Bill Passed (77-22)
77 Yea22 Nay1 Not voting1/2 required
S-4668-119
Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 77 - 22. Record Vote Number: 250. (text: CR S5044-5063)
Sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would establish federal rules for name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements that allow college athletes to be paid for endorsements and appearances. It would codify key terms of the "House settlement" — a court-approved class action agreement — including a permanent cap on how much revenue schools can share directly with athletes, adjusted annually for inflation. It would also grant a limited antitrust exemption allowing colleges and conferences to jointly sell their sports broadcasting rights to a third party, provided at least 75% of Football Bowl Subdivision schools participate.
Who benefits
College athletes who gain a clear federal right to sign NIL deals without NCAA interference. Athletes who transfer schools, who would be guaranteed one transfer without losing eligibility. Sports agents who gain a defined role in the market (though with a 5% fee cap). Broadcasters and media companies that could negotiate a consolidated pool of college sports rights. Large conferences and schools that benefit from legal clarity and a stable revenue-sharing framework. The NCAA and conferences, which gain antitrust protection for joint media rights deals and a permanent cap on direct athlete compensation.
Who is hurt
College athletes who believe the permanent revenue-sharing cap — set under the House settlement — is too low and limits their earning potential relative to what a fully open market might produce. Athletes in non-revenue sports who may see indirect effects if schools redirect budgets. Third-party NIL collectives and boosters who currently circumvent limits, as the bill explicitly prohibits compensation that goes around the cap. Competing media companies that lose leverage if schools pool and sell rights collectively. State governments that have passed their own NIL laws, which may be preempted by federal standards. Sports agents who currently charge fees above 5%.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current patchwork of 50 different state NIL laws creates an uneven playing field that disadvantages athletes and schools in states with stricter rules, and that federal uniformity is long overdue. They contend that codifying the House settlement provides athletes with guaranteed, inflation-adjusted revenue sharing and enforceable NIL rights for the first time, while the antitrust exemption for media rights allows schools to collectively negotiate deals that maximize broadcast revenue — revenue that ultimately funds athletic programs and scholarships across all sports.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that permanently capping athlete revenue sharing in federal statute locks in a limit that was negotiated under legal duress — the House settlement — rather than through a free market, effectively using federal law to shield schools and the NCAA from future antitrust liability at athletes' expense. They contend that the antitrust exemption for joint media rights sales, requiring only 75% of Football Bowl Subdivision schools, could suppress competition among broadcasters and reduce the total value of rights deals, harming both athletes and smaller programs that might have negotiated better terms independently.
Constitutional context
The Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) gives Congress authority to regulate interstate commercial activity, and college sports media rights and NIL markets clearly involve interstate commerce under the aggregation principle established in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The antitrust exemption provision raises questions under the Nondelegation and Necessary and Proper Clauses, and post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency rules implementing the bill's standards would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to set the terms of college athlete compensation and grant antitrust immunity; courts retain the power to review whether the antitrust exemption's conditions are met and whether implementing agency rules are within statutory bounds, particularly under the heightened post-Loper Bright standard.
Historical precedent
The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 granted the four major professional sports leagues a similar antitrust exemption to pool and sell their television rights collectively, establishing the direct legislative precedent for the media rights provision in this bill.
Bill Passed (77-22)
Amendment Rejected (47-52)
Amendment Rejected (49-50)
Amendment Rejected (42-54, 3/5 majority required)
Amendment Rejected (1-94)
Amendment Agreed to (96-1)
Cloture Motion Agreed to (74-25, 3/5 majority required)
Amendment Agreed to (77-23)
Cloture Motion Agreed to (70-21, 3/5 majority required)
Motion to Proceed Agreed to (77-22)
Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (74-24, 3/5 majority required)