Cruz presses for “hard cap” in NIL bill, SEC and Big Ten question whether it would curb third-party payments

Sen. Ted Cruz is insisting that language in a proposed federal NIL framework would create a “hard cap” on college athlete compensation, even as regulators and major athletics conferences raise concerns that the bill would not actually reduce the third-party payments they say are contributing to rapidly rising roster costs.

The dispute centers on negotiations over how a $48 million threshold would operate under the draft legislation, including whether the statutory text would limit payments in a way that prevents teams and boosters from using third-party arrangements to exceed an effective ceiling. Cruz argues that the bill’s structure would eliminate much of the outside payment activity that has made costs unpredictable for schools trying to manage scholarship rosters.

According to the report, Cruz’s position has not convinced two key stakeholders: the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Big Ten. Both are described as unconvinced that the proposal’s drafting would amount to a genuine “hard salary cap” capable of limiting compensation in practice, even if the legislation includes a numeric cap.

The disagreement highlights an enforcement and definitional challenge that has followed Congress’s efforts to regulate NIL compensation. Supporters of a cap contend that a clear ceiling would reduce incentives for workarounds, while SEC and conference officials are portrayed as focused on whether the bill would effectively close gaps that allow indirect or third-party value to keep climbing.

The report characterizes the NIL talks as a stalemate between Senate negotiators and the conferences still holding out on the proposed approach. Conference officials have argued in prior discussions that federal rules should be administrable and consistent, but the current reporting points to a specific question now under debate: whether the bill’s payment restrictions would be strong enough to change school behavior and roster budgeting.

With the legislation still not settled, the next steps depend on whether negotiators can revise the bill so that regulators and major conferences agree it will function as intended. If the “hard cap” dispute persists, the bill’s prospects may hinge on further adjustments to definitional language and compliance mechanisms that determine how third-party arrangements are treated under the cap.