Is Congress Trying to Save College Athletics?

In his iconic introduction to the 1993 “Game of the Century” between No. 2 Notre Dame and No. 1 Florida State, Bob Costas described the beauty of college football–a romanticized sport whose great moments were ingrained in our cultural identity and desired by every kid. Such a blockbuster matchup in mid-November was simply the realization “of a day dreamed of in a backyard just around the corner from Main Street.” 

That feeling–the authenticity, the passionate atmospheres, the commitment of the student-athlete–marked college athletics, particularly football and basketball, for decades. College football is set to return this Saturday, but in recent years, it seems this identity is fading. 

TV network executives hold all the cards. Pro-athletes are returning to college sports, oftentimes to the tune of more money. Rosters turn over every year due to the chaos of the transfer portal (which, for football, opens up while playoffs are still happening in January–crazy!). Private equity is infiltrating programs and leagues. Coaches are ditching their teams for new jobs mid-season. And at the higher levels of collegiate sports, regionality has all but disappeared. 

But the rapidly changing environment of college athletics has also come with its share of positives.. Athletes are being compensated for the value they bring to their school. Scholarship opportunities have increased drastically in recent years, especially in baseball, football, and women’s sports. More events are televised than ever before, and in some sports, the competitive balance has improved significantly. 

The Protect College Sports Act

There remains a lot of work to be done, and Congress has decided to take a stab at “fixing” things. The Senate is expected to vote on the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA) in September. Multiple senators from each party co-sponsored the legislation, a bill that continually made headlines for football-deprived fans throughout the summer.

The bill touches on everything from eligibility rules and revenue sharing to the transfer portal and even media rights. 

Coaching legend Nick Saban has been among the most vocal supporters of the bill. Still yet, it took significant concessions to get endorsements from the Big Ten and the Southeastern Conference, the two most powerful leagues in college sports. 

Critics like former college football coach and Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville consider the bill too loaded and far-reaching. Nearly every lawmaker acknowledges the need for change, but many favor an incremental approach that targets one item at a time, such as eligibility rules. Such a bill would be far easier to pass and less likely to face later legal scrutiny.

One of the key intentions of the bill is to grant the NCAA antitrust exemptions, allowing it to enforce eligibility and roster-related rules without threat of litigation. A Louisiana judge, for example, took a new provision granting all athletes five years of eligibility and expanded it to include the recently graduated class of 2022. 

The 10-day legal loophole created an opportunity for players like Dae’Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris to leave the NFL and return to college football. Just this week, LSU and its media-magnet head coach, Lane Kiffin, received commitments from Wright and Harris to improve their team for the upcoming season. But with nearly every conference threatening penalties for playing former pro-athletes, it is unclear if they will actually see the field.

The Southeastern Conference, which LSU belongs to, released a firm statement Monday evening opposing moves to bring pro athletes back to college. The statement concluded with, “College sports are for college athletes. The current confusion around national eligibility standards emphasizes the need to advance the Protect College Sports Act.”

How college sports have changed

Of course, before the arrival of name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, a decision to leave the NFL for college would have made no sense. But money drives everything. 

The PCSA aims to enshrine and legitimize NIL, which has operated without guardrails thus far. Similarly, roster spending is wildly unbalanced across the top levels of revenue sports, and the bill would provide a clear and enforceable compensation cap to limit direct school-to-athlete spending.

The bill would also provide parameters to the transfer portal, which has been a free-for-all with unsustainable movement. Athletes would be limited to just one penalty-free transfer before having to sacrifice a year of eligibility. 

To curb further conference realignment, the bill would prevent “power” conferences from exceeding 19 members and regulate the realignment process. Conferences could also cooperate to pool their media rights with a collective agency under an antitrust exemption. Such an agency would be required to make a meaningful effort to maintain regional rivalries and regional media access to games.

The PCSA also touches on midseason coaching moves, the value of women’s and Olympic sports, and medical coverage for athletes during and after their collegiate careers. If the legislation secures the 60 votes necessary in the Senate, it will move on to the House, where its fate remains uncertain. President Trump has expressed a desire to see the bill on his desk.

Loaded as the bill is, the picture it paints is reminiscent of an era that had the collective interest of each school and athlete in mind–an era that feels long gone. Two intertwined primary offenses have led us to where we are today: greed and instant gratification.

The sins of our culture

Greed is destructive, and nowhere is this biblical truth evidenced more clearly than in the current landscape of college athletics. Conferences, TV networks, coaches, player agents, and a great many athletes are motivated by money to the point that others get bulldozed and good things get lost. The apostle Paul calls the love of money the “root of all kinds of evils” (1 Tim. 6:10). 

Though it would be revisionist to suggest college athletics were free from greed until a few years ago, recent TV deals and the open floodgates of NIL have brought it to new heights. While some schools get rich from new leagues and contracts, others get left behind, grappling with financial losses and instability. While some players get rich, others get exploited by untrustworthy agents seeking a quick buck. 

Greed is just one symptom of instant gratification–the need for immediate fulfillment. Our culture regularly takes steps toward maximizing instant gratification. Direct-to-door food delivery, binge-able entertainment, and social media algorithms all enhance our ability to see our desires fulfilled more quickly. The dopamine hit that comes with the instant reward is addictive. It can drive all our decision-making. 

Commitment still matters

In college athletics, this trend manifests itself through the dismantling of commitment. We now regularly see athletes attending four or five different schools throughout their collegiate careers. A lot of these moves are made under the guise of looking out for oneself, but the self-centered approach is damaging to others. 

Prior to the 2025 football season, quarterback Nico Iamaleava quit showing up to Tennessee practices until they agreed to pay him more. When they refused, he left for UCLA, leaving the Volunteers without a reliable quarterback option. This past January, Darian Mensah left for Miami on the final day of the transfer portal window despite having publicly “re-committed” to Duke a few weeks prior. 

It seems coaches rarely finish out contracts, and schools rarely let them, before something shinier appears. Last year, coach Lane Kiffin left Ole Miss during the season for his dream job, LSU, even as Ole Miss made a deep playoff run. And universities will happily spend tens of millions in contract buyouts for coaches they want to fire in order to secure the next flashy head coach candidate before another school does.

Where instant gratification persists, commitment loses its meaning. In one of Scripture’s most famous warnings, Isaac’s firstborn son Esau sells his birthright for a bowl of soup (Genesis 25:29-34). His immediate hunger was satisfied, but he lost the blessing and inheritance in the process. For everything we gain through greed and gratification, there is always a cost–virtue, commitment, selflessness.

There’s no guarantee that government intervention will solve this for college athletics, and perhaps it is not the best route. Congress and its members have their own intentions and motives. But something needs to be done. 

Ultimately, we’re just talking about sports–but being a part of a team should teach individuals how to be better members of the whole. That’s been tainted, and it bleeds into other areas of our society. Self-centeredness is in stark contrast to the self-sacrifice to which believers are called, as exemplified in Christ. And individualism is in stark contrast to the collective nature of the church, a Christ-centered family. 

How can you embrace self-sacrifice and remove habits that fuel greed and gratification this week?