College athletes across the United States are increasingly facing harassment from sports fans, particularly those who bet on games. This issue has sparked calls for federal legislation to better protect student-athletes from abusive messages and threats. Some athletes, like Florida State forward Cam Corhen and North Carolina forward Armando Bacot, have received hateful or critical messages after injuries or poor performances, often from individuals with a financial stake in the outcomes of games. These messages can be particularly harmful, as student-athletes already deal with immense pressure to perform academically and athletically while maintaining public-facing profiles due to name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities. The rise of legalized sports betting has amplified the problem, as fans who bet on games are more likely to target athletes they perceive as having let them down. One in three high-profile athletes report receiving abusive messages from people who have placed wagers on their performance. Prop bets, which allow gamblers to bet on specific player statistics, have made it easier for fans to focus their harassment on individual athletes. This has led some advocates to push for a ban on prop bets in college sports, though such measures may face resistance from the gambling industry. Current efforts to address the issue, such as the NCAA’s "Don’t Be a Loser" campaign, are seen as insufficient in deterring online abuse. The legal landscape is also fragmented, with some states banning prop bets and others allowing them, making it difficult to provide consistent protection for athletes who compete across state lines. Proposed federal legislation aims to change this by introducing criminal penalties for individuals whose online conduct causes substantial emotional distress or fear for an athlete’s safety. This model is based on a New York Senate Bill and would also allow athletes to sue those who repeatedly harass them, creating a financial disincentive for such behavior. Critics may argue that the legislation infringes on free speech, but the proposed measures are designed to target true threats and repeated harassment, not legitimate criticism of performance. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that speech intended to threaten or intimidate is not protected under the First Amendment. A federal approach would provide a consistent standard of accountability across all states, ensuring that athletes receive a baseline level of protection regardless of where they compete or where the harassment originates.