The NCAA Accountability Act of 2025 establishes mandatory due process requirements, enforcement procedures by the Attorney General, and clear definitions for major college athletic associations to ensure fair and consistent rule enforcement.
David Kustoff
Representative
TN-8
The NCAA Accountability Act of 2025 establishes mandatory due process requirements for major athletic associations during rule violation investigations, including formal hearings and arbitration options for member schools. The Act places enforcement authority with the Attorney General, who can investigate complaints and levy significant civil penalties for non-compliance. Furthermore, it mandates annual reporting on enforcement actions to state and federal Attorneys General. This legislation ensures fairness in disciplinary proceedings while setting a one-year deadline for covered associations to implement the new rules.
NCAA Accountability Act Mandates Due Process, Imposes $15M Fines, and Exempts Reports from Public View
The NCAA Accountability Act of 2025 is setting up a whole new set of rules for how major college sports associations—meaning those with 900 or more member schools—handle investigations. If you’ve ever followed a college sports scandal, you know the process can feel like the Wild West. This bill aims to change that by imposing strict federal due process requirements, timelines, and massive financial penalties, all enforced by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The New Rules of the Game: Due Process Mandates
This Act essentially forces big athletic associations to run their formal investigations like a mini-court system. The most immediate change is the timeline: if the association decides to formally investigate a school, student, or staff member, they must provide written notice within 60 days. This notice has to spell out exactly who and what is being investigated, what rules were potentially broken, and when the alleged violations occurred—though the investigation can only look back two years from the notice date (SEC. 2).
If the investigation moves forward, the association has eight months from the initial notice to file formal charges. Crucially, the association cannot use information from confidential sources as evidence or to make any final decisions during the hearing process. This is a game-changer for schools and individuals, as it requires the association to rely on verifiable, non-anonymous evidence to prove its case. For a university administrator or coach facing an investigation, this means a much clearer, time-bound process with established rights, rather than an open-ended inquiry.
When Schools Fight Back: Mandatory Arbitration
One of the biggest practical shifts is the introduction of mandatory commercial arbitration. If a member school disagrees with the penalties handed down by the athletic association, they can force the dispute into arbitration (SEC. 2(c)). This means the fight leaves the association’s internal committee room and heads to a neutral three-person panel following standard commercial rules. This is a huge win for institutions, giving them a guaranteed, independent path to appeal decisions and potentially reduce stiff penalties, rather than relying solely on the association’s internal review system.
The DOJ Steps Onto the Field: Enforcement and Fines
This is where the bill gets serious. The Act grants the Attorney General (AG) the power to enforce compliance, setting up a system where the DOJ’s Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) handle formal hearings (SEC. 4). If an ALJ finds that an athletic association violated the procedures laid out in this Act—for instance, missing a deadline or failing to provide due process—they can issue a cease and desist order and impose a civil penalty ranging from $10,000 up to a staggering $15,000,000.
That $15 million fine is a massive stick aimed squarely at ensuring compliance. For organizations that rely on revenue from major sporting events, the threat of such a penalty for procedural missteps means they will have to dedicate significant resources to overhauling their enforcement departments within the one-year implementation window (SEC. 6). The AG can also order the permanent removal of any member of the association’s governing body in serious cases.
The Trade-Off: Transparency vs. Accountability
While the bill increases due process and accountability for the athletic association, it quietly pulls back on public transparency. The Act requires the association to send two annual reports to the Attorney General summarizing all enforcement actions nationwide and state-by-state (SEC. 2(d)). However, the law explicitly states that these reports are not subject to public disclosure rules like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or similar state laws.
This means that while the AG will have a clear, centralized picture of enforcement trends, the public, media, and watchdog groups will lose access to this critical data. It creates a situation where the enforcement process is more structured and fair for the accused, but the overall oversight of the system—the big picture of who is getting penalized and why—becomes less transparent to the people who actually fund college sports: the fans and taxpayers.