As college football returns, a federal fight over who controls the sport’s expanding revenues is intensifying in Washington. The Protect College Sports Act, introduced by Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., would give the NCAA and athletic conferences a limited exemption from federal antitrust law, restrict athlete transfers, cap fees charged by agents, preempt state regulations and establish new rules for compensating college athletes. More than 90 organizations had referenced the Senate bill or its House counterpart in federal lobbying disclosures by June 30. Those organizations reported $31.4 million in lobbying activity during the second quarter, though federal filings do not identify how much was spent specifically on the college sports legislation. The Senate is seeking action before the election-year session ends. But House leaders cut the final two weeks of the pre-election session, making it unlikely that the House could consider a Senate-passed bill before November. David Weber, director of the Sports Law Program at the University of Oregon, said the push reflects the rapid commercialization of college athletics and a struggle between institutions seeking renewed control and athletes trying to preserve recent financial gains. “Right now, I think the posture is, the NCAA is just trying to figure out how they can reassert some sort of control over this sport,” Weber said. “And athletes are trying to keep their gains.” The legislation would reorganize a fast-changing compensation system. Under a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement involving the NCAA, schools may share athletic-department revenue with athletes, with the cap set at nearly $21.6 million per school for the current academic year. Players can also sign independent name, image and likeness, or NIL, endorsement deals. The proposed law would place much of that compensation under a new framework and raise the potential revenue-sharing cap to $48.8 million. It would preserve certain “organic” endorsement deals based on an athlete’s individual fame rather than a school’s commercial relationships. Weber said the higher cap could widen the gap between the richest athletic departments and schools with fewer resources. “Only the usual suspects are going to be able to take advantage of this provision and use this new funding mechanism to the full extent,” he said. “It also has the potential to exacerbate this divide between the haves and the have-nots.” The NCAA, its most powerful conferences and professional leagues including Major League Baseball and the NFL support the measure. So do the NFL and NBA players unions. The AFL-CIO, NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus are among its opponents, arguing that the bill could reduce athletes’ bargaining power, restrict movement between schools and provide federal protections to institutions that profit heavily from the labor of Black athletes. The proposal has also attracted major media companies. The National Association of Broadcasters and NCTA — the Internet and Television Association — have lobbied on the bill. One provision would require streaming services carrying high-profile college football and basketball games to offer a free over-the-air broadcast option in local markets. Amazon, Paramount Skydance and Disney Worldwide Services also listed the legislation in their lobbying disclosures. During the second quarter, Amazon reported nearly $4.8 million in total federal lobbying, while Paramount Skydance reported $1.5 million and Disney nearly $1.7 million. Each company worked on many issues beyond college sports. Sixty colleges and university systems disclosed lobbying on the measure, including 36 members of the Southeastern, Big Ten, Big 12 and Atlantic Coast conferences. The list included major programs such as Ohio State, Michigan and Notre Dame, as well as schools outside the most powerful conferences, including Toledo, Ohio University, Western Michigan and Eastern Illinois. The SEC and Big Ten shifted to supporting the bill in late July after initially opposing it. Revisions addressed concerns about third-party NIL deals and the entities that arrange agreements between athletes and schools. The most prominent advocacy group behind the legislation is Saving College Sports, a social-welfare nonprofit founded by Texas Tech Board of Regents Chairman Cody Campbell. The group has reported spending $820,000 on federal lobbying related to college sports since its formation in February 2025, including $190,000 in the second quarter of 2026. Saving College Sports has launched television advertisements featuring former Colorado coach Deion Sanders and Hall of Fame coach Nick Saban. One ad aired during games involving historically Black colleges and universities as the group challenged opposition from the Congressional Black Caucus. The group’s donors are not publicly identified. As a 501(c)(4) organization, it is not required to disclose its contributors, and it has not yet filed an annual tax return that could provide financial information. Its attorney said the organization is complying with federal tax requirements. Campbell, a former Texas Tech and NFL offensive lineman, gave $25 million to Texas Tech’s athletic department and has helped finance the school’s NIL efforts. Federal records show he contributed nearly $3 million to Republican candidates and committees between January 2025 and June 2026. The legislation’s opponents say the debate is ultimately about whether athletes or institutions will control the money generated by college sports. Weber said athletes who have benefited most from open-market NIL opportunities — especially top football and basketball players in the Power Four conferences — could lose the most under tighter federal restrictions. “If you’re looking at the groups that are probably the least in favor of the PCSA,” Weber said, “it’s going to be those athletes who are doing the best financially from the current situation.”