This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section covers nominations, confirmations, or other executive branch business. It mentions legislation such as Protect College Sports Act of 2026, members such as Jon Husted.
Official title: Protect College Sports Act (Executive Calendar)
Issued
September 15, 2026
senate side of the record
People
3
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
1
Bills and resolutions linked from this section
Committees
0
No linked committees in this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Bills and resolutions
1 Helpful Term
Executive business
Senate business involving nominations, treaties, and executive branch communications rather than ordinary bills.
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official Senate Record PDFReturn to issue contextMr. HUSTED. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the future of college athletics and American student-athletes.
Congress is being asked to take action to save college sports. Well, as we consider what we need to do to save college sports, we better make sure that we are focused on saving it for American student- athletes.
particularly in a State like Ohio. A lot of States love their college sports. It is part of American culture and it is an important part of campus life for many American students and we want to make sure that that remains the case.
But sports mean so much more than that. So many of America's leaders have a sports background, whether that is in politics, business, or whatever it might be. For obvious reasons, it helps you build character. It makes you tougher. You learn discipline, teamwork, all of the things that are virtuous parts of succeeding in life.
I know this firsthand. I grew up very rural and went to high school in a small town, and no one in my family had attended college—no one. And the only thing I wanted to do as a kid is that I wanted to play college football.
Fighting Irish. You watched them when you were a kid on TV, and you said: Hey, I don't know anything about college, but I would like to go play college football.
wanted to play college football. I literally didn't know a person who had gone to college other than my teachers and coaches. I didn't know anybody, but I wanted to go to college because I wanted to play college sports.
as a human being starts long before you graduate from high school because if you want to play college sports, you have got to prepare.
From the time you played Little League Baseball or maybe now youth
to develop yourself, your character, as a young person with that goal in mind, that one day maybe you can go play for that team that you dreamed of when you were a little kid.
For me, I ended up playing football at the University of Dayton. I was a highly prized recruit. I was the seventh-team running back when I got there. I bet most people didn't know that you could be that low on the depth chart. I actually was that low on the depth chart.
give me a jersey number that I could be a running back because he said I was never going to play there.
from sports like football, where you get knocked down and you got to get back up, you learn never to quit. That is why sports is such an important part of people's lives.
having the opportunity to be a starting defensive back, eventually became a national champion and an all-American.
to play sports, and I tell you today there is no way I would be standing here as a U.S. Senator if it weren't for college athletics, for giving me the chance to develop myself from a kid who grew up where they didn't know anybody that went to college to somebody who not only graduated but got a chance to succeed in athletics.
And I want that for everybody in this country. I want every kid— little kid—who has a dream of going to play athletics, whether it is on the tennis team, golf team, hockey, whatever it is, that they have a chance to do that.
opportunity because more and more roster spots are going to student- athletes from other nations.
making our Nation's college sports leagues competitive again, it has one critical omission: It doesn't look out for American student- athletes in their academic and athletic journeys.
not talking about a scholarship. I am talking about a roster spot—a chance to play—are going to non-Americans.
student-athletes. And with the NIL funds that are coming in, it is going to create a bigger and bigger incentive for pro athletes from other nations to come play college sports in America and take roster spots away from American citizens.
students, and, additionally, the Protect College Sports Act fails to address the gray area created by the overlap in immigration law and revenue-sharing structures.
status. This visa status has strict limitations on compensation via employment.
structure payments to international student-athletes as passive income out of revenue-sharing funds and get around those prohibitions, again, creating an incentive for more roster spots and more scholarships to go to student-athletes who are not American citizens.
It is not right. If you ask Congress to protect college sports, we should be protecting it for American student-athletes. And that is why I introduced the Training and Education for American Members in University Sports and Athletics Act—the TEAM USA Act—with House Education and Workforce Chair Walberg.
students when recruiting the best talent, and the proposal places a 20- percent cap on international student roster spots per sport with delayed implementation so that current student-athletes are not disrupted.
So, understand, I am not calling for a ban. We welcome international student-athletes to America. Twenty percent of the roster spots—that is fine. But we have some rosters in which there is not a single U.S. citizen on that roster in some of our nonrevenue sports.
That is not right. It is not the way it should be. We support competition, but we want to make sure that it is a valuable opportunity for American student-athletes because sports were created not to make big revenue and big money for college athletic programs; they were created to build character amongst our students in our schools. It was designed originally to teach—yes, we want to have academics in our schools, but we also are going to have extracurricular athletics to teach physical fitness, toughness, leadership, and character. That is what it is all about, and to deny increasingly those opportunities to American student-athletes is wrong.
scholarships and these limited roster spots to foreign athletes, and the growth of NIL money only creates more incentives for foreign athletes to cash in on the American system at the expense of student- athletes in this country.
If the U.S. Congress is being asked to save college sports, we better darn sure make sure that we save it for American student-athletes.
student-athletes, but I sure expect the U.S. Government to look out for American student-athletes. And that is why I have introduced the legislation, why it needs to be part of this discussion, so that American student-athletes still have the opportunity, like lots of little boys and little girls out there today who dream, have a dream, to be able to play college sports one day, shouldn't see that opportunity given away to someone who is not an American citizen.
We can balance both. We can find a way to welcome the best from other nations and also protect roster spots for American student-athletes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I want to speak forcefully against the Protect College Sports Act. There are a handful of us—like my colleagues—who played college sports. I was a high school all-American Player of the Year for my State, on the same USA TODAY All-America team with people like Emmitt Smith, and got a full scholarship.
opportunities I probably would never have had if it weren't for college athletics.
is. It is a serial monopolist, controlling an industry over $15 billion strong and rapidly growing.
exploited college athletes. The NCAA protects its members, it protects the colleges, and it has repeatedly put college athletes in horrible positions.
to coaches, ADs. Everybody was making money, but college athletes weren't. It wasn't until college athletes were able to begin to win cases in court that States, seeing the injustices, began to change the law. That started to shift the power table. And now the NCAA is coming here to the U.S. Senate, asking for sweeping powers that exempt our antitrust laws.
addressed in this bill. This bill does not do enough to protect college athletes' health and safety and well-being. And as a result of that, the number of groups opposed to it is almost too long to read.
some of them: every College Athletes Players Association; the College Football Players Association; the United College Athletes Association; all the associations of college sports; all of our major unions, the AFL-CIO, the United Steelworkers; all of our major civil rights organizations, the NAACP, the Urban League; all of our major legal think tanks that protect the health, well-being, and justice like the Center for Law and Policy. I could go on and on about those people who object to this
bill because it is not protecting athletes.
And think about this: It is doing all kinds of things to stop players from earning money—putting bureaucracy between them and the possibilities—but it does nothing to affect coaches.
class. Meanwhile, coaches' salaries—often, in most States, the highest paid people in their State governments are the basketball or the football coaches—their salaries continue to skyrocket, with close to 15 coaches right now having almost a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar buyout for their contracts.
claims to solve. It says it is going to fix a system that is broken. Well, the NCAA conferences and schools continue to lose major court cases.
sue for their rights. It says in this bill that, oh, we are preserving an individual right of action for individual athletes. Well, let me tell you right now, any lawyer worth their salt will tell you that somebody competing for the starting pitcher spot on a softball team is not going to sue their college in hopes they are going to get justice if they are facing sexual assault or if they have been forced to play through an injury or if there has been a breaking of any of the rules around the NCAA that purports to support our students. It is creating a cartel for them, a monopoly for them, and inadequate protections for college athletes and undermining their ability—should they even choose to sue, undermining their ability to have a fair day in court.
It is not protecting the spending problem. Schools increasingly claim that athlete compensation has created unprecedented financial pressure at the same time that football coaches and basketball coaches continue to see higher and higher salaries. This bill responds by placing federally imposed ceilings on athlete compensation while leaving every other major expense free to continue to increase. How much schools are spending on their facilities, paying their ADs, paying their coaches and assistant coaches—all of those prices continue to go up, but it is the college athletes that are going to be facing the caps.
We see protections for women's and Olympic sports, which I agree on. They are in this bill. But those protections expire while the antitrust protections do not. You go to section 125 of the bill. It has protections for those roster sports and grant and aid opportunities in those sports, but those protections expire after 4 or 9 years. It is a lie to say that this bill is protecting Olympic sports because it is not. It only does so for a handful of years.
athletes competing in Olympic sports. Why would we do that? Why would we do that? We should give not permanent exemption if we are not doing it in other parts of the bill, and even that is questionable.
control. We are giving them more authority over a group of Americans, and yet we are not asking for the right things in return—protections for athletes, their health, their well-being, their safety, equality for others involved in the sport.
NIL. Athletes already enjoy this right. They fought decades for it. The bill just puts new redtape there.
education. Yes, but do you know what? Without a meaningful enforcement mechanism, these protections are basically suggestions.
section 119, placing the burden on young athletes and young athletes alone to enforce anything within this bill.
Protect College Sports Act. Of course they support it—they are getting all of the financial gain and putting all of the burden and compromises and givebacks to college athletes, including their ability to win in court.
Oh, and there is a cynical part of this. They say they are going to help historically Black colleges and universities. I want everyone like me who has been fighting for HBCUs, who supports HBCUs, to understand the cynicism in this bill. This bill authorizes money. It authorizes money. It does not appropriate one single dollar. What you get is a promise for future funds, but we know that time and time again, Congress authorizes funding and that funding is never delivered.
This bill includes provisions of the SAFE Act, which I supported. Well, this leaves out a critical distinction between the SAFE Act and athletes' protections with meaningful enforcement. The SAFE Act included the State attorneys general being able to enforce it; this bill does not. The SAFE Act didn't give the NCAA and conferences sweeping new antitrust shields; this bill does. So, yes, there are some provisions from my earlier work in this bill, but they are toothless because of the lack of enforcement power.
This is a growing grassroots effort, I hear, to support this bill. Well, I am seeing millions of dollars' worth of commercials being funded by all the financial interests behind this bill, but who is protecting college athletes?
is short. I want to make sure, though, that I can enter for the Record—I am going to ask the President—I would like to enter into the Record some letters.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from college athletes organizations; this letter from civil rights organizations and former attorneys general; and this letter from college athletes safety organizations, college athletes sexual abuse survivor organizations, and families of college athletes who died following athletic activities—all speaking to the urgency to stop this bill.
Committee to Support Antitrust Laws,
September 14, 2026.
Dear Leaders Thune and Schumer, Chairman Cruz, and Ranking
Member Cantwell: We are part of the Wisne litigation,
challenging the NCAA's unfair decision to exclude our high
school graduating class from the new 5 for 5 eligibility
rule. Because of the NCAA's actions, we have not bien allowed
to compete in a fifth season even though our school expressly
stated that there was a roster spot for us.
Under NCAA rules, we cannot personally advocate for
ourselves; only our school can do so. And if they don't,
athletes like us have no choice but to sue, which is why
there is the chaos that the NCAA complains about. They have
only themselves to blame—by denying us a voice, they've
given us no choice but to sue to stand up for ourselves.
Under the PCSA, our right to sue the NCAA for excluding us
from the new 5 for 5 rule would be taken away. No college
athlete would ever again have the ability to hold the NCAA
accountable for limiting eligibility in this way. In fact,
the PCSA would permanently eliminate athletes' rights to
challenge all NCAA rules on eligibility, compensation and
transfers, no matter how unlawful or unfair.
We have never been consulted by our school, our conference,
the NCAA, or anyone in Congress on any of the issues
addressed in the PCSA, yet they are the “terms and
conditions” under which we and other college athletes will
be forced to participate going forward. The athletes who have
presented testimony in favor of the PCSA before the Senate
Commerce Committee are not representative of the vast
majority of collegiate athletes.
While there is much talk in the media about the need for
federal legislation, a much better approach to “protecting
college sports” would be for the NCAA and the Conferences to
work with athletes to develop fair rules that don't violate
antitrust and other laws, and then to enforce them in a
process where students are given the ability to stand up for
themselves and be treated fairly.
The PCSA will hurt college athletes like us by giving the
NCAA the power to set all the rules without any oversight or
accountability. We urge the Senate to protect athletes and
vote no.
Sincerely,
Abigail Jeffries, Queens, New York Athlete at Long Island
University Track & Field; Aislin Malcolm, Carnegie,
Pennsylvania Athlete at Robert Morris University Basketball;
Amelia Fidge, Honolulu, Hawaii Athlete University of Hawaii
at Manoa Softball; Andie-Marie Jones, Maryville, Tennessee
Athlete at University of Tennessee Cross Country and Track &
Field; Anthony Brotz, Bath, New York Athlete at Marist
University Baseball; Brett Griffiths, West Sacramento,
California Athlete at Ball State University Baseball; Cade
Tyson, Monroe, North Carolina Athlete at the University of
Minnesota Basketball; Carolyn Lau, Westport, Connecticut
Northwestern University Basketball; Colin Becker,
Centerville, Ohio Athlete at Belmont University Baseball.
Courtney Quirk, Londonberrv, New Hampshire Athlete at
Jacksonville University Lacrosse; Daniela Mendez-Trendler,
Reistertown, Maryland Athlete at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill Field Hockey; Doryn Smith,
Martinsburg, West Virginia Athlete at Cornell University
Football; Dubem Obilo, Oakville, Ontario, Canada Athlete at
University of Wisconsin—Green Bay Soccer; Gabriella
Gonzales, Helotes, Texas Athlete at University of Northern
Colorado Softball; Hayden Andrew Lewis, Scottsdale, Arizona
Athlete at University of Washington Baseball; Henry Chabot,
Paradise Valley, Arizona Athlete at University of Southern
California Baseball; Isaiah Jones, Nashville, Tennessee
Athlete at University of South Florida Basketball; Jade
Masogayo, Fort Worth, Texas Athlete at the University of
Colorado-Boulder Basketball.
Jake Morell, Sacramento, California Athlete at Seattle
University Baseball; Jonathan Kumer, Crozet, Virginia Athlete
at College of William and Mary Track & Field; Keaten Wade,
Spring Hill, Tennessee Athlete at University of Kentucky and
University of Colorado-Boulder Football; Lais Gasparini e
Silva, San Jose, California Athlete at San Jose State
University Swimming & Diving; Lucy Adams, Andover,
Massachusetts Athlete at Brown University Field Hockey; Riley
Stewart, Englewood, Colorado Athlete, Georgetown University
Cross Country, Track and Field; Ryan Ford, Westfield. Indiana
Athlete at University of Cincinnati Golf; Ryleigh Heck, Ocean
City, New Jersey Athlete at Universitv of North Carolina
Field Hockey; Sam DeCarlo, Signal Hill, California Athlete at
The University of Washington Baseball.
Saniah Tyler, Florissant, Missouri Athtete at University of
Missouri-Columbia Basketball; Tyler Deleskiewicz, Genoa City,
Wisconsin Athlete at Northern Illinois University Baseball;
Sophia Barjesteh Woodbury, Minnesota Athlete at Universitv of
St. Thomas Soccer.
September 14, 2026.
Dear Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell: As
organizations and former antitrust enforcers committed to
building a robust, fair economy and fighting against abuses
of corporate power, we write to express our serious concerns
with S. 4668, the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA), as
currently drafted. The broad antitrust exemption in Title I,
the expansion of the Sports Broadcasting Act in Title II, and
the absence of any meaningful enforcement mechanisms will
grant the NCAA unprecedented power exempt from the state and
federal oversight and laws that apply to all other business
enterprises in America. Taken together, these provisions
radically empower the NCAA to continue its longstanding and
well-documented exploitation of college athletes for its own
financial benefit, while depriving college athletes of
meaningful protections from the NCAA's outsized economic
power. Should these issues remain unaddressed, we cannot
support the PCSA.
The PCSA Would Codify the Most Sweeping Antitrust Exemption in More
Than 80 Years
The PCSA includes a broad antitrust exemption that would
immunize the NCAA from any federal or state enforcement for
weaponizing its enormous power over college athletes to cap
pay, limit eligibility and transfers, or otherwise impose
burdens or restrictions on players. This would constitute the
most sweeping antitrust exemption granted by Congress since
the McCarren-Ferguson Act of 1945. Traditionally, antitrust
immunity is granted only when the parties agree to rules
through a collective bargaining process—and only for so long
as a bargaining relationship is in place—or when rules are
conditioned on state or federal regulatory oversight.
However, neither protection is included in the PCSA.
An antitrust exemption would be particularly harmful to
college athletes, as it is the only tool they have to protect
themselves from the predatory and exploitative behavior the
NCAA and its member schools are known for. It may be
difficult to believe, but there is not—and never has been—a
mechanism for college athletes to challenge the NCAA
themselves. The association has no internal dispute
resolution system for athletes and regularly takes advantage
of its existing levers to disadvantage college athletes.
The PCSA Will Be Applied Retroactively to Pending Lawsuits
Unsurprisingly, there have been multiple actions brought by
athletes in recent years that are currently pending on state
and federal judges' dockets to fight back against decades of
abuse. The PCSA is silent on the question of whether it will
apply to pending lawsuits, except for cases involving
prohibited gambling. That means, in many cases, courts will
apply the PCSA's antitrust exemption retroactively to
lawsuits that were brought before the law was passed,
insulating the NCAA from accountability in ongoing matters.
Furthermore, the NCAA has refused to accept amendments to
the PCSA that would remedy this ambiguity by providing in
express terms that the legislation applies only to lawsuits
filed after the date of enactment. There is only one logical
explanation—the NCAA hopes that the exemption within the
PCSA will relieve them of accountability in lawsuits that are
currently pending, which would be enormously unfair to
athletes who have spent time and money to pursue their
rights.
The PCSA Grants the NCAA Unprecedented Powers to Enforce the Law
Without Any Government Oversight
While the PCSA does include important protections for
college athletes, crucially, it fails to create a workable
mechanism to enforce those rights and deter non-compliance.
The PCSA also does not establish a new federal regime to
monitor whether the NCAA and its member schools are complying
with the bills' protections for college athletes.
Importantly, the PCSA fails to grant any government entity
authority to enforce the PCSA. Instead, enforcement of the
bill's provisions relies exclusively on a newly created and
fundamentally unworkable private right of action that fails
to protect college athletes. As a result, the NCAA and its
members will not be seriously deterred from violating the new
law, and athletes will effectively have no recourse to
challenge the NCAA when violations inevitably occur.
The PCSA's Private Right of Action is Designed to Fail
The bill's private right of action is a paper tiger that
will let down harmed athletes seeking recourse, providing a
false pretense of justice but leaving them and their families
out to dry. Because of key flaws, the vast majority of
college athletes will be unable to bring a lawsuit when the
NCAA violates the new rules established by the PCSA. First,
the remedy in the legislation is limited to “actual
damages.” The antitrust laws, by contrast, provide for
treble damages to encourage victims to bring suit, punish
perpetrators, and create a disincentive to bad conduct. This
divergence from other antitrust laws matters because actual
damages in these cases are fairly low. Thus, while they may
be lifechanging for athletes disadvantaged by the NCAA, they
would not cover the costs necessary to bring complex
lawsuits.
Additionally. the bill does not provide a meaningful
pathway for athletes to recover their attorney's fees. The
PCSA places the award of attorney's fees in the discretion of
the court, and only if attorney's fees are “otherwise
allowed under applicable law.” No other “applicable law”
has been identified that would allow for payment of
attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff. This will leave
all but the wealthiest athletes without the ability to pay
their lawyers at the end of meritorious cases.
Lastly, the private right of action includes a “notice and
cure” provision that requires the athlete to provide notice
to the defendant 30 days before filing a lawsuit. If the
defendant “cures” the violation within those 30 days, the
athlete cannot pursue the claim. The notice-and-cure
provision gives the deep-pocketed NCAA the ability to delay
litigation and run up costs over frivolous disputes by
claiming to have “cured” violations when they have not.
Taken together, the private right of action's flawed
construction will make it almost impossible for athletes to
find attorneys willing able to take on the financial burden
and additional hoops these cases will carry while the NCAA
pays its own lawyers thousands of dollars per hour. The
private right of action in the bill is designed to prevent
athletes from ever obtaining real relief, and if the PCSA is
passed, will very likely succeed.
The PCSA Grants the NCAA—a Serial Law Violator—Unprecedented
Antitrust Immunity
Congress rarely grants immunity from the antitrust laws,
and for good reason. Exempting an entity like the NCAA, with
dozens of violations under its belt, is unconscionable. The
NCAA has used its power to violate our antitrust laws for
decades and is now demanding that Congress remove athletes'
only effective tool for holding it accountable. Congress
should not aid the NCAA in this endeavor.
As currently conceived, this is not a bill that protects
college sports. It is a bill that protects the NCAA's ability
to abuse its power over college athletes. A vote for the PCSA
is a vote against college athletes. It tells them their
rights are trivial when a billion-dollar entity like the NCAA
starts making demands. It even gives the NCAA the ability to
exclude conferences and schools from championships and
tournaments—like the College Football Playoffs, March
Madness, and the College World Series—free of the antitrust
laws' restrictions. Unless these sweeping antitrust
exemptions and broken, unworkable enforcement structure are
significantly improved, we urge you to oppose this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Organizations
American Economic Liberties Project, American Family
Voices, Center for Law and Social Policy, Committee to
Support the Antitrust Laws, Consumer Federation of America,
Courage California, Demand Progress, Economic Security
Project Action, Groundwork Collaborative, Open Market
Institute, P Street, Service Employees International Union,
United College Athletes Association.
Enforcers
Roger Alford, Former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice;
William Baer, Former Acting Associate Attorney General Former
Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division U.S. Department
of Justice; John M. Newman, Herff Chair of Excellence
University of Memphis School of Law Former Deputy Director
Bureau of Competition Federal Trade Commission; Richard
Powers, Former Acting Assistant Attorney General Antitrust
Division U.S. Department of Justice.
September 9, 2026.
Dear Majority Leader Thune, Democratic Leader Schumer,
Chairman Cruz, and Ranking Member Cantwell: We, the
undersigned, are college athlete sexual abuse survivors and
whistleblowers, families whose children died following
athletic activities, and organizations that advocate for the
safety and well-being of college athletes. We urge you not to
advance the Protect College Sports Act (now pending before
the full Senate) or any federal college sports legislation
unless it provides athlete protections that victims can
actually enforce, and meaningful independent third-party
enforcement of athlete health and safety protections. The
PCSA's enforcement structure fails athletes in four
fundamental ways.
First, the PCSA promises athlete victims a right to sue,
but a major sovereign-immunity loophole can make that right
unusable for many athletes at public universities, which
comprise roughly two-thirds of Division I. Many public
universities are treated as arms of their States and can
invoke sovereign immunity against private damages claims
under federal statutes such as the PCSA. Yet the PCSA
contains no nationwide mechanism to secure a constitutionally
valid waiver of that immunity. One consequence of this is a
two-tier system: an athlete at a private university may
recover damages for the same safety violation that leaves an
athlete at an immune public university without a PCSA damages
remedy. [See NCPA's analysis of the PCSA's state sovereign-
immunity loophole.]
Even Title IX may not protect a sexual-abuse victim from
this gap. In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School
District, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Title IX damages
despite a teacher's sexual relationship with a student
because no appropriate school official had actual notice and
responded with deliberate indifference. Because the PCSA
imposes broader duties to prevent, assess, and remediate
sexual abuse, an athlete could have a viable PCSA safety
claim but no Title IX damages claim—only to have the PCSA
claim blocked by state sovereign immunity.
Congress has already addressed this exact immunity problem
in federal student protections. Federal law governing Title
IX states: “A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit
in Federal court for a violation” of Title IX 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 2000d-7(a)(1). Yet the PCSA leaves its new federal
athlete protections without comparable protection from state
sovereign immunity. It is unthinkable to create new federal
protections against sexual abuse in the PCSA while knowingly
leaving many public-university athletes unable to enforce
them.
Allowing that athlete to pursue a separate claim under
state law is also no substitute. In Florida, state law can
shield the public university itself from damages for a
coach's or trainer's intentional and malicious assault or
abuse of an athlete—including sexual assault or other
intentional sexual abuse (Fla. Stat. Sec. 768.28(9)(a)). Even
when the university can be held responsible for negligence,
Florida generally limits what it can be required to pay to
$200,000 per person (Fla. Stat. Sec. 768.28(5)(a)). After
University of Central Florida football player Ereck Plancher
died during conditioning drills, a jury awarded his parents
$10 million, but sovereign immunity limited the UCF Athletics
Association's liability for payment to $200,000. (Plancher v.
UCF Athletics Ass'n. Inc.).
Texas can likewise shield a public university from state-
law damages for a coach's or trainer's intentional assault or
abuse of an athlete—including sexual assault or other
intentional sexual abuse—because Texas law does not waive
immunity for claims arising from assault, battery, or other
intentional wrongdoing (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Sec. 101.057(2)). Congress should not create federal
protections that many victims at public universities cannot
enforce and then point them toward state remedies that may
also be capped or unavailable.
Second, college sports' longstanding system of university
“self-policing” has a devastating record of failing to
stop, properly investigate, or report sexual abuse, hazing,
dangerous workouts, serious injuries, and preventable deaths.
A 2021 national survey found that more than 1 in 4 current
and former college athletes surveyed reported inappropriate
sexual contact by a campus authority figure. Many of us have
already endured sexual abuse, institutional betrayal, or the
death of a loved one. Congress must not compound that harm by
leaving victims and families without meaningful
accountability. Yet the PCSA would federalize this failed and
dangerous self-policing system: its safety officer is a
university employee reporting within the university, the
bill's Ombudsman cannot independently investigate violations,
impose penalties, or order corrective action. An institution
accused of failing an athlete must not get to police itself.
Congress recognized that athletes should not have to rely
on sports institutions to police themselves when it enacted
federal law designating SafeSport as an independent national
organization with authority to receive abuse complaints,
investigate, and impose sanctions within the U.S. Olympic and
Paralympic Movement. A college athlete sexually abused by a
trainer within the Olympic Movement can report the abuse to
SafeSport, which can independently investigate and impose
sanctions. If that same athlete is sexually abused by her
college athletic trainer outside SafeSport's jurisdiction,
the PCSA leaves her with no comparable independent
enforcement entity to protect her.
The same problem extends beyond sexual abuse. When college
athletes have died in preventable workouts, families have had
to fight universities themselves for answers and independent
investigations. These tragedies demonstrate why institutions
accused of failing athletes should not be left to police
themselves. Yet that is the unjust system the PCSA would
preserve in federal law.
Although the PCSA contains anti-retaliation language, it
does not require coaches, athletic personnel, medical
professionals, or administrators to report suspected abuse,
dangerous workouts, serious injuries, or athlete deaths to an
independent enforcement entity. Its only new safety-reporting
mandate keeps reporting inside the university, directing one
university-designated employee to report suspected violations
to another. At immune public universities, even the bill's
promised whistleblower damages, attorney's fees, and backpay
may be unenforceable against the university.
Third, restrictions imposed on athletes have teeth while
many protections promised to athletes do not. Congress
clearly knows how to create strong enforcement under the
PCSA: the bill expressly shields from antitrust liability
NCAA and conference penalties used to enforce compensation,
eligibility, transfer, recruiting and tampering, and related
restrictions. Yet when universities violate safety standards,
the PCSA creates no independent enforcement entity with
authority to investigate violations, compel evidence, impose
meaningful penalties, discipline responsible personnel, and
order corrective action.
Finally, the PCSA imposes a 30-day “cure” provision
across its general private right of action that can bar a
lawsuit, but never defines what violations are curable. That
leaves universities room to argue that after-the-fact
training, policy changes, or other corrective action
“cures” even a completed violation and eliminates the
athlete's federal damages claim. After-the-fact training
cannot undo sexual abuse or restore a life. Nor should a
university be able to escape liability for harm already
inflicted merely by promising to do better after it is
caught. The bill also fails to guarantee attorneys' fees to
prevailing athletes under this general private right of
action.
Congress should not enact sweeping legislation governing
the economics of college sports while leaving the athletes
whose bodies make college sports possible without independent
safety enforcement and meaningful access to justice when
those protections are violated.
Before any further Senate action, we respectfully request a
meeting with each of you so you can hear directly from
representatives of the undersigned about what we and our
loved ones experienced when college sports institutions
failed to prevent or properly respond to sexual abuse,
dangerous athletics practices, serious injuries, and
preventable deaths. These are not abstract policy concerns to
us. We know firsthand the consequences when institutions are
allowed to police themselves, when reports of abuse or
dangerous practices remain inside the institution, and when
victims are left without meaningful accountability after the
harm is done. Universities, conferences, and other powerful
college-sports interests have had extensive opportunities to
make their case as this legislation has developed. Before
Congress grants sweeping new federal protections to the
college-sports system, we ask that you hear directly from
those of us who have experienced the consequences when that
system fails athletes.
We also ask each of you for a definitive commitment on the
legislation itself. Whether or not a meeting can be arranged,
please answer the following question publicly and in writing
before any further Senate action, beginning your response
with “yes” or “no”; any explanation may follow:
“Yes or no: will you oppose advancing the PCSA or any
similarly sweeping federal college sports legislation unless,
at a minimum, it includes all of the following: a
constitutionally sound mechanism to overcome state sovereign
immunity and ensure athletes can recover damages from public
universities when their federal rights are violated; an
independent third-party safety-enforcement entity that is
structurally separate from universities, conferences, and
athletic associations, with authority to receive complaints,
investigate violations, compel relevant evidence, discipline
responsible personnel, impose meaningful penalties, and order
corrective action; mandatory reporting of suspected abuse,
dangerous workouts, medical interference, serious injuries,
and athlete deaths to that independent entity, with anti-
retaliation protections backed by remedies enforceable
against both public and private universities; protection
against the 30-day cure loophole extinguishing claims or
damages for harm already done; and guaranteed reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs for prevailing athletes
so they can actually secure legal representation?”
This letter is limited solely to athlete safety,
institutional accountability, and victims' ability to enforce
their rights. Signatories may oppose, support, or take no
position on any other aspect of the PCSA, and their
signatures should not be construed as taking a position on
any other provision of the legislation. On these issues,
however, we oppose
advancing the PCSA in its current form unless these
fundamental enforcement failures are fixed. Congress must
finally end decades of failed self-policing, not federalize
it.
Sincerely,
College Athlete Sexual-Abuse Survivors and University
Whistleblowers, Amy Leclair, Survivor, Caitlin Mackey,
Survivor, Chrissy Ball, Survivor, Patric Scott, Former
faculty of 20 years, Filmmaker, Whistleblower, Sage Hopkins,
Head Women's Swimming and Diving Coach, Whistleblower;
Families of College Athletes Who Died Following Athletics
Activities, Don Mazza, Father of Michael Mazza, Deceased,
Joanne Atkins-Ingram, Mother of Braeden Bradforth, Deceased,
Ken and Kristen Sheely, Parents of Derek Sheely, Deceased,
Martin “Marty” McNair, Father of Jordan McNair, Deceased;
College Athlete Safety Organizations, The Derek Sheely
Foundation, The Jordan McNair Foundation.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I want to end with this. I gave an example of the lies that the NCAA tells—that they are about the protection of student-athletes first. The example I gave was a change the NFL did, which all of us who are football fans know about, when they said: You know what, we are going to change the kickoff rules.
Why did they change the kickoff rules? Well, I know from my personal experience of screaming down a field trying to break UCLA's wedge; I learned this from rushing down the field to try to tackle people, playing against USC; I learned this in playing Notre Dame—that one of the most dangerous things you could do is get a full head of steam and run down on a kickoff.
has worked. There are less injuries in this area. It is working. Is there a peep from the NCAA? Don't you think that college sports should have more protective policies than the pros? Well, no. The pros—it is a business. We all know that. They invest millions of dollars in these employees of theirs, and they are taking actions to protect their players that the NCAA isn't.
The NCAA is an economic group of actors who seek to maximize profit. Look at their decades-long history. It is not about player protection. How do I know that? There are no enforceable standards for sexual assault. There are no enforceable standards for heatstroke. We have cases right now of brain injuries. I have friends of mine still paying for the medical costs for injuries they incurred putting thousands of people into seats.
things they tell people they are concerned with, the evidence speaks that that is not their No. 1 concern. And this body wants to give them sweeping antitrust power permanently, in perpetuity, forever, with no accountability. No accountability to Congress. Limited accountability in the courts. No accountability to the girls and boys, the young student-athletes, the college players who bring this country together, who give us some of our greatest life experiences.
This is unfair. This is unjust. This is wrong. Hundreds of organizations that represent student-athletes, that represent ideals of justice, that represent ideals of economic justice—heck, you even have somebody like Brett Kavanaugh—excuse me—you have even somebody like Gorsuch saying things like: It is a business model—this is the NCAA— that would be flatly illegal in any other industry in America.
gotten the final bill yet. They literally haven't put the bill in most of the offices here, and we are rushing to move on to it right now without reading the bill, without discussing it, without having hearings that have college athletes that have justifiable experiences, survivors of sexual assault, parents whose children have died, people that have court cases against the NCAA right now.
liability. That is why they are spending so much money to pass this bill. It is not about the safety, it is not about the well-being, it is not about the education of college athletes. This is a money play, plain and simple.
Read the bill. Talk to college athletes. If we pass this bill, it is a shame.
some leverage over the NCAA. No, they can't win in court, so the NCAA runs here.
I ask my colleagues not to move to this bill. Definitely do not move it if you have not read it, if your staff hasn't gotten the final copy yet. I ask my colleagues to vote no.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cruz and myself be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.