Skip to content
Bramble

Politics

Senate passes Protect College Sports Act 77-22; House timing and court challenges uncertain

The Senate passed the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act on Monday night, 77-22. It would set national rules for college athletics and give the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption. The House is on midterm recess, and opponents and commentators expect obstacles there and in court.

5 outlets · 4L · 0C · 1R First reported Account updated

Updated (version 2). Rewritten with the latest reporting. Previously: “Senate passes Protect College Sports Act 77-22; House timing and legal challenges uncertain”.

Image: Los Angeles Times
Image: Reason
Image: NPR
Image: CBS News
Image: ABC News

1 / 5

The story, neutrally told

The Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act late Monday night by a vote of 77 to 22. Reason reports that 50 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted in favour, one senator did not vote, and four amendments were added. The bill, co-authored by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), would grant the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption to enforce uniform rules on eligibility and transfers, and would regulate name, image and likeness (NIL) deals.

The Los Angeles Times reports it would raise the revenue-sharing cap to about $50 million per school from $21.5 million and send challenges to the rules to federal court. Supporters, including Cruz, say national rules would end chaos and uncertainty. President Trump called the bill a "really big deal" that would save college sports, and the NCAA thanked the sponsoring senators. Opponents include Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who says the bill protects a system of exploitation. Labor groups, athlete organisations and the NAACP say it limits athletes without giving them an equal seat at the table, and the Congressional Black Caucus objects over protections for Black athletes.

The bill now goes to the House, which is on recess until after the November midterms. ABC says it is unlikely to be called back early, while NPR calls the bill's chances of passing unclear. Some House Republicans have expressed hesitance, and NPR notes a rule discouraging conference realignment could draw opposition from some states. If the House changes the bill, it returns to the Senate. Reason's opinion column says Cruz expects a House vote before the midterms, calls that wishful thinking, and points to the failure of the similar SCORE Act. It predicts numerous federal lawsuits.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on.

Left4 outlets

Framing
Straight news explainers on what the bill does, who backs and opposes it, and the hurdles ahead. ABC leads with Trump's reaction.
Emphasis
Bill provisions, bipartisan vote, NCAA power and athletes' lack of a seat at the table, House obstacles.
Leaves out or plays down
Little on how the bill could produce new litigation; the CBS pieces are short video summaries with little detail.
Charged language
“Wild West”“sweeping”
For example
“The bipartisan Protect Student College Sports Act would give the NCAA more power to govern national rules and regulations in college sports.” — Los Angeles Times
“it’s going to take more than a "tush push" to get it into the end zone and onto the president's desk.” — ABC News
“a bill aiming to rein in what its supporters call a "Wild West" era of college athletics” — NPR

Centre0 outlets

No centre outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.

Right1 outlet

Framing
An opinion newsletter that is sceptical of the bill, calling it a bad law and predicting House trouble and lawsuits.
Emphasis
Litigation risk, House prospects, the failed SCORE Act, and criticism of Cruz's expectations.
Leaves out or plays down
Says little about the bill's contents or its opponents' arguments about athletes.
Charged language
“bad law”“extremely wishful thinking”“biggest, most invasive sports law in American history”
For example
“Lawyers—not athletes, schools, or college sports—are the real winners of the Protect College Sports Act.” — Reason
“The Protect College Sports Act is a bad law for all the reasons I've previously mentioned” — Reason