Why It Matters
A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published Sept. 23 found that the Protect College Sports Act of 2026 (PCSA), a bipartisan Senate bill designed to "end the disorder facing college athletics," leaves unresolved a central legal question about wether revenue-sharing payments schools would make directly to athletes should be distributed proportionally between male and female athletes under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
The Trump administration revoked Biden-era guidance from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that had classified institutional name, image, and likeness (NIL) and revenue-sharing payments as "athletic financial assistance" subject to Title IX's proportional scholarship requirement, and "explicitly disclaimed the conclusion that payments via institutional NIL agreements must be distributed proportionally," according to the report.
That gap puts Congress in a difficult position: the PCSA includes a savings clause stating it does not "override, modify, or amend the applicability of Title IX," but the bill does not resolve how Title IX applies to the compensation model it creates.
The Big Picture
The PCSA would largely codify the House v. NCAA antitrust settlement, which allowed institutions to share up to $21.58 million in revenue directly with athletes for the 2026-2027 academic year, not including grant-in-aid. The bill would also allow institutions to exceed that cap by up to $22.5 million for athlete retention, subject to academic benchmarks, and by a further $5 million proportional to spending on non-revenue generating sports, including women's and Olympic programs.
The CRS report identifies areas where the PCSA intersects with Title IX's three main obligation categories: equivalent benefits and opportunities, effective accommodation of interests and abilities, and proportional financial assistance for scholarships.
First, even if revenue-sharing payments are not classified as scholarships, they may still need to be offered equivalently to men and women as a "benefit and opportunity" under Title IX. A federal district court declined to dismiss claims that a university discriminated by providing male athletes better NIL-connected training and opportunities than female athletes.
Second, the PCSA's Section 125 would prohibit reductions in minimum competitions, roster sizes, and varsity team numbers in Division I, and require large- and mid-sized institutions to maintain at least as many scholarship and roster spots for non-revenue generating sports as they had in 2024-2025, though those protections sunset after nine years for large institutions and four years for mid-sized ones. The report notes that meeting this floor does not guarantee Title IX compliance, because whether it satisfies Title IX's three-part effective accommodation test depends on institution-specific circumstances, including enrollment changes and men's participation rates.
The Bottom Line
The report notes that enforcement of Title IX in the NIL and revenue-sharing context may be less aggressive at the federal agency level, potentially leaving enforcement primarily to private litigation. Congress faces a parallel choice: pass the PCSA as written and leave courts to resolve the classification question, or add clarifying language before enactment, with the outcome shaping how hundreds of millions of dollars flow through college athletics and whether women's programs gain or lose ground under the new compensation framework.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article