Potential Management Liability Implications of The Protect College Sports Act

The latest attempt by lawmakers to bring stability to an increasingly turbulent collegiate athletics landscape raises important questions regarding future liability exposures for colleges and universities. While the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA) is principally designed to establish a federal regulatory framework for collegiate athletics, the two largest athletic conferences oppose the bill, arguing in part that it fails to wholly preempt conflicting state laws, which may allow for legal ambiguity. Beyond this concern, several provisions of the PCSA would create new governance and compliance obligations that may significantly impact management liability (including educators’ legal liability) for colleges and universities.

The following provides a brief legal and legislative history and highlights the sections of the PCSA that may have the greatest impact on higher education institutions and their leadership if the bill is enacted.

Background

Over the last five years, in the wake of the US Supreme Court decision in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston et al and settlement of the Ninth Circuit case House v. NCAA (House Settlement), the NCAA’s traditional amateurism model has been fundamentally transformed by NIL rights, transfer portal liberalization, athlete compensation litigation, and growing calls to classify student-athletes as employees.

Colleges and universities now face a patchwork of state NIL laws, landmark antitrust litigation, federal regulatory scrutiny, and escalating financial pressures related to athlete compensation and revenue sharing.

Against this backdrop, the President issued an Executive Order titled “Saving College Sports” on July 24, 2025, setting forth several policy objectives with respect to collegiate athletics, including the regulation of NIL transactions, protection of women’s and non-revenue-generating sports, and clarification of student-athletes’ employment status. Congress has attempted to (among other things) establish federal guardrails around NIL standards and compensation, preempt state law, and provide varying levels of antitrust protection for the NCAA and its member institutions. Most recently, the SCORE Act, aimed at codifying such legislative priorities, advanced through committee in the House but did not receive a floor vote.

On May 27, 2026, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced the Protect College Sports Act of 2026 (PCSA) to “bring stability to the college sports system.”  The legislation immediately drew criticism from athlete advocacy organizations, including Athletes.org and the National College Players Association. On June 2, 2026, the Big Ten Conference (Big Ten) and the Southeastern Conference (SEC) issued a joint statement opposing the PCSA as drafted.

The historical legal landscape pertaining to collegiate athletics can be characterized as a century-long shift from amateurism and institutional control to a modern era driven by landmark antitrust lawsuits and a quagmire of state and federal laws governing NIL and revenue sharing.

PCSA Provisions and Management Liability Implications

The proposed legislation establishes a series of federally mandated governance, compliance, and enforcement obligations that could materially alter the liability landscape for colleges and universities, their leadership, and intercollegiate athletic programs. Several provisions convert areas of student-athlete oversight from best practices or regulatory guidance into statutory duties, which, depending on the policy, may increase exposure under directors and officers (D&O), employment practices liability (EPL), and fiduciary liability (FL) insurance.

Governance Requirements

The PCSA introduces explicit governance requirements for athletic oversight bodies. Section 111(a) mandates that “not less than one-third of the membership and voting power of any board of directors or other governing body shall be comprised of current or former student-athletes.” Section 111(b)(2) further provides that “no member of any such board or committee shall vote on any matter that presents a conflict of interest.”

These requirements may invite scrutiny from stakeholders and potential plaintiffs regarding board composition, conflict management, and fulfillment of fiduciary duties. Alleged governance failures could result in D&O exposure arising from claims of mismanagement, improper board structure, or noncompliance with federal mandates.

Anti-Retaliation Framework

The PCSA aims to establish a clear anti-retaliation framework through the Student-Athlete Ombudsman provisions. Section 108(d)(5) states that “no employee, contractor, agent, volunteer, or member shall take or threaten any action as a reprisal” for engaging with the Ombudsman office.

This provision could be interpreted to create a direct statutory cause of action for student-athletes against coaches, athletic directors, and administrators for reporting violations, seeking assistance, or otherwise cooperating with the student-athlete ombudsman office. By replacing discretionary institutional policies with clear statutory protections, it may increase both the frequency and viability of retaliation claims, potentially expanding EPL exposure.

Health, Safety, and Misconduct Obligations

The PCSA also imposes explicit health, safety, and misconduct prevention requirements. Section 107(b) requires institutions to “take reasonable actions to prevent, assess, and remediate abuse or hazing and sexual assault, sexual misconduct, and sexual harassment.”

This language may be cited as codifying a duty of care that could serve as a benchmark in litigation. The establishment of a defined compliance standard could increase the likelihood of EPL claims based on statutory noncompliance rather than common-law negligence standards.

Medical Coverage Requirements

Section 106(a)(2) mandates that institutions cover “the cost of all out-of-pocket medical expenses for any injury or disease incurred through participation” in athletics. This may establish a framework that transforms medical support from a discretionary benefit into a statutory requirement.

The articulation of these benefits shifts litigation risk toward fiduciary liability, as a claim may be framed as the breach of a legislatively imposed duty. The removal of institutional discretion has the potential to increases exposure, particularly where there are delays or deficiencies in funding long-term treatments, such as concussion-related care.

NIL Reporting Obligations

The PCSA introduces federally mandated reporting requirements related to NIL agreements. Under Section 104(a)(1), “each institution shall disclose” specified NIL information annually to the relevant athletic association.

This codifies a formal compliance infrastructure that must be designed, implemented, and continuously monitored by each institution. Failures in reporting or inaccuracies in disclosures may lead to regulatory consequences or derivative claims against institutional leadership, which may result in increased exposure tied to misrepresentation, inadequate controls, or failure to supervise NIL activities.

Enforcement and Penalties

Section 118 has the potential to significantly heighten exposure by authorizing athletic associations to “impose a fine against an institution, an employee, or a volunteer” for violations.

Importantly, this provision explicitly permits sanctions against individuals, broadening potential liability beyond institutions. It may also trigger institutional indemnification obligations under Sides A and B of college/university management liability policies.

Conclusion

The PCSA could fundamentally reshape the higher education risk landscape by converting discretionary athletic policies into federally enforceable statutory duties across governance, employment practices, and healthcare administration.

By potentially making certain claims easier to plead, expanding compliance obligations, and increasing federal oversight, the PCSA could, if enacted as currently drafted, increase management liability exposure for colleges and universities, as well as their governing boards and athletic departments. While the outcome of the Act is uncertain, legislative momentum suggests that some form of federal action in this area may emerge. As the law around collegiate athletics evolves, carriers’ approach to management and educators’ legal liability coverage for higher education institutions may need to reassess how to respond to emerging risks. At the same time, colleges and universities should be prepared for possible heightened underwriting scrutiny across D&O, EPL, and Fiduciary coverages as the management liability insurance market adjusts to new exposures.

Meet the Author

Sarah Abrams

Executive Vice President, RT ProExec – The OakBridge Team

Sarah M. Abrams is an attorney and Executive Vice President of The OakBridge Team within RT ProExec. The team specializes in the placement of Executive, Cyber, Professional, and Transactional Liability insurance products. Before joining RT ProExec – The OakBridge Team, Sarah held senior leadership roles in professional liability and management liability claims.

Sarah is an active industry speaker and writer on D&O and professional liability topics, including as the co-author of the D&O Diary and regular contributor to the other publications. She has served as a panelist, moderator, keynote speaker, and guest lecturer at programs sponsored by the Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS), the New York City Bar Association, Columbia University, Practising Law Institute (PLI), and other industry and academic organizations.

This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. No warranties, promises, and/or representations of any kind, express or implied, are given as to the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information provided in this article. No user should act on the basis of any material contained herein without obtaining proper legal or other professional advice specific to their situation.