Revisions to the Protect College Sports Act were announced on Tuesday, pushed by the Big Ten and SEC. It’s seen as a positive, and compromises were needed to get their support. While nothing is ever perfect, there don’t seem to be any drastic changes to what was discussed back in June. However, the 171-page document can’t answer the biggest question of them all: if this goes into effect, how will this actually be enforced?
Looking at the changes, it all seems in order, but some interesting things
arise at first glance.
Note the irony that the Big Ten and SEC want a “hard” revenue share cap and close loopholes to get around the cap.
The current cap is $21.3 million per school, which many teams with deep pockets have already blown way past. And who are the teams with deep pockets? The vast majority of them reside in the SEC and Big Ten Conferences. It’s humorous to see those schools concerned that other schools might be cheating or working around rules. Never mind that bagman boosters frequented college campuses in the South (and other regions, to be sure) for decades before under-the-table dealings became over-the-table negotiations, otherwise known as NIL.
The concerns about how hard the revenue share cap will be aren’t the only point the Power 2 conferences wanted to clarify in this latest version.
- Transparency (and legitimacy) in NIL deals: This is very needed, but are those schools not luring players away from other teams with lucrative NIL contracts?
- A $22.5 million retention fund: It sounds like this is in addition to whatever the “hard” revenue share cap ends up being. A few questions arise from this line.
- Is a retention fund needed if NIL deals are more transparent, which in theory would mean it wouldn’t be as hard to retain players?
- Why don’t they just make the rev share cap $22.5 million more to account for a player retention budget?
- Why does a portion of the cap need to be officially designated for retention anyway? Can’t every school decide how much they want to devote to player retention?
- Is a cap really “hard” if there is an add-on for something else?
- $5 million retention add-on: The retention fund can go up another $5 million if a school spends that same amount on NIL deals for women’s sports. That sounds like some kind of hole in the rule that teams could exploit or loop through. Like a… loophole? If only there were some kind of congressional act that was trying to close off loopholes. Maybe one day.
- Flexibility to reduce tampering: It would be interesting to know what this actually means. Decreasing tampering is a good thing, but the language of “added more flexibility” is vague. Oftentimes, rulings like this end up legalizing tampering to make it become acceptable (ex., paying players through NIL). That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good or bad, but the wording just sounds like recruiting rules will be more flexible, which will result in rules being broken less because they won’t have to be followed as much. If the rules are dumb now, then it’s a good thing. If the rules are there for a reason, maybe it’s not as good.
- Eliminating improper recruiting benefits: Team representatives surely could not have said this one with a straight face, right?
Perhaps the most clear change is the one that’s easiest to see how it benefits the Big Ten and SEC. That would be the clarity that participation in the shared media pool is entirely voluntary. Also, any rules about scheduling traditional rivals are only for schools that opt in to the media pool sharing. And just to be clear, that’s voluntary.
The unspoken words here may as well be shouted from the rooftops. The two largest conferences, which make the most in media money and CFP payouts, don’t want to share it with anyone else. As long as they aren’t forced to pool media rights, they are on board, because they don’t intend to opt in. And for good measure, they won’t have to worry about playing traditional rivals that they don’t already play.
It is possible the Big Ten and SEC are making compromises in good faith, agreeing to crack down on the chaos of recruiting and NIL tampering in exchange for ensuring they can keep their huge sums of money. But it isn’t likely. Instead, it reads like the P2 is willing to agree on the things that will be challenging to enforce in exchange for not participating in the most tangible part of this.
And that goes back to the question at the top: how will any of this actually be enforced?
It seems that if the Big Ten and SEC get their way, none of it will.
This could very well be an uneducated interpretation of a summary of a long bill that will crack down on things. Or, the Protect College Sports Act could end up making tons of sense on paper, but struggle to lead to practical changes due too many teams and not enough people ensuring the rules are being followed.
After all, everyone knows that speeding in a car could lead to a ticket. Speed limits are clearly marked on roads, and police patrol the streets for those breaking the speed limit. But speeding happens every single day. There aren’t enough police to catch everyone who speeds, and due to this, there becomes an acceptable amount of driving over the speed limit before repercussions take place.
And College Football has a long history of speeding, despite posted limits constantly being increased. Meanwhile, police write tickets for the 1996 Toyota Camry going 2 miles over the limit while the 2026 Maserati Granturismo goes 50 mph over, right past them.
Let’s hope for change, and let’s hope for practical ways to enforce those changes.
