenue sharing allowed the past two years. That money is the result of effective lobbying by Board of Trustee Chairman Peter Collins, Athletic Director Michael Alford and FSU President Richard McCullough with the Florida Board of Governors. Since state public universities in Florida cannot fund athletics with tax-payer dollars (other states can), the FSU admin-led lobby asked the BOG to allow each school to transfer to athletics up to the $22.5 million of auxiliary funds, non-taxpayer money earned by an auxiliary of the university (think vending machines, parking fees, etc).
In an effort to keep Florida high school prospects in Florida and to keep their state universities competitive, the BOG granted the schools the discretion to do so. At the time of the vote, Florida universities won-loss record was right at .500.
It is believed that FSU transfers the maximum amount to athletics, while smaller universities may choose not to. It is also worth noting, the BOG approved this on a three-year trial that they will decide whether to renew. We are in year two of the three-year trial.
If the BOG does not renew that agreement, and the bill becomes law, where does that $22.5 million, let alone $48.8 million, come from?
Does that offer a perspective on what the Big Ten and SEC asked for and received? Passage of this bill is a step forward in many respects, but the two power conferences have successfully negotiated a competitive advantage over every other school not in the SEC or Big Ten, which receive $80 million or more per school per year, where other conference media rights agreement pay less than $40 million per team per year on average.
Smaller conferences that have long supported the bill may feel pressure from some of their members to reconsider now that the Power Two can pay players nearly $49 million annually — widening the resource gap further.
However, the ACC and the Big 12 both voiced support for the bill on Friday.
In addition to a capped revenue share, the conferences agreed that student-athletes can earn additional endorsement income (NIL) as long as it goes through the Collegiate Sports Commission and deemed a legitimate NIL deal.
“You just can't have a phony redirection like we've seen a lot recently, so that was important to get that language right,” Schmitt said. “I think once we did that and people had greater assurance that this was a really kind of a real cap, it's still allowing individual NIL deals. I think that was important.”
The bill reaches well beyond money.
- Institutions and associations cannot restrict student athletes from marketing or earning compensation for their NIL rights, except in specific areas consistent with the House-NCAA settlement related to associated entities, individuals and collectives.
- Protects women's and Olympic sports by prohibiting the NCAA and Division I conferences from reducing the number of varsity teams, minimum roster participants, or number of intercollegiate competitions schools must sponsor for FBS membership.
- The NCAA’s new “5-to-play-5” rule would have the protection of federal law, with exceptions made for military service, religious missionary work or pregnancy. On the same day, the Big Ten and SEC voted to support this bill, the NCAA lost two eligibility cases in the courts creating more urgency for Congress to act.
- Transfers without penalty would be limited to once during an athlete’s career, with a second transfer requiring the athlete to sit out a year.
- Professional athletes would no longer be allowed to return to college and participate in sports (as Alabama basketball player Charles Bediako briefly did last winter).
- Player agents would be required to register with states and could not charge a contract fee higher than 5%.
- Athletes could not have their scholarships revoked due to performance, injury or illness.
- FBS coaches and key staff members will no longer be permitted to accept (and perform in) another coaching job before their season is over (the so-called “Lane Kiffin rule”).
- Creates a targeted anti-trust exemption allowing schools and conferences to voluntarily pool and sell their media rights, mirroring the framework that exists for professional sports leagues, but only if 75% of current FBS schools agree – practically all membership outside the Big Ten and SEC.
- Effectively caps conference expansion among the most powerful conferences to 19 teams, which means the Big Ten can only add one more program. In addition, schools moving from one power conference to another would be required to play as an independent for five years. I know this provision will get the attention of FSU fans, who are eager to jump to the Big Ten or SEC and hope to be that one.
- Full out-of-pocket coverage during participation and for five years post-eligibility.
- Pre-emption: Federal law supersedes conflicting state NIL, transfer, and eligibility regulations.
- Student-athlete representation in governance. At least one-third of governing board membership must be current or recent student athletes. While this provision won’t likely win the day on the anti-trust issue, wonder if it will help win any votes in Congress.
- Employment status: Bill takes no position on employment, which could be a hurdle for some Congressmen.
The Big 12 and ACC expressed support for the bill after its introduction last June and reiterated their support in statements Friday.
"The ACC continues to support the Protect College Sports Act and we appreciate Senators Cruz, Cantwell and Schmitt for their bipartisan leadership that has moved this effort forward,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said in a statement. “As a league, we are pleased to have a bill that provides for continued protections for student-athletes, liability protection on a new eligibility and transfer model, state preemption, and enhanced federal regulation of agents.”
Said Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark: "We are encouraged to see the Big Ten and SEC join the Big 12, the ACC and so many others in support of the Protect College Sports Act. Broad alignment around a practical, sustainable framework that supports student-athletes, institutions, conferences and fans is an important step forward for college athletics."
We may see a filing for closure as early as Monday by Senate Majority Leader John Thune and a midweek vote prior to Congress going to recess, but the vote could slip into the weekend, Schmitt said.
Schmitt expects the bill’s sponsors to have a busy week.
"A lot of people will say, ‘Hey, what's going on with this thing?’ And they're just not as intricately involved," Schmitt said. "It'll give an opportunity now to kind of give the full-fledged sales pitch at the lunches, colleague to colleague. So I think the momentum will grow."
To Schmitt, the stakes justify every phone call.
"I just think culturally this is such an everyday thing people care about," he said. "A lot of things we do up there, people don't give a sh#t. But they care about their teams and they care about college football. I just felt like this was important."
The latest developments do advance the ball into the red zone with time running out and 60 votes needed to end debate.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) remains a firm opponent, and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) had previously criticized the bill's earlier draft as creating "chaos" for student-athletes. Even with Senate passage, the bill would still need to clear the House, where a similar effort (the SCORE Act) stalled for over a year.
Can this bi-partisan bill win support where other bi-partisan bills have not?
That’s the multi-billion dollar question.
Thanks for reading the Osceola. Subscribe now for 40 percent off to enjoy a full year of coverage of FSU athletics. You’ll also earn a $20 gift card at Alumni Hall
