Blog | Sports Rap Network
Protect the NCAA Act Could Leave HBCUs Further Behind
Image credit: Sports Rap Network
A Senate-approved college sports bill promises order in the NIL era, but its spending limits and weak athlete protections could deepen the divide between powerhouse programs and everybody else.
The Protect the NCAA Act is being sold as a way to stabilize college sports after NIL money and constant player movement changed the old order. But the legislation, which has passed the Senate and still must move through the House, raises a far more important question: stability for whom?
Its proposed limits on spending, transfers and conference growth may give schools and the NCAA more control over a marketplace they no longer dominate. Yet the same framework could leave athletes without collective power and put HBCUs and other smaller Division I programs at an even steeper competitive disadvantage.
A bill built around institutional control
The legislation includes several provisions designed to impose structure on the current college landscape. Schools could spend roughly $20.5 million under the proposed guidelines, while a separate $22.5 million retention pool would help programs keep talent already on campus. The bill also seeks to limit athletes to one transfer during a five-year period, with exceptions when a coach leaves or a sport is discontinued.
There are pieces that address real concerns. The transfer exception tied to a coaching change recognizes a basic fairness issue: when a school replaces the coach who recruited a player, that player should not be trapped in a situation he did not choose. The proposal also includes medical protections extending five years after an athlete finishes a season, a meaningful safeguard for players whose treatment continues after their eligibility or college career ends.
The missing protection is athlete power
The central criticism is not that college sports should have no rules. It is that the rules appear designed to manage how much athletes can earn without giving athletes an organized voice in that management. The proposal does not categorize student-athletes as employees, leaving them without the kind of collective leverage professional players use to negotiate when owners and leagues impose limits.
That distinction matters. A salary cap, free-agency restrictions or spending framework in pro sports exists alongside unions and collectively bargained agreements. College athletes do not have that same protection in this proposal. If schools, conferences and the NCAA are allowed to coordinate the financial boundaries, athletes could be left accepting terms set by the institutions that already control the scholarships, rosters and competitive opportunities.
HBCUs could pay the price for “stability”
The potential effect on HBCUs is where this debate becomes especially serious. A smaller program that develops a standout player may have little chance of keeping him after a breakout season when a wealthier school can offer substantially more money and resources. That challenge is not limited to HBCUs, but it lands harder on schools that do not have the same donor networks, facilities or financial flexibility as the sport’s biggest brands.
The result could be an increasingly rigid system of haves and have-nots. Some schools may struggle to remain competitive at the Division I level, while others become farm systems for better-funded programs. The bill includes authorization for $180 million annually from 2027 through 2032 for HBCU broadband, media production and technology, but that money would require an application process and is not guaranteed. An opportunity to apply is not the same as a dependable investment in institutions that need long-term capacity.
A new marketplace needs fairer ground rules
College sports clearly needed a response to the chaos created by annual roster turnover. Fans want continuity, coaches want some ability to build programs and athletes deserve transparent rules rather than a system shaped by informal deals and changing interpretations. But continuity cannot become a polite word for restricting player mobility and compensation after athletes finally gained access to revenue connected to their own labor and visibility.
The debate should begin with a simple principle: any system that limits what athletes can earn must include enforceable protections created with athletes, not merely for them. Medical coverage is necessary. Transfer flexibility when coaches leave is necessary. But those measures do not replace representation, meaningful bargaining power or financial structures that prevent wealthier schools from widening the gap every time a smaller program discovers a star.
What It Means
The Protect the NCAA Act is not just a technical response to NIL and the transfer portal. It is a decision about who gets to control the next version of college sports. If the NCAA and major programs receive antitrust protections and spending authority while athletes remain outside the room, the bill will preserve institutional power more effectively than it protects the people playing the games.
For HBCUs, the stakes are even larger than roster management. These schools need a system that recognizes their role in developing talent, building community and creating opportunity—not one that makes their best players easier to lose. College sports can pursue order, but it should not confuse order with a return to an era when athletes had little say and everybody else kept the money.
Substantive update: