Tennessee Basketball Players Propose Historic Collective Bargaining Term Sheet for College Sports

Tennessee men’s basketball players released a first-of-its-kind collective bargaining term sheet on Tuesday, offering a direct alternative to federal legislation currently moving through Congress.

The document, developed by players and the association Athletes.org, outlines a framework for a bargained salary cap, guaranteed minimum pay, and strict enforcement penalties for schools that violate spending rules.

This move places the players in direct competition with the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA), a bill that seeks to establish federal oversight of the industry. The next five weeks represent a critical window for both models, as the PCSA requires House approval by Dec. 17 to avoid being derailed by a change in congressional leadership.

“The principal opponents are agents who now call themselves ‘Athlete Advocates,’” wrote Randy Levine, vice chair of the President’s Roundtable on Fixing College Sports, in a letter to House members. Levine, who also serves as the Yankees president, argued that the push for collective bargaining is driven by interests seeking to protect high agent fees rather than the athletes themselves.

The fight for control over college athletics revenue

The tension between the Tennessee proposal and the PCSA centers on a fundamental question: who holds the power to regulate the money? While the PCSA offers a federal solution, the term sheet proposed by Tennessee players, including graduate student Tyler Lundblade, junior Campbell Duncan, and sophomore DeWayne Brown II, seeks to empower athletes through a private bargaining structure.

Tennessee basketball helps develop mock college sports bargaining agreement — WVLT News

According to a report by CBS Sports, the term sheet includes several specific economic protections for players:

A unified contract: A single athletic services agreement would replace current revenue sharing and school-affiliated NIL deals.
Spending limits: The plan establishes a bargained salary cap alongside a required spending floor and guaranteed minimum pay.
Injury security: Injured players would retain 100% of guaranteed pay, with medical coverage extending for life following catastrophic injuries.
Strict enforcement: Schools found cheating the cap could lose up to 100% of their conference payouts, while coaches would face fines or suspensions.
Agent regulation: The Athletes.org group would certify agents and cap their fees at 5%.

The two paths are not entirely divergent. Both the term sheet and the PCSA include a 5% cap on agent fees and maintain a five-year eligibility clock. However, they differ sharply on the legal status of the athletes. The term sheet relies on a model where a private, multistate entity would employ the athletes to bypass the legal hurdles facing public universities.

Legal arguments challenge the players' union model

Critics argue that the players’ model is a legal impossibility. Cody Campbell, chairman of the Texas Tech board of regents, suggested on a conference call that the attempt to create a union is a move by outside groups to profit from the system. He pointed to the National Labor Relations Act, which excludes state and political subdivisions from the definition of an employer.

“This can and will never happen in practicality,” Campbell wrote on social media, citing Tennessee appellate court rulings that have historically blocked union contracts with local governments.

The legal complexity is significant. In 1979, the Tennessee attorney general said that a public employer cannot bargain collectively without specific legislative authority. Athletes.org executive director Brandon Copeland addressed these challenges by noting that multiple litigators have vetted a structure where a third-party intermediary acts as the employer rather than the individual schools.

The stakes for the players involve more than just salary. Campbell argued that the current legislative push is an attempt to limit player earnings while allowing coaches to maintain high compensation. “Instead of people being challenged to either manage their budgets better or negotiate better, they’re asking the athletes to take on the burden,” Copeland told CBS Sports.

A race against the legislative calendar

The PCSA is currently facing a narrow path to becoming law. While it passed the Senate with a 77-22 vote on Sept. 28, it must clear the House before the chamber’s last scheduled day of work on Dec. 17.

If the bill is not signed by the time the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, the process will reset under a new political environment where Democrats hold control of both the House and the Senate.

Key Milestone	Date	Status/Implication
Senate PCSA Vote	Sept. 28	Passed 77-22
House Deadline	Dec. 17	Last scheduled day of work
Government Funding Expiration	Dec. 11	Potential legislative bottleneck
New Congress Swearing-in	Jan. 3	Political environment shifts

The political environment is increasingly fractured. The Congressional Black Caucus has raised concerns regarding the PCSA’s impact on HBCU funding and the lack of employment rights for athletes. 21 House Republicans have expressed objections to the bill's limits on power conferences and the waiting periods for schools switching leagues.

While some lobbyists suggest the PCSA may struggle to pass in the current lame-duck session, Athletes.org is preparing for a sustained conflict. Copeland indicated the organization intends to travel the country to organize more players, noting that the Tennessee football team has already privately voted to have the group represent them.

As the December deadline approaches, the central tension remains whether the future of college sports will be defined by federal statute or by collective bargaining agreements negotiated directly by the athletes.

“Our experience at UT — at a primetime university in the SEC — is a lot different than a lot of the athletes that you saw standing up in front of the PCSA with some of those senators and whatnot,” said Tyler Lundblade.

Worth a look