The ongoing saga of college sports reform is a masterclass in institutional resistance to change, and the latest chapter—the Protect College Sports Act—is no exception. Let’s be clear: this isn’t about ‘saving’ college sports; it’s about preserving a system that has long exploited student-athletes under the guise of amateurism. The fact that the Big Ten and SEC, two of the most powerful conferences, oppose the bill isn’t surprising—what’s surprising is their audacity to frame their resistance as a fight for stability.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the way these conferences are trying to shift the narrative. They claim the bill doesn’t address the ‘patchwork of state laws’ or provide ‘protections for student-athletes,’ but let’s call this what it is: a thinly veiled attempt to maintain control. The real issue isn’t the lack of a national framework; it’s the refusal to acknowledge that student-athletes are, in essence, employees. Personally, I think the pushback from these conferences is less about stability and more about protecting their own power structures.
One thing that immediately stands out is the Senate Commerce Committee’s response, which reads like a playbook of deflection. They warn of ‘shuttering storied programs’ and ‘robbing opportunities’ from athletes, but this is classic fearmongering. What many people don’t realize is that the chaos in college sports isn’t a product of court rulings—it’s a consequence of decades of antitrust violations and the refusal to treat athletes as the revenue generators they are. If you take a step back and think about it, the system has been broken for years, and the courts are simply enforcing the law.
The call for an antitrust exemption is, in my opinion, a desperate attempt to rewrite the rules in favor of the status quo. Why should college sports be exempt from laws that apply to every other business? The answer is simple: because the current system benefits those in power. The idea that Congress should step in to ‘fix’ this is not only misguided but also deeply problematic. It’s like asking the government to bail out a company that refuses to comply with labor laws.
A detail that I find especially interesting is Pac-12 Commissioner Teresa Gould’s suggestion of treating student-athletes as employees. This isn’t radical—it’s logical. Collective bargaining would provide athletes with a voice and a fair share of the revenue they generate. But here’s the kicker: the powers-that-be don’t want that. They want to limit player income without giving up any control. What this really suggests is that the current system is less about athletics and more about maintaining a lucrative, exploitative business model.
If we’re honest, the real chaos in college sports isn’t caused by litigation or NIL bidding wars—it’s caused by the refusal to adapt to a fairer, more transparent system. The schools and conferences have had ample opportunity to comply with the law, but instead, they’re asking Congress to bend the rules for them. This raises a deeper question: Why should taxpayers and lawmakers bail out a system that has systematically undervalued the very people who make it profitable?
From my perspective, the solution isn’t a congressional bailout—it’s a fundamental shift in how we view student-athletes. They aren’t amateurs; they’re employees. They aren’t beneficiaries of a broken system; they’re victims of it. Until we have honest conversations about this, the chaos will continue. And frankly, that’s on the institutions, not the courts.
In the end, the Protect College Sports Act isn’t about protecting sports—it’s about protecting the status quo. And that’s a game no one should be rooting for.
