Opinion: The Regulatory Bottleneck: How the Protect College Sports Act Could Freeze Conference Valuation

In the business of college athletics, valuation is driven by the ability to scale. The current era of realignment has been defined by aggressive expansion and the pursuit of the most lucrative media footprints. However, the Protect College Sports Act—a bipartisan bill drafted by Sens. Maria Cantwell and Ted Cruz—threatens to introduce a regulatory bottleneck that could fundamentally alter the economics of conference membership.

As CBS Sports first reported, the bill aims to provide uniform rules on NIL and legal protections for college sports, but the mechanisms embedded in the proposed legislation would effectively freeze the current Power Four landscape. Lawmakers are discussing edits that would cap the number of teams in Power Four conferences at either 19 or 20 members. Republicans have specifically proposed a 20-team cap.

From a media-rights perspective, this is a hard ceiling on growth. The Big Ten and SEC have already expressed objection to these provisions, as they would preclude the further absorption of high-value markets. The restriction extends beyond simple membership counts; updated language in the bill would bar any conference reporting $700 million or more in annual revenue from acquiring, absorbing, or merging with another conference or its membership. This clause specifically targets the possibility of a "super league" merger between the Big Ten and the SEC.

Beyond the membership caps, the most significant "catch" in the legislation is the proposed structured path for schools seeking to switch conferences. CBS Sports reports that under the new proposal, any Power Four program wishing to move to another conference would first be required to spend at least five years as an independent.

This five-year waiting period is designed to curb the seismic shifts that have characterized the last decade of college football, but for the institutions involved, it represents a massive financial risk. Moving to an independent status for half a decade would likely strip a program of the guaranteed media distributions and stability provided by a power conference, effectively creating a prohibitive barrier to entry for any school attempting to upgrade its affiliation.

There are, however, two notable exceptions to this rule. CBS Sports notes that Notre Dame and UConn would be permitted to join a Power Four conference immediately because they already operate as independents. Notably, the initial language of the bill would have blocked Notre Dame from joining a power conference entirely.

These structural constraints have led to a standoff. SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey, speaking at his conference's annual media days, questioned the inclusion of these restrictions, asking, "Why is that even in there?" Sankey noted that the SEC has submitted 10 "commonsense suggestions" to the bill, focusing on strengthening preemption and antitrust language to mitigate the current wave of lawsuits facing the industry.

Sankey's concerns extend to other specific mechanisms within the bill's Title II. The SEC and Big Ten are pushing back against a media-pooling provision that would allow schools to voluntarily pool and jointly negotiate media rights. Because both conferences are currently locked into massive deals—the SEC with ESPN and the Big Ten with CBS and Fox—they argue the current language could expose them to lawsuits that force them into a pooling structure against their will. Sankey warned in a memo to SEC leaders that this provision could force conferences to choose between holding intraconference postseason tournaments or playing only other non-pooling universities or conferences in the postseason as a replacement for the College Football Playoff (CFP).

Furthermore, the conferences have objected to a "private right of action" provision. This would grant athletes the ability to sue institutions over scholarship protections, health and safety standards, and NIL rights violations. Both the Big Ten and SEC have characterized this provision as too broad, warning it would trigger a surge of litigation.

***

**Opinion:** The tension here is between legislative stability and market dynamics. By attempting to "slow change," Congress is essentially attempting to regulate the market value of conference membership. If the five-year independent mandate and the 20-team cap are enacted, the "premium" associated with Power Four membership becomes a locked asset. This doesn't just stop realignment; it creates a regulatory moat that protects incumbents while potentially depressing the long-term valuation of schools outside that circle.

***

The stakes of this legislative battle are high enough that they have prompted discussions regarding a total break from the existing system. Sankey confirmed to CBS Sports that conversations have occurred within the Big Ten and SEC ranks regarding self-governance models—a de facto breakaway from the NCAA. While Sankey stated he does not believe this is a "leverage point" and maintains that there is still "meaning and value" in the NCAA, he cautioned that the national organization must function in a healthy manner to prevent this "simmering" from boiling over.

As it stands, the Protect College Sports Act has secured support from the NFL, 267 colleges and universities, and 24 conferences. It also passed the Senate Commerce Committee with a 19-9 bipartisan vote. However, the absence of endorsement from the Big Ten and SEC remains the central hurdle. With Congress scheduled for summer recess in August and midterm elections approaching, the window for reaching a deal is closing. Whether the proposed edits to the membership caps and the independent waiting period are sufficient to win over the two most powerful entities in the sport will determine if the bill survives the Senate floor.