Congress Should Pass the Protect College Sports Act Despite Agent Opposition
Source: Seth Levinson. "Congress, Ignore Agents Trashing The 'Protect College Sports Act'." September 25, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues Congress should pass a bill regulating sports agents who work with college athletes, because right now these 'street agents' can charge huge fees and give bad advice with no real oversight, unlike agents in pro sports. He suggests that the agents fighting against this bill are just protecting their own profits, not looking out for the athletes they claim to represent.
Conclusion
Congress should pass the Protect College Sports Act and disregard opposition from sports agents/attorneys, because the bill protects vulnerable student-athletes from predatory practices that currently go unchecked.
Premises
- Student-athletes are young and inexperienced in business matters, making them heavily dependent on their agents/advisers for major life and career decisions
- Currently, unregulated 'street agents' (unlike certified agents in professional sports or attorneys) face little to no enforced restriction, resulting in exorbitant fees (5-50%), self-serving advice, oppressive contracts, and false promises
- Established regulatory models in professional sports (e.g., MLBPA certification) demonstrate that agent regulation is both workable and beneficial to athletes
- The Protect College Sports Act would implement certification standards, fee limits, and prohibitions on deceptive NIL promises, with the CBO estimating $35 million in annual savings for student-athletes
- Agents opposing the bill stand to lose significant income if it passes, suggesting their opposition is motivated by self-interest rather than concern for athletes
- Alternative protective mechanisms such as unionization are legally uncertain, would take years due to the patchwork of state laws and NLRA exemptions for public universities, and thus cannot address the urgent, present-day abuses
- The status quo causes ongoing, documented harm to student-athletes (roster chaos, exploitative contracts, lawsuits) and is therefore unacceptable
Assumptions
- Regulation modeled on professional sports agent systems will translate effectively to the college context without significant unintended consequences
- Financial self-interest is the primary or sole motivation behind agents' opposition to the bill, rather than legitimate substantive concerns
- The CBO's $35 million estimate is accurate and reflects real, direct benefit to athletes rather than potential offsetting costs or behavior changes
- An independent governing board and certification regime would be effectively enforced, unlike existing state regulations which the author says are inconsistently enforced
- There is no viable middle path between the current unregulated system and the specific structure proposed by the PCSA