Senate punts on Protect College Sports Act until September as bill fails to reach vote

The Protect College Sports Act couldn’t beat the clock.

And now uncertainty lingers around the bill’s future.

The U.S. Senate adjourned for its annual five-week August recess early in the morning on Saturday without voting on legislation that intends to regulate college athletics, stiff-arming the bill for more crucial matters and kicking any possible vote to September — a move that troubles supporters.

While the legislation may take top priority once the Senate returns on Sept. 14, such a long break places the act in an uncomfortable position, making it susceptible to an increased onslaught of criticism from lawmakers, special interest groups and other entities.

For instance, as the bill inched toward a vote on the Senate floor this week, a wave of detractors emerged to disrupt the path. The Congressional Black Caucus released a statement slamming the bill on Thursday; more than a dozen Republican senators filed objections or amendments to the legislation; several labor unions sent a joint letter in opposition; and the Whip’s vote count wasn’t as high as originally expected.

Coupled with the public criticism was a logjam of agenda items before the Senate this week that took precedence over college sports. Bills to fund the government, implement sanctions against Russia and balance the budget, as well as administrative nominations, shoved the act aside.

The result was a drama-filled Friday on Capitol Hill ending with no vote on the bill.

Sens. Ted Cruz and Eric Schmitt, co-authors of the legislation with Sen. Maria Cantwell, released a statement to Yahoo Sports saying that they’ve “locked in a guaranteed vote” in September.

“The Protect College Sports Act continues to show great momentum,” the statement said. “Sens. Cruz and Schmitt have worked tirelessly with the support of nearly every conference in the country, HBCUs and the Olympic sports committee. It’s clear that this bill is the only way to save college sports and women’s sports. With the strong support of President Trump, we look forward to him signing the bill on [ESPN] College GameDay in the fall.”

Cantwell said in a statement, “Time may have run out to protect college sports in August but there is plenty of time in September. I'm glad Sen. Thune set a date certain in September to bring it up because the challenges facing student athletes and universities aren't going away.”

But some supporters of the bill fear that a five-week long break could impact the bill’s chances.

A 60-vote margin is necessary to override the filibuster and pass the Senate, but Sen. Majority Leader John Thune and supportive lawmakers prefer to reach at least a two-thirds figure (66) — a goal that seemed attainable after the Big Ten and SEC lent their support last week. In fact, Cruz predicted as many as 80 supportive votes.

However, keeping with a Congressional tradition, the closer legislation creeps to a vote the more denigrators quibble with language in its text.

For instance, three senators, including Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), filed an amendment to “ensure the bill does not overturn any state laws banning men from women’s sports” — a move that triggered a letter from the White House counsel clarifying that the legislation does not supersede such laws.

In another proposed change, Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.) filed an amendment to create an exception in the bill’s anti-expansion provision to permit power conference schools to move to another power league without the five-year probationary period — a filing likely encouraged by in-state schools Florida State and Miami.

According to the amendment, if a power league school wants to move to another power conference, the school can avoid the five probationary period of operating as an independent if it withdraws from its league within 180 days of the bill’s enactment. The expansion provision in the bill is one of the most hotly debated and divisive concepts. Multiple ACC schools are against the concept and have lobbied their lawmakers for changes to it.

The amendments and objections, especially from Cruz colleagues in the Republican party, sent the bill tumbling. And a global package to quickly approve the college sports bill as well as several unrelated items — the funding legislation, budget bill, nominations, etc. — failed to gain enough consent. In a midday Friday interview with reporters on Capitol Hill, Thune described the PCSA as one of the reasons that the global agreement failed and sought “better clarity on” the vote situation with the bill.

The whip vote count on the legislation was dangerously close to falling below the 60-vote threshold for passage, several of those with knowledge of the count told Yahoo Sports. That was made more clear after 11 Republican lawmakers filed objections on a request to waive Senate time restrictions to accelerate the vote — a sign of disgruntled lawmakers.

What comes next is a fascinating situation.

NCAA and conference leaders were leaning on federal legislation as a solution — “Plan A,” most described it — to the rudderless landscape of unlimited player movement, an uncontrollable, soaring athlete compensation spending and extended eligibility.

Do they wait for potential passage or move on?

According to comments made by Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti last week at his league’s media days, Plan B involves changing the athlete revenue-share system within the NCAA’s landmark House settlement — a federal injunction in which the compensation system operates. To make changes to the settlement language, all parties to the lawsuit — the four power leagues, Pac-12 and NCAA — must agree.

As a positive development, those same entities did agree to changes to the revenue-share cap in the Senate bill, which increased the cap from $21.3 million to $48.8 million by adding a $22.5 million retention pool for schools to retain current athletes and a $5 million pool only to be used for non-revenue sports.

But if a compromise isn't reached among the leagues and NCAA, a self-governance model (Plan C) is necessary. Some of the major conferences, most notably the SEC, are exploring a governance breakaway from the NCAA, where leagues independently create their own rules and enforce them. In theory, conferences governing a smaller group of members can avoid legal challenges as opposed to the antitrust losses in court that the NCAA has endured while managing more than 350 Division I schools alone.

But the threat of a competitive breakaway — where the SEC, for instance, only plays itself — exists if the league-only rules and enforcement aren’t aligned across the conferences.

SEC officials have seriously discussed for months now a self-governing model as a way to enforce rules, set their own revenue-share cap and limit conference movement and eligibility. But some attorneys believe that the leagues still hold market power and may not escape all legal challenges.

Meanwhile, the PCSA may arise again in September, but its road is a long one. Even if it passes the Senate, it must then move to the House of Representatives, where House leaders like Steve Scalise have publicly criticized the legislation. Any House amendments to the bill — there may be plenty — must then be ratified in the Senate. This is a long, arduous process that comes amid November’s midterm elections. Lawmakers break for another five-week stretch over most of October to return to their local districts for campaigning.

Cruz and many others believe that the Protect College Sports Act stands as the final bipartisan effort from lawmakers for, perhaps, years. But the bill’s prescriptive nature — it is a 171-page tome of specificities — is part of its undoing. The legislation regulates conference expansion and even attempts to control football coaching movement.