Legal Expert Calls out the Protect College Sports Act

Noted attorney Paul L. McDonald is calling out the potentially devastating impact of the Protect College Sports Act. A high-stakes double-edged sword, the legislation could leave Black student-athletes holding the short end of collegiate sports’ economic stick in a multi-billion-dollar college sports economy.

McDonald—co-counsel in the landmark Johnson v. NCAA case—breaks down the legislation’s looming financial impact on Black players, its effect on HBCUs, and why Senate Democrats chose not to block its passage.

“There was always a good chance that a Republican majority would pass the bill – if it got by the 60-vote filibuster procedural threshold,” said McDonald. “The real question is why Democrats did not filibuster the bill.”

“On the substance, labor unions, the CBC and NAACP, and law professors opposed the bill. In my letters to the Senate Democratic Caucus, I informed them of the NCAA’s disrespect of Black history, dignity, and rights, and requested that the Caucus filibuster until the NCAA met preconditions,” he continued.

McDonald also went on to say that he advised the Senate Democratic Caucus to filibuster the bill by demanding a public apology for legal arguments referencing the “slavery exception,” banning postseason events in states that eliminate Black voting districts, guaranteeing subsidies for HBCUs, and mandating increased investment in Black-owned businesses.

RELATED: NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson Slams the Protect College Sports Act

“The Caucus chose not to filibuster and require the NCAA to meet any of these preconditions,” he explained. “By comparison, the Caucus twice filibustered to defend transgender participation in women’s sports – in March 2025 and March 2026 – suggesting that the Caucus did not consider the NCAA’s disrespect of Black history, dignity, and rights to be as important.”

According to McDonald, the bill also misses the mark on structural equity in collegiate sports. It offers no mandates for HBCU funding.

For decades, college sports used labor loopholes to profit off Black athletes. In 2024, the NCAA equated “a prisoner’s involuntary servitude, as authorized by the Thirteenth Amendment, to ‘the long-standing tradition’ of amateurism in college athletics.” The Protect College Sports Act doesn’t fix that injustice—it writes it into federal law.

“Any legislative attempt to single out college athletes to be denied this same student employee status would violate the constitutional requirement of Equal Protection,” McDonald argues. “This intersects with the 13th Amendment because the NCAA has chosen to oppose equal student employee status by comparing college athletes to prison labor under the “slavery exception” instead of work-study and similar student employment programs. “

​Despite clearing the Senate with strong bipartisan support, the bill now faces an uncertain road in the House, where razor-thin margins and competing reform proposals could disrupt its momentum.

“The bill has significant hurdles. The more conservative, and NCAA-friendly, SCORE Act failed to reach the House floor – twice. The same factions likely persist – e.g., Democratic opposition anchored by/to the CBC, with some GOP opposed to federal meddling and some GOP bent on reshaping the bill to mimic the SCORE Act,” McDonald said. “There is not much time left in this Congress in the lame duck session post-election. Also, This bill might not be a priority compared to other business that has to be completed.”

While many Democrats supported the measure, Sen. Corey Booker vehemently opposed the tenets of the bill and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, arguing that the legislation disproportionately targets Black athletes.

​“This is insane to me, especially because the revenue sports are disproportionately African American,” Booker said. “When has the Democratic Party stood up for taking away rights from disadvantaged minorities? When have we ever done what we’re about to do right now? It is wrong. It is unjust, and it will disproportionately affect African Americans.”

By capping revenue and limiting transfer mobility, the Protect College Sports Act reinforces a familiar dynamic: restricting the economic leverage of a workforce driven by Black athletes. As the legislation moves to the House, Black student-athletes remain caught in a system that gladly reaps billions from their labor while capping their actual market value.