Big Ten Puts a Cap on Compensation

The Protect College Sports Act (PCSA)[1] is still awaiting a vote in the House of Representatives, but following the November 2026 midterm elections, the bill is pretty much dead.[2] The Big Ten has decided to take matters into its own hands, implementing a $49 million cap on direct payments to their players (mirroring the PCSA’s proposed compensation framework). [3]

What This Means for the Big Ten
Under the new rule, schools in the Big Ten retain their approximately $21.5 million of direct revenue-sharing money, but they are capped at $27.5 million for the third-party name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements they facilitate for their athletes.[4] This cap “applies to institutional action only, as student-athletes remain free to pursue NIL opportunities on their own.”[5]

The breakdown is as follows:

• Direct Revenue Sharing: Approximately $21.5 million.[6]
• School-Facilitated Third-party NIL: $27.5 million.[7]
• Independently Arranged Third-Party NIL: Unlimited.[8]

Big Ten Council of Chancellors/Presidents Chair, Pamela Written reaffirmed the conference’s commitment to the PCSA, stating:

“While we await the passage of the Protect College Sports Act, which has our full support, it is imperative our member institutions can begin to plan, budget and build their rosters approximating the act’s economic structure.”[9]

But now that congressional sources indicate that the PCSA’s chances to pass are “nearly nonexistent,”[10] this cap actually puts Big Ten schools at a competitive disadvantaged compared with the other Power Four conferences. The SEC, ACC, and Big 12 remain free to facilitate third-party NIL agreements without the same financial restrictions. This is particularly concerning because schools like the University of Texas, Louisiana State University, and the University of Miami reportedly spend nearly $50 million on their football roster alone[11], while Big Ten institutions are limited to approximately $49 million across all sports.

In effect, the Big Ten has voluntarily restricted its own recruiting flexibility in anticipation of a bill that may never become law. Whether other conferences will follow suit, and how these restrictions will reshape the competitive landscape of collegiate athletics, remains to be seen.

Another Legal Hurdle for the NCAA?
Attorneys representing student-athletes in the House v. NCAA settlement have already threatened to challenge the Big Ten’s rule. Steve Berman, co-lead counsel for the athletes in House stated:

“To the extent the rule is implemented immediately it would directly violate the settlement… Our team is reviewing the rule and intends to fight any proposed limit to what the NCAA and conferences agreed to under the House settlement. Any cap that would keep schools from facilitating deals is a step in the wrong direction, and that the Big Ten tried to give this rule the moniker of ‘protecting’ college sports is a tired spin on its old hat arguments”[12]

Overall, the Big Ten’s justification for the rule is to prevent schools from circumventing the revenue-sharing cap through third-party NIL agreements.[13] Although the House settlement allows individual conferences to adopt and enforce their own restrictions on athlete benefits, Sports Attorney Darren Heitner explains that it also establishes specific procedures for adopting rules intended to prevent said circumvention.[14] These procedures require notice to the plaintiffs’ attorneys and an opportunity to object, which the Big Ten did not follow,[15] raising questions about whether this cap will still be in place when the transfer portal opens on January 4, 2027.

[1] https://ublawsportsforum.com/2026/09/29/senate-passes-the-protect-college-sports-act/; https://ublawsportsforum.com/2026/09/22/the-protect-college-athletes-act/.

[2] https://frontofficesports.com/article/college-sports-bill-in-peril-after-democrats-sweep-midterm-elections/.

[3] https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/50309630/big-ten-limits-schools-involvement-nil-deals.

[4] https://bigten.org/news/2026/10/28/general-big-ten-prepares-for-protect-college-sports-act-economic-framework.aspx.

[5] Id.

[6] Payments made directly by an institution to student-athletes under the House v. NCAA settlement.

[7] Agreements between student-athletes and third parties that the institution facilitates, with compensation funded by the third party.

[8] Agreements independently negotiated by the student-athletes or their representatives.

[9] Supra note 4.

[10] Supra note 2.

[11] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interactive/college-football-nil-spending-budgets/?unlocked_article_code=1.BlE.2tp8.SMuBrJfcAyL0&source=emp_shared_interactive&smid=url-share-ta&redirected=1.

[12] https://collegefootballbusiness.com/quotes/e/steve-berman-2026-10-28-1/.

[13] https://kdhnews.com/sports/college/big-ten-leaders-approve-a-rule-limiting-schools-involvement-in-setting-up-third-party-nil/article_0d83e628-ce86-5b1b-a3b4-140c5197f1c7.html.

[14] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/newsletter-image-likeness-vol-208-big-ten-did-raise-cap-heitner-9whge/.

[15] Id.