One Rulebook, Many Markets: What Federal NIL Law Could Mean for Athletes in Every Division

A national NIL standard could give athletes common protections while leaving very different markets for their talent. The Senate bill’s opportunities extend well beyond the biggest football and basketball programs.

Editorial analysis and opinion. The legislation discussed here is a proposal, not current law.

College sports have never been closer to a national rulebook for name, image and likeness (NIL) money. On September 28, 2026, the U.S. Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act of 2026 (S. 4668) by a 77–22 vote. It was the first comprehensive college athletics bill to pass either chamber of Congress (Cozen O'Connor). Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) wrote the bill, and President Trump has publicly backed it (Latin Post).

The bill is not law yet. The House is in recess until November 9, after the midterm elections. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise has said it will not pass "as-is," and if it isn't enacted before the new Congress is sworn in on January 3, 2027, it dies and has to be reintroduced (NIL Revolution). The House's own bill, the SCORE Act (H.R. 4312), was pulled from the floor more than once and never got a vote (Cozen O'Connor).

Still, the Senate version is the strongest guide to what a federal NIL law would look like. Most coverage focuses on Power Four football and basketball. This article asks a wider question: if the bill becomes law in roughly its Senate form, where would the NIL opportunities be in FBS, FCS, Division II, Division III, the NAIA and junior colleges?

The Market Today

NIL has grown far faster than anyone predicted. Opendorse, one of the largest NIL platforms, now expects the total NIL market to reach $4.5 billion in 2026–27. That is about 61% more than its own forecast from a year earlier (Opendorse). In the first year of revenue sharing alone, schools paid athletes about $1.8 billion directly (Forbes).

That money is very unevenly spread. Market data cited by sports-business analysts suggests fewer than 17% of NCAA athletes earn any NIL money in a given year, and median deals for athletes in non-revenue sports are often under $500 (LinkedIn analysis citing Opendorse). A federal law won't change that by itself. What it would change is the rules: which deals are allowed, who can broker them, how they have to be reported, and which state laws still count.

The Federal Rules That Would Apply Broadly

Some parts of the Senate bill apply only to Division I. Others are written for student athletes and institutions generally. Below are the NIL-related rules a detailed section-by-section review lists without any division limit (Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck section-by-section; Senate-passed bill review):

A national right to earn from NIL. Schools could block an NIL deal only if it breaks a code of conduct that applies to all students, or if it uses school logos, uniforms or facilities without permission.

Group licensing needs every athlete's consent. Schools, conferences and associations could not use a group of athletes' NIL to sell products unless each athlete in the group agrees. That sets up team-wide licensing deals, such as jerseys, trading cards and video games, as something athletes opt into and can negotiate.

Agents are regulated. Agents would have to register with a state, their fees would be capped at 5% of an endorsement contract, contracts could not run past the athlete's eligibility, and athletes could sue agents who mislead them (NIL Revolution). Associations would also have to keep a public, searchable database of agents.

One national standard. The bill would override state laws on NIL pay, transfers and eligibility, replacing a patchwork of different and sometimes conflicting rules (Brownstein).

Deals must be real. NIL agreements other than agreements with the institution itself would need a “valid business purpose.” Deals with associated entities, conferences, and school or conference employees and volunteers would also have to pay amounts comparable to what third parties pay similarly prominent people who are not student athletes. (Cozen O’Connor)

The bill would also leave one major question open. It says it is "neutral" on whether athletes are employees, which leaves pending labor-board proceedings and the Johnson v. NCAA litigation in place (Cozen O'Connor). The SCORE Act would have ruled out employee status instead.

Power Four and FBS: Bigger Budgets, Tighter Rules

At the top of the sport, the bill would put the House settlement's revenue-sharing system into federal law. The cap is 22% of average Power conference revenue, about $21.6 million per school for 2026–27 (Cozen O'Connor). On top of that, the bill adds:

A retention fund of up to $22.5 million a year for athletes who have already played a full season at the school. It can't be used to recruit.

Up to $5 million more for non-revenue sports, including women’s and Olympic programs, subject to the bill’s proportional-spending condition. (Cozen O’Connor)

Together, those maximum amounts would total about $49.1 million a year: approximately $21.6 million in revenue sharing, $22.5 million for retention, and an additional $5 million for non-revenue sports. These are permitted ceilings, not promised payments. The retention fund would end nine years after enactment, and schools would have to meet academic benchmarks to use it. (Cozen O’Connor)

The tradeoff is tighter control of outside money. Deals with "associated entities," including collectives, school sponsors and media-rights partners, would count against a hard cap. Media-rights holders, sponsors, apparel companies and vendors would also have to certify that their NIL deals are legitimate (NIL Revolution). The current clearinghouse has already rejected nearly $90 million in deals while approving $355 million (ESPN). Federal law would make that kind of review harder to get around.

Where the opportunity is: The money that grows under this system rewards athletes who stay. A retention fund that only pays returning players means more value for loyalty, and the one-free-transfer rule (a second transfer costs a year of eligibility) points the same way (Brownstein). Brands from outside the athletic department, the ones not tied to the school, keep the most room to move, because their deals are judged on commercial value rather than counted against the cap.

Olympic and Women's Sports: The Quiet Winners

Women's and Olympic sport athletes may gain the most from the bill, even though they get little attention in the debate. Beyond the separate $5 million allowance, the bill would require:

Roster and scholarship protection. Schools with $80 million or more in athletics revenue would have to keep at least their 2024–25 levels of scholarships and roster spots in non-revenue sports (this rule ends after nine years). Schools between $50 million and $80 million would have a similar rule that ends after four years (Brownstein section-by-section).

A "use it or lose it" rule for media rights. Rights to sports other than football and basketball would have to be made reasonably available to the public within a year. Otherwise they could go back to the school and be resold (NIL Revolution).

Exposure drives NIL value. A gymnast or softball player whose games are actually streamed has a bigger audience, and a bigger audience is worth more to brands. Forbes notes that more than 100 women's and Olympic teams have reportedly been cut since 2023, and that 184 of the 257 U.S. medalists at the 2024 Paris Olympics competed in college (Forbes). Protecting those rosters protects the group of athletes most likely to win local and niche brand deals.

One open question: the bill keeps Title IX in force but doesn't say how revenue-sharing money has to be split between men's and women's teams. Congressional Research Service attorneys have called that a new legal question (Cozen O'Connor).

Group of Five and FCS: The Middle Class

Schools outside the Power Four would face the same rules but with far smaller budgets. For 2026–27, 103 FCS schools are listed as opting into the House settlement, which lets them share revenue directly with athletes (HERO Sports). Very few of them can get close to a $21.6 million cap.

The bill gives these schools some structural help:

A medical fund. The NCAA would have to fund a pool of $60 million to $100 million to help Division I schools with under $20 million in athletics revenue pay for the required five years of post-eligibility medical coverage (Brownstein section-by-section).

A seat at the table. Conferences with less than $500 million in revenue would have to be "adequately represented" on governing boards (Cozen O'Connor).

A public NIL pay database. Division I schools would report anonymized NIL data each year to a public database that athletes and agents can use to estimate fair market value (NIL Revolution).

Where the opportunity is: The public database may matter most at this level. A quarterback at a Missouri Valley school negotiating with a regional car dealer could, for the first time, point to real comparable deals. Mid-major athletes are often big names in their towns and smaller markets, and the transfer limits give local businesses more reason to sign multi-year deals with athletes who are likely to stay.

HBCUs: A Media Pipeline

Title III of the bill would authorize $180 million a year from fiscal 2027 through 2032 for competitive grants to HBCUs. The money would go toward broadband, media infrastructure and sports-broadcast production (Brownstein). Priority would go to schools with the greatest need, the highest share of Pell Grant students and membership in an HBCU athletic conference (Brownstein section-by-section).

That money wouldn't go to athletes directly, but it could change their NIL prospects. Better production and distribution means more games on air, more highlight clips and bigger audiences for SWAC and MEAC athletes. HBCU athletics already has strong cultural reach, and better media infrastructure could turn that reach into sponsor dollars.

The bill also drew serious opposition on this front. All four Black Democratic senators voted no, and the NAACP opposed the bill, arguing that it puts its heaviest restrictions on athletes who are disproportionately Black men in football and basketball, while leaving coaching salaries uncapped (Latin Post).

Division II: Lighter Rules, Same Rights

Division II and III schools can't take part in the House settlement's revenue-sharing system, so their athletes earn only through third-party NIL deals (Louisiana Board of Regents NIL Task Force). The Senate bill would mostly keep it that way. Several of its heaviest requirements are explicitly limited to Division I, including:

the public NIL data reporting requirement (Brownstein section-by-section)

the $600 deal-reporting rule

the 10-year degree-completion guarantee

mandatory medical coverage (Senate-passed bill review)

Division II would be covered by the bill's eligibility section, including the five-year eligibility clock, and DII athletes could sue in federal court over violations of the transfer and eligibility rules (Brownstein section-by-section).

Where the opportunity is: Division II athletes would get the bill's main protections (a federal NIL right, agent rules, group-licensing consent and one national standard) without Division I's paperwork. For a regional university with a strong local following, that is a fairly clean setup. Athletes keep full rights, deals stay simple, and local businesses no longer have to work through different state laws. The rule barring extra academic hurdles for two-year college transfers also widens the path into Division II.

Division III: Students First, Opportunity Intact

Division III has no athletic scholarships, so NIL there looks very different. Athletes at that level often earn through coaching lessons, running camps, social media content and local appearances. Under the Senate bill, Division III is left out of even the eligibility section that covers Division II (Brownstein section-by-section). Its athletes would still get the general NIL rights and agent protections.

Division III is also reviewing NIL on its own. In April 2026, its Presidents Council approved a framework to review NIL activity, following a resolution at the 2026 NCAA Convention. A working group with NIL expertise will recommend policy changes if needed (NCAA). A federal law would set the outer limits for whatever that group recommends.

Where the opportunity is: Division III athletes have the same legal NIL rights as Division I stars. What they lack is exposure and donor money (NIL Club). The best openings at this level are skill-based and community-based: private lessons, youth clinics, content creation, and deals with local restaurants, gyms and service businesses. With a national standard in place, those deals look the same in New Jersey as they do in Ohio.

There is also a possible medical-coverage benefit. Division II and III schools that choose to offer post-eligibility medical coverage could apply to the NCAA medical fund if they show financial need (Senate-passed bill review).

NAIA: Proof That Small-Scale NIL Works

The NAIA was the first college athletics association to allow NIL, adopting it in October 2020 (NAIA). Its 2026 Path Forward Task Force concluded that NIL "is working as intended" (NAIA Path Forward Task Force Report):

Up to a third of athletes pursue NIL, mostly through social media, and earn modest income.

Women are out-earning men.

Only 5% of athletic directors believe NIL is being misused on their campus.

Collectives are rare. Just 7% of schools support or plan one, and only one reported raising money, under $3,000.

The task force wants the NAIA to offer NIL opportunities similar to NCAA Division II and III. It also plans to watch Congress and "advocate against undesired regulations" (NAIA).

The Senate summaries reviewed here don't name the NAIA. Because the bill's preemption language covers state laws on student-athlete NIL generally, NAIA athletes would likely be governed by the same national standard, though the details would depend on how courts and regulators read the final text.

Where the opportunity is: The NAIA's own suggestions work as a playbook for any small school: "NIL done right" toolkits with sample contracts and tax guidance, directories of approved brands, and awards for deals with community impact (NAIA).

Junior Colleges: The Overlooked Earners

Junior college athletes may be the most underrated part of the NIL market. In their April 7, 2026 partnership announcement, the NJCAA and Opendorse emphasized continued access to NIL education, compliance support and opportunities to build a personal brand. That is a useful foundation for athletes whose college careers may span more than one institution. (NJCAA/Opendorse partnership announcement)

Federal law would help junior college athletes in a second way: by making it easier to move up. The bill would bar athletic associations and conferences from applying stricter academic standards to two-year college transfers than to four-year transfers (Senate-passed bill review).

Where the opportunity is: A junior college athlete who builds a local brand and a social following can carry that audience to a four-year school with fewer barriers. Brands that sign athletes early, before they transfer, could get real value later.

How the Divisions Compare

Sources for the table are cited in the sections above.

What Athletes and Schools Can Do Now

The law isn't in effect, and law firms advising schools say no compliance steps are required yet (Cozen O'Connor). Preparing still makes sense:

Athletes at every level should keep written contracts for every deal, track income for taxes, and only work with agents willing to accept a 5% fee and a contract that ends with their eligibility.

Division I compliance offices should review how revenue sharing is split for Title IX purposes and tighten their agent-registration processes (Cozen O'Connor).

Division II, Division III, NAIA and junior college athletic departments can set themselves apart with education, marketplaces and connections to local businesses, not money. Their athletes' legal rights are the same as anyone's; what they usually lack is help.

Local businesses should treat college athletes in every division as community influencers. A national standard would make deals easier to write and enforce across state lines.

The Bottom Line

If the Protect College Sports Act becomes law in roughly its Senate form, it won't erase the gap between a Power Four quarterback and a Division III swimmer. It would, though, give both of them the same federal NIL right, the same agent protections and the same consent rules for group licensing.

At the top, the opportunity is structured money tied to staying at one school. In the middle, it's transparency and regional brands. Below Division I, it's simplicity: full NIL rights without the paperwork Division I would carry.

What happens next depends on the House. It returns November 9 and has until January 3, 2027, to act before the bill expires.

This article reflects the Senate-passed version of S. 4668 as of October 7, 2026. Provisions may change if the House amends the bill. Interpretations of how the bill would apply to the NAIA and junior colleges are the author's reading, since the Senate summaries reviewed here don't address those associations directly. This article is not legal advice.

More College Sports Business