Who’d benefit most from the PCSA as written? Who'd lose?

Good morning, and thanks for spending part of your day with Extra Points.

The Protect College Sports Act, or PCSA, has already passed the United States Senate. I don’t think it’s a very good bill, but I don’t get a vote on these sorts of things.

The folks who do, however, are in the U.S. House. They’re not voting on anything at the moment, and the pathway from “passed Senate bill” to “law President Trump signs” is narrow. Lots of obstacles could prevent this law from happening.

But I want to take a step away from those debates for a second. Instead, now that we have a bill that passed one legislative body, I want to look at the dang thing and talk about who actually would benefit from this system.

Let’s say this bill actually does pass, largely as written right now. Who is that good news for?

What does it cost to build a winning D-I softball program?

We dug into the financial data from across the country. Which programs spend the most? Where are budgets growing? What spending actually correlates with winning?

Read the full report and see how your program stacks up

Before all the economists and antitrust activists yell at me, yes, I know athletes lacked a direct role in the creation of this proposed legislation, and even if the terms of the agreement were positive, saying the legislation is a net benefit to athletes while failing to respect their bargaining rights or autonomy is troublesome.

I already wrote a big ol’ post about why I think the PCSA isn’t a good bill, and that’s a major reason.

But indulge me for a moment in this thought experiment, and look at the general terms of the deal.

More than 200,000 athletes participate in D-I college sports. The overwhelming majority, regardless of what happens with the PCSA, do not have meaningful earning potential as athletes. They won’t generate any direct payments via the House settlement, and their marketability as brand influencers or corporate sponsorship partners is negligible. They do not participate in the NIL marketplace, however you want to define it, and aren’t likely to do so in the future.

So enforcing any sort of salary cap on athlete earnings wouldn’t materially impact them. But the framework of the PCSA would extend these athletes’ post-eligibility health insurance, and it would enforce the five-in-five and no-former-pros eligibility rules, in addition to limiting how often an athlete could transfer without sitting out a year.

The 190,000-plus athletes who will never cash an NIL check above $600 aren’t a monolith, and I don’t want to suggest all their interests are the same. But if an athlete values predictability (i.e. knowing his entire offensive line isn’t going to transfer next year) over potential financial upside … the general terms of the PCSA are a pretty good deal. A typical men’s volleyball player, for example, would probably benefit more from the expanded insurance coverage than he would from unlimited transfers or uncapped revenue sharing.

This is especially true for folks who play sports that might otherwise be at risk of being dropped in the short term. Limits on which schools could drop sports might persuade more schools to grit their teeth and keep the unpopular or expensive programs.

I’d have to think even the president’s more strident fans would agree with me here: Trump loves making deals, especially when he can throw his name on something and claim he “won.” More than ideological consistency or deeply held long-term policy goals, the man just really wants to cut ribbons and announce deals.