Texas Tech regents chairman Cody Campbell argues the next move for college sports is federal antitrust protection

A Texas Tech Board of Regents chairman and prominent booster says federal antitrust protection is the only workable route to stabilizing college sports, arguing that the current patchwork of court rulings and institution-by-institution policies has created legal chaos that the industry can no longer afford. Cody Campbell made the case in a wide-ranging op-ed published Tuesday, positioning the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act of 2026 as Congress’ best chance to replace uncertainty with a clear national framework.

Campbell’s proposal rests on a basic argument about antitrust law: colleges and conferences have repeatedly sought exemptions from restrictions that would apply to ordinary markets, but the Supreme Court has narrowed the ability of the NCAA and its member schools to claim special treatment. He cited the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Alston v. NCAA, in which Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that it is not evident why the college-athletics product should qualify for a different antitrust outcome than other agreements among businesses.

In Campbell’s view, the legal problem is not just academic. Without congressional action, he argues, the sport’s “inevitable demise” accelerates through competing pressures, including NIL’s rapid evolution, ongoing disputes about labor and player rights, and the widening gap between the commercial value generated by major programs and the legal protections available to athletes. While the op-ed is an argument for policy change rather than a description of an immediate enforcement event, it frames the federal debate as a timing issue that affects the future of the entire intercollegiate model.

Campbell points to momentum on Capitol Hill, saying the Protect College Sports Act has been introduced by a bipartisan group led by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), along with Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). According to the op-ed’s account, President Donald Trump has publicly indicated he would like to sign the measure into law this summer, and Campbell characterizes the bill as “serious” and capable of moving quickly.

In the broader college football landscape, the act’s central significance is that it would attempt to reconcile long-standing athletic association rules with labor and antitrust principles that apply to other industries. If Congress moves, the practical effect would be less about who wins the next bowl and more about how schools, conferences, and governing bodies structure player-related rules and compensation systems going forward, including the boundaries around collective arrangements and restrictions tied to eligibility and amateur status.

Campbell’s argument also connects to recent patterns in the sport where major conferences have repeatedly sought regulatory clarity while pursuing business strategies that intensify the commercialization of athletics. Separate reporting has described his long-running effort to push for changes that would permit the industry to function without constant litigation. That context matters because federal legislation would not simply “solve” one lawsuit, it would set baseline expectations for the next era of governance across divisions.

For Texas Tech and the programs chasing similar stability, the near-term watch item is whether the Protect College Sports Act advances in a form that can earn durable bipartisan support and clear the policy hurdles needed for enactment. If the bill progresses, athletic departments and athlete advocacy groups will likely adjust their messaging and legal positions, and conferences will be forced to model compliance earlier than they might otherwise. The op-ed alone cannot confirm how the final text would operate, but it provides a clear indication of what at least one major booster believes federal antitrust protection should accomplish.

Campbell’s case is also a reminder of the political tightrope in college athletics. Any solution that grants legal protections for certain conduct must still withstand scrutiny about labor and player rights, and it may not satisfy every stakeholder equally. As Congress deliberates, the most important outcome will be whether the legislation creates workable rules that reduce uncertainty without stripping players of the protections courts and statutes have afforded them. For fans and roster-building programs alike, clarity would be the real offseason story, not any single game result.