The Protect College Sports Act doesn’t include student voices. It should.

At the end of the 2023 movie “AIR,” a dramatization of Nike’s signing of Michael Jordan, Ben Affleck as Nike founder Phil Knight worries that giving Jordan a share of revenue from products bearing his name might set a dangerous precedent.

Jordan’s deal — which the film notes nets him $400 million a year — opened the door for athletes to expand their earning potential. The film captures how an industry evolved once it recognized the value of players in shaping sports culture and building its marketing power.

College athletics is now experiencing its own Nike‑Jordan moment. The system, long accused of profiting off the backs of players, has changed in recent years because of name, image, and likeness or NIL policies that enable athletes to profit from their marketing value and share in the revenues generated from the sports they play.

In response to calls for federal intervention, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D‑Wash.) and Ted Cruz (R‑Texas) recently introduced the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act to build guardrails for college sports that supposedly protect players and institutions. The new policy would limit athletes to a single transfer between colleges without penalty, restrict coaches from being “poached” during the season, provide guidelines for certification of agents, and cap agent commission fees at 5 percent. It also establishes rules for how institutions, athletes and agents operate.

But although the NIL market is centered on the athlete, the proposed federal legislation does not codify a process to incorporate student athlete voices in the way it should.

NIL laws, which now exist in 35 states, came about after the Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that student athletes could not be banned from receiving compensation. These laws now allow........

© The Hill