This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** The publishing industry may have an AI slop problem, and readers are not OK. Book fans reacted with horror when Barnes & Noble CEO James Daunt said during an interview last month that as long as the “author” discloses that the book is AI-generated, it can be stocked on store shelves. “I have actually no problem selling any book, as long as it doesn’t masquerade or pretend to be something that it isn’t, and that it has an essential quality to it, and that the customer, the reader, wants it,” Daunt said during a “Today” show interview. “So as long as an AI-written book says it’s an AI-written book and doesn’t pretend to be something else and isn’t ripping off somebody else, as long as that’s clearly stated and the customer wants to buy it, then we will stock them,” he added. This led to more than a few meltdowns online, with diehard readers pushing back against the relentless wave of AI in the publishing world. All hope is not lost, however, as at least one publishing veteran said Daunt is wrong about one essential fact. In his experience, customers are moving away from AI and embracing human content instead. Keith Riegert, president of The Stable Book Group and CEO of Ulysses Press and VeloPress Books, has been watching the AI wars play out in real time. And while the Barnes & Noble CEO’s recent comments about AI book selling sent shockwaves through literary circles and beyond, Riegert wasn’t surprised. “I think that it makes sense. I think it is really disappointing, but it is the direction that everything is going,” he told The Daily Wire in an exclusive interview. “It is a very clear signal — and should be a clear signal to every industry — that this is a monumental threat to the way that people make a living and to just about every white-collar job.” Riegert knows the industry well. His parents founded Ulysses Press in 1983, launching with “Hidden Hawaii” and going on to create one of the pioneering adventure travel imprints of its era. When the internet essentially killed off travel books in the early 2000s, the company pivoted to data-driven publishing. The Stable Book Group now encompasses four publishing companies and a distribution operation.  During our conversation, Riegert said he thinks it’s worth paying attention to who’s pushing back on AI and what they’re saying. He said he keeps his finger on the pulse by regularly interacting with Gen Z. When he surveys his students in NYU’s publishing master’s program on AI use, the results catch him off guard. Only about a third report using AI on a daily basis. The other two-thirds say they actively refuse to use it. “This is a digital native generation that has grown up with iPads and cell phones and computers, and they are actively rebelling against a lot of that,” he said. This pushback goes beyond the classroom. Riegert said he sees the same hunger for authenticity showing up in consumer behavior across the board. He mentioned the recent popularity of vinyl records as evidence that analog objects are making a comeback. “A book or a vinyl record is now a luxury object because it is a symbol that you have the time to not be on a screen,” he said. One of his students recently told him that he brings a book to bars because scrolling his phone makes him feel “like an idiot,” but sitting with a novel is more likely to spark meaningful conversation, plus it makes him seem “approachable and cool.” Riegert said this is representative of how many of his students think and act in the world, which includes how they’re choosing to spend their money. However, it’s not all retro sunshine and analog roses. The AI revolution is definitely real, and it’s affecting the publishing industry in a big way despite some very vocal critics. The publishing exec said that AI is to nonfiction what cheap knockoffs are to Amazon, but at a massive scale. “There are plenty of books that are doing very well in nonfiction categories, especially, and now in fiction, that have fake authors with AI-generated images, and the books are targeting well-established niches — and they are selling,” Riegert said. “It does not seem like the consumer is put off by the fact that it is AI-generated, and it is going to have a very serious effect on the publishing industry and on human authors.” The numbers bear it out. Publishers Weekly recently reported that the total number of books entering the market jumped by one million titles year over year, a figure Riegert calls “mind-blowing.” Meanwhile, output from established Big Five publishers remained essentially flat. These books are mostly not coming from human beings. They’re coming from AI-generated content saturating the market. But here’s the irony Riegert keeps coming back to: The saturation that AI is creating may be what saves human publishing. He’s already seeing it in his own marketing data. The slick, AI-generated book trailers and polished social content are no longer working as customers react more strongly to grassroots campaigns, or at least ones that feel that way. “The marketing angles that are working for us now are taking us back to the original ways that we would market a book,” he said. “It is a shaky iPhone video of the author talking about their book. It is something that is very authentic. And if the video is too good, it is actually a detriment to the performance.” Consumers are growing skeptical of reviews, rankings, and products that feel fake. Riegert sees it as a key driver behind the ongoing resurgence of Barnes & Noble under James Daunt and the broader indie bookstore revival. A handwritten staff recommendation carries more weight than 10,000 five-star reviews on Amazon because it’s probably not the work of bots. Self-publishing dismantled the publishing industry, removing the barriers that aspiring authors once faced while trying to be heard. Now, those gates are open way too far. Riegert believes the industry is reverting to the way it was, at least partially. “I think that we’re starting to get to this pivot point where the role of the gatekeeper and the critic is going to come back,” he said. “At the end of the day, the most valuable thing that you have — and the thing that all of us media organizations are competing for — is your time. We’re all entertainment companies at the end of the day, and we’re fighting for your time. And if what we’re peddling is not worth your time, then it’s a big problem for us and for you.” Now that AI is being heavily scrutinized, there’s a chance Daunt will not end up stocking the shelves of Barnes & Noble with AI-generated books because the customers won’t want to buy them. We can only hope.

A retro tech brand known for defining the personal computer era is betting that some consumers are ready for a phone that does less, not more. Commodore, a once dominant 1980s computer brand, is making a comeback with a flip phone designed for users who want fewer distractions from the device in their pocket. Earlier this week, the company introduced the Commodore Callback 8020, a clamshell-style phone that blocks social media apps, web browsers, email and other digital distractions while preserving basic tools such as calls, texts, maps, music, and ride-sharing apps, according to The New York Post and CNET. The device is being marketed as a “digital detox” phone rather than a traditional dumb phone. Users can still access practical apps, including WhatsApp, Spotify, Uber, and maps, but the phone blocks platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, X, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, Discord, and Roblox. The Callback reportedly runs on Sailfish OS, a Linux-based operating system, and supports selected Android apps through Commodore’s app store. It also includes physical buttons, a removable battery, FM radio, a headphone jack and a 48-megapixel Sony camera. The phone’s most notable feature is not what it adds, but what it deliberately leaves out. Commodore says social media apps and browsers are blocked at the system level, making the device harder to convert back into the kind of smartphone many users are trying to escape. That distinction gives the Callback a more pointed pitch than nostalgia alone. The phone is not simply trying to revive the look of an older device or appeal to consumers who remember the pre-smartphone era. It is selling limits at a time when many users are increasingly aware of how much of their day is absorbed by screens, notifications, and algorithm-driven feeds. The product also sits between two extremes. It is not a bare-bones flip phone that leaves users with only calls and texts, but it is also not a full smartphone with unlimited access to the apps most associated with compulsive use. Its appeal depends on whether consumers believe a phone can remain useful while being intentionally restrictive. That is the core bet behind Commodore’s comeback. The company appears to be targeting people who do not want to disappear from modern life entirely, but also do not want every quiet moment filled by social media. The Callback keeps tools for transportation, communication, and navigation while cutting off the apps most likely to turn a quick check into an extended scroll. The phone is expected to start at $499, with higher-end editions reportedly priced around $640. Pre-orders are expected to open June 30. The price may be one of the biggest tests for the device. Many consumers are used to paying hundreds of dollars for smartphones that promise more features, better cameras and broader app access. Commodore is asking whether some people will pay a similar price for fewer distractions and a more controlled digital experience. The launch comes as interest grows in devices that reduce screen time without cutting users off from modern conveniences entirely. The Callback is aimed at people who still need basic connectivity but want a phone that makes constant scrolling less accessible by design. The timing may also speak to a broader health-conscious turn in American culture, as screen time, mental health, and digital addiction have become part of the Make America Healthy Again movement. Commodore’s Callback debuts with a simple answer to the problem: a phone that makes endless scrolling harder by design.

Weekend Plans is our exclusive lifestyle feature where we highlight the real off-duty routines of the most exciting people in culture.  This weekend, Congressman Brandon Gill and his wife Danielle D’Souza Gill take time out of their D.C. schedule to chat with The Daily Wire about why being a dad is Brandon’s most important role, how they’re making equally wholesome memories on the family’s Texas ranch and inside “the Swamp,” and what they hope their kids remember most about this magical chapter of their lives.  *** I legitimately feel like I’m running a casting session for the next Superman movie, watching actors auditioning for Clark Kent and Lois Lane get mic’d up for a chemistry read. Rep. Brandon Gill unpins the congressional flair from his lapel and knocks back a Celsius Arctic Vibe. Sporting heritage-chic in pearls and a white tweed skirt suit that sparkles like fresh snow, Danielle glows as she steadies her husband with a gentle touch.  I get teary watching a revealing off-camera moment unfold between them. Brandon and Danielle are a perfect match. Just over a year into his first term on Capitol Hill, Brandon has swiftly taken opponents to task, breaking out with viral moments in congressional hearings on illegal immigration, abortion, and alleged donor fraud by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Danielle’s warmth belies her fierce advocacy for faith and family. The daughter of political commentator Dinesh D’Souza, she has published works like “The Choice: The Abortion Divide In America,” which prove she’s developed a distinctive voice in the political arena. The couple couldn’t be busier raising their two young children Marigold and Winston while jet-setting between their home in Flower Mound, Texas, and D.C. I ask about their plans for Father’s Day. Danielle refuses to ruin the surprise, but dishes a few hints. “I’ll tell you what Brandon did for me for Mother’s Day,” she says. “It was so cute. He got one of those clay crafts, so we have Marigold’s handprint in it. I definitely have a high bar set for me to top for him for Father’s Day.” Assuring me there will be handmade crafts, she adds, “Marigold has recently gotten into painting, and we’ll do a couple extra things for the grandfathers.” “Conservatives believe that the family is the fundamental unit of society, and we do everything we can to live that out,” Brandon says. He clearly enjoys dad life. “Being a husband and a father is honestly far more rewarding than even being in Congress and being in the political fight because it’s something that’s going to stick around a long time.” An Ivy League romance Just looking at the Gills, anyone could assume it was love at first sight. “Eventually, I was able to get out of the friend zone,” Brandon jokes. Cue the popcorn, I wanted the full story. “Danielle and I met in college,” Brandon explains. They first crossed paths through the faith-based Christian Union on campus. “Dartmouth is a very, very liberal college. There aren’t a whole lot of Christians at Dartmouth, so it was a pretty small pool for Danielle to choose from.” He laughs, recalling their initial meet-cute at a bonfire. “I thought that she was very pretty, so I wanted to go up and start talking to her.” Their first dinner date didn’t spark a romance, but it definitely set the table. “Basically, the whole dinner, Brandon was asking me all these questions,” Danielle says. “I felt like I had gone an hour and was literally talking the whole time. I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, I really don’t know you,’ so I was like, ‘Where are you from?’” Danielle says Brandon then detailed his rural upbringing using the only supplies he had to work with. “There were paper tablecloths at this restaurant, so Brandon found the crayons, which were there to entertain children, and he started drawing different equipment. I didn’t grow up around ranch life, so that was new for me.” “It ended with me getting her flowers, and then getting stuck in the friend zone for two years,” Brandon remembers. The couple went on to marry in 2017. “You did write me a very sweet card,” Danielle assures Brandon of their first date. “I still have the card.” Brandon and Danielle Gill But first, coffee  Despite raising their kids in two different cities, the Gills try to keep home life as relaxed as possible. One-year-old Winston is usually the first to rise and shine, but Danielle says, “We have very slow mornings when Brandon has a day off.” “We’ll usually hang out in the living room and just drink our coffee and play with Winston and Marigold,” Brandon says. When they’re in Texas, they enjoy a stroll around the neighborhood. “Our neighbors got a donkey and some goats. Marigold loves the animals.” When they get the chance to visit Brandon’s parents, the kids get a taste of ranch life. “We take them out there as often as we can, drive around the ranch in the truck and give Marigold plenty of space to run around and see the wide open spaces,” Brandon says. “She loves cows and the deer whenever they’re out. We’ll drive the tractor, get a little bit of the Texas full-on ranch experience.” Cooking with lots of love When it comes to kitchen duty, Danielle’s doing most of the cooking. But what she’s cooking sounds like a scene out of “Dutton Ranch.” “We have a lot of meat from Gill Ranch,” Danielle says. “Brandon’s parents gave us half a cow a year ago, so we technically always have food on hand. We have the ranch meat that they raise, so we know it’s good quality.” She’ll happily hand over grilling duty to Brandon, and Danielle admits, “I probably am the baking person.” In an era where everything can be instantly ordered with a click, her perspective feels refreshingly analog. “Marigold and I made a cake for Winston’s birthday. He just turned one, so she did all the sprinkles on top,” she says. “I want to keep the tradition where we always bake the cake from scratch at home for a birthday, as opposed to buying a cake.”  Brandon and Danielle Gill The politics of playtime Ever since the couple went all-in on Brandon’s run for office just three months after Marigold was born, the family has been balancing life in public service through the playful eyes of their children. “Politics is a family affair for us,” Brandon says, describing his kid-friendly digs. “We’ve got a whole bookshelf built into the wall that’s full of toys for Marigold and Winston, so they can play whenever they’re in the office, and make a big mess of everything. Marigold will play hide-and-seek with us around the Capitol dome, or we’ll take them to the White House lawn and Winston will just speed crawl all over the place.” Based on the family’s recap of the White House Easter Egg Roll, this checks out. “We definitely have a lot of fun with it, and take them with us everywhere we go.” Danielle manages the travel days for a family that’s always on the move. “We try to be with Brandon as much as possible,” she says. “I think with our kids being so young, they’re very used to seeing Brandon every day, having him be a big part of their lives in a deeply involved way,” she explains. “It’s nice for him to be able to see them in the morning, or do bedtime routine, or just see him at some point in the work day, which wouldn’t be possible if we weren’t traveling with him.” Classic parenting in modern times The Gills have no rules around screen time at home — because they don’t need them. “We actually don’t have a TV in our home,” Danielle confirms. Still, if Marigold tunes in, it’s only for the vintage stuff. “When she travels on the plane, sometimes we let her watch ‘Tom and Jerry,’ ‘Popeye,’ like very old cartoons.” The family also sticks to the classics for bedtime stories. “As far as books … of course Bible stories, ‘Frog and Toad’’… Those are just so much better than the modern ones.” “We’ve got this children’s version of ‘Chronicles of Narnia’ that we’ll read to her,” Brandon says. “We’re reading a lot of Dr. Seuss now, too, as she’s getting a little bit older.” Brandon and Danielle genuinely agree that neither one has had to become the “strict” parent. “I feel like we have the same parenting philosophy,” Danielle notes. But if she has to pick, she says, “Probably me, just because I’m kind of with [the kids] a lot. But when Brandon needs them to go to bed, I can trust that he will make sure it happens.” Danielle calls Brandon “the spontaneous” one, confirming that her husband brings the adventure to the daily routine. “In Texas, he’s much more apt to do crazy things outdoors, take them to the water, take them to see animals, things like that. I’m probably more of the snuggly, cuddly parent, and maybe like a source for food,” she laughs.  Still, there may be another parental figure in the household. “Marigold has been obsessed with her little brother from the very beginning,” Danielle says. “She’s very motherly, she’s like always watching out for him. So, she’ll tell me, ‘Winston wants milk. Winston doesn’t want that.’ I think she thinks of herself as kind of the Winston interpreter. She loves dolls, so Winston’s just like a more fun version of the baby.” Brandon and Danielle Gill Family time designed by a toddler I’m curious as to what a busy young family in politics ever does to recharge. Brandon immediately flashes a glance to Danielle. “Do we rest?” They laugh. (I get the feeling that they don’t.) “I feel like a rejuvenating thing is when we get to go on a date night,” Danielle shares. “And I think running is a nice way to clear your head, to just get outside. Brandon definitely runs more.” Doing whatever they can to keep the whirlwind of Brandon’s career from overwhelming the family, Brandon explains, “A lot of our downtime is really just casual family time. It’s just being together, playing with the kids.” When they happen to have time to themselves, Marigold steps in as the family’s social chair. “We’ve got this little ball pit that Marigold likes to jump into, and she wants Winston to get into it, and then she wants Danielle and me to get into it … Marigold basically decides what we’re all doing.” For anyone curious about the soundtrack to these idyllic family moments, you won’t find this playlist on Spotify. “Marigold is a very good memorizer. She can recite ‘Wheels on the Bus.’ She likes to skip over a lot of verses,” Danielle says. And yet, Brandon explains that his daughter won’t be limited to bus lyrics. “She’ll walk around the house singing a combined mixture of ‘Jesus Loves Me’ and ‘Wheels on the Bus.’ She can somehow combine it all together.”  A time to remember As Brandon and Danielle forge their path in D.C., I ask what they hope their children remember about this unique American experience. “We want to make sure that Marigold and Winston have a very secure place,” Brandon says. “They’re young right now, but obviously we love them a lot.” I can tell. Danielle hopes they remember “that they had a very magical childhood that was very warm and that their parents were deeply involved in their lives. That they got to have a lot of adventures, and of course, a Christ-like foundation for life, and that they got to spend a lot of time being happy kids.”

Stadiums filled to capacity with fans in Collegetown, U.S.A. A marching band with full brass in sync with impeccable, crisp, choreographed movements. A cheer squad of young women wearing bright uniforms and brighter smiles — the Saturday ritual that is college football has taken a turn from the homespun, wholesome, right-of-passage, wistful alum, stuff of Americana to a multi-million dollar enterprise complete with eye-popping dollar bids over television rights, legal battles over players’ compensation, and the darker side of gambling. And that’s just football. College sports in the 21st century have evolved into a chaotic mess. But one senator is hoping to make sense of it all through a bipartisan bill. Will it be the last best hope of reviving the charm and spirit of college sports, or are we at the end of an unraveling American legacy? The Daily Wire sits down with Senator Ted Cruz to briefly talk about Iran, followed by an in-depth conversation to see if he can mark one in the W column and save college sports. *** Ben Domenech: I want to get your initial thoughts on the MOU, this deal, and what you think about it in terms of pros and cons, risk and reward. Ted Cruz: To the best of my knowledge, the administration has not yet briefed Congress on what this deal entails. I understand that the administration is doing background calls with reporters with the briefer, whom they identify as a “senior administration official.” And I’m told that the official read the MOU verbatim to the reporter. So I assume that is the text, but no one has confirmed it to me. BD: Assuming that it is essentially the framework that has been publicly discussed and that has been going back and forth, do you think that it’s a satisfactory end to achieve the goals that this administration set initially? TC: I am hoping there are more deep details and better details than what has been released so far. What has been released so far suggests that, unfortunately, the president is getting very poor advice when it comes to this deal. History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is a bad idea. Under the terms of what’s been released, somewhere between $10 billion and $30 billion will flow to the Ayatollah immediately before they make even a single nuclear concession. I think that’s ill-advised. That money, if it goes to the Ayatollah, will go to fund terrorists trying to kill Americans and weapons that will be used to try to kill Americans. It also appears to formalize a permanent role for the Islamic regime controlling the Strait of Hormuz. It is difficult to see what possible benefit to America could come from that. BD: When it comes to control of the Strait, the idea that they’re going to wait 60 days and then start charging tolls or fees — however you want to describe it — for going through, it shocks me that that’s something that is acceptable to this administration. TC: I do not believe the Ayatollah should be able to charge one penny for the free navigation of the seas. It has also been discussed that the financial reward could be $300 billion to the Ayatollah. If that is true, that would be three times more than the money Joe Biden and Kamala Harris funneled to the Ayatollah. It is a virtual certainty that if $300 billion went to the Ayatollah, that money would be used to murder Americans. I’ll also say the idea that we should want a Marshall Plan for Iran to come in and rebuild Iran like the United States did for Europe after World War II makes no sense whatsoever. President Trump was exactly right to initiate military action against Iran because, for 47 years, the regime has been waging war against America, has been the world’s leading funder of terrorism, and has been murdering Americans for 47 years. Nearly 1,000 Americans have been murdered by the Ayatollah and the Mullahs. That is why the president acted as a strong commander in chief to take out their military capacity, and it is not remotely in America’s interest for us to pay to rebuild that capacity that we just took out. BD: Let’s talk about sports. Only a slightly less fractious moment for sports in America, thanks to the college system and the changes that have happened in recent years. And you have a bipartisan bill to save college sports, with proponents and opponents who cut across political lines in interesting ways. What made you feel like you needed to weigh in on this topic and have a federal solution on these matters? TC: College sports is an incredible institution. At a time when Americans are divided on so many issues, sports is one of the few things that brings us together — students and alumni and fans and communities. Sharing your hometown team. It is uniquely American. No other nation has anything remotely comparable to what we have in college sports in the United States. College sports has also been an avenue for millions of young men and women to go to college and to get an education. Right now, there are more than 500,000 collegiate athletes competing across the country. Many of those are from low-income environments, where they would have few, if any, other viable paths to a college education. And yet college sports is in crisis right now. Every week, we see another program being canceled, women’s sports being canceled, track and field being canceled, Olympic sports being canceled, and non-revenue sports being canceled. The transfer portal is chaotic, with student-athletes transferring two, three, four, or five times, which is not good for them. It’s not good for the college. It’s not good for the fans. It’s not good for the sport. And for a student who transfers two, three, or four times, the odds are vanishingly small that the student will get anything resembling a college education. If you’re moving from school to school to school, the academic environment is one where students are being robbed of the opportunity to get a meaningful college education. You have college sports being governed by endless lawsuits and injunctions. Eligibility standards are all but nonexistent because of the chaos. And you asked why Congress needs to get involved? Well, that chaos was caused by the application of laws Congress passed, which means only Congress can change those laws. Only Congress can fix this problem. College sports, universities, and conferences have come to Congress, begging it to act. I’ve spent three years working on this problem, trying to bring Republicans and Democrats together. This is obviously a deeply divided time with real partisan differences on virtually everything, and miraculously, we were able to forge a bipartisan compromise to save college sports. And I’ve worked hand in hand with [Sen.] Maria Cantwell (D-WA), who is the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I’m the chairman, obviously. The two of us together have spent hundreds of hours negotiating this bill and reaching common ground. This bill is the only viable path for a bill that can actually pass the Senate and be signed into law. My hope is that we will get a big bipartisan vote behind the bill. BD: From your perspective, what are the three biggest problems? You mentioned the transfer portal, kids moving around, not getting an education. What are the three biggest problems that your bill is attempting to solve? TC: There are a number of different pieces in this bill that are really important. Number one is the transfer reform — it guarantees every student-athlete one free transfer, and after that, you can have a second transfer only in narrow, specified circumstances: if your coach leaves, your program is discontinued, or you’re the victim of sexual assault or sexual harassment. If you transfer a second time for any other reason, then that athlete has to redshirt a year. That provision alone will do a lot to fix the chaos because it ensures that athletes will not constantly enter the transfer portal and simply be acting as free agents, but rather will be student-athletes. Much of my focus was not about the superstars — the Michael Jordans of the world — they’re going to do fine. They’re going to make millions of dollars. They’re going to be on the cover of Wheaties boxes. They’re going to do great. My focus is very much on the 99% of student-athletes who will never play in the NBA. They’re never going to play in the NFL. But sports provide them a pathway to get a college degree. It also teaches them life skills — hard work and grit and discipline and teamwork and sportsmanship — all of which set them up for success in the future. So bringing some sanity to the transfer portal is an important element of this bill. Another important element of this bill is providing clear eligibility rules. Every athlete is entitled to five years of eligibility, a hard age cap of 24, so that you don’t have what we have right now, which is 27- and 28-year-olds competing against 17-year-olds. That’s not fair. And what it’s doing is crowding out high school graduates from the scholarship slots they used to get to go to school. The bill also makes clear that professional athletes can’t compete in college sports. If you choose to be a professional athlete, you’re no longer eligible to be a student-athlete in college. Both of those provisions are very important. The bill addresses the problem from two directions: cost and revenue. On the cost front, the bill provides the authority to enforce the House settlement and slow the constant cost spiral. Right now, virtually every athletic program in the country is losing millions of dollars; many are losing tens of millions. And if Congress doesn’t act, we’re on a path that, within five years, there will be 30 to 50 schools playing competitive college football. They’ll essentially be a mini-NFL, and the rest of the athletic programs will collapse. They will not be able to keep up with the arms race, and when they cancel football, football is what pays for every other sport, so the remainder of their sports will go away as well. That would be a disastrous outcome. That would be bad for student athletes, bad for colleges, bad for academic programs, and bad for fans. This bill, on the cost side, provides the authority to enforce revenue-sharing limits to keep costs manageable. And then on the revenue side, we provide the legal authority for colleges to join together and negotiate their media rights collectively as pooled media rights. That is designed to substantially increase the revenue that they extract for college sports. Right now, college football has roughly twice as many eyeballs. Roughly twice as many people watch college football as watch the NBA, and yet the NBA’s media deals are worth billions more than college football’s. That’s because right now every conference negotiates separately, and they’re fractured. By allowing the schools to negotiate jointly, I believe this will substantially grow the available revenue pie, and that revenue is what will enable these programs to survive and thrive. It’s also what enables us to keep and protect women’s sports, Olympic sports, and all of the remaining sports that are not college football. And I underscore that media pooling is purely voluntary. The bill does not force them to do that, but it creates an avenue they can pursue if they determine it is in their interest to do so. BD: How important is transparency in the NIL [Name, Image, and Likeness] world? TC: I think it’s very important. The bill has provisions that require reporting of NIL deals and protect the rights of student-athletes to be compensated. The old system, where student-athletes could not be compensated, was unfair. You had college sports producing millions of dollars of revenue, and everyone got a piece of the pie except for the athletes, and that was not a fair system. As a conservative, I believe you ought to be entitled to earn the fruits of your labor. And so this bill explicitly protects the right of athletes, number one, to participate in genuine NIL contracts. If a quarterback can sell millions of tennis shoes, then that quarterback ought to be able to reap millions of dollars as a result. Now, those NIL deals have to be genuine NIL deals for a valid business purpose. This also protects athletes’ right to share in the school’s revenue. Both of those are protected, but what it prohibits is phony NIL — essentially a booster with a bag of cash in a back alley simply paying an athlete to be at the school, and that kind of abuse, unfortunately, has been rampant. By requiring reporting of the NIL deal, the bill is designed to ensure transparency. The bill also puts important restrictions on agents. One problem we’re seeing across the country is unscrupulous agents taking advantage of often 17- or 18-year-old kids who are not financially sophisticated, extracting huge fees and exploiting these young athletes. And so this bill creates an agent registry, and it caps agent fees at 5%, which is consistent with where they are in the NFL or the NBA, and it provides important protections for student athletes. BD: Looking at the Brendan Sorsby situation, which obviously applies particularly to those who have issues with gambling, there are different polls that suggest that, given its ubiquity, it’s going to be a bigger problem going forward with athletes participating. What’s the solution to avoid this from being resolved just by local judges? There has to be a way to adjudicate this and feel like it has fairness and also understands these situations in ways that don’t feel like there’s something corrupt going on. TC: The Sorsby judicial decision was indefensible, and it is a perfect illustration of why this bill is necessary and of the chaos that currently exists in college sports. I’m very glad, by the way, that Texas Tech made the right decision to no longer continue down that path, but if the Protect College Sports Act had already been signed into law, you would never have had the judicial decision in Sorsby because this bill makes explicit that eligibility rules can be fully enforced and that gambling is explicitly a basis for denying eligibility. Gambling will only grow as a problem. Gambling goes right to the heart of sports integrity across the board, so this bill provides the authority to enforce those eligibility rules and prevent another situation like what happened with Sorsby. BD: How optimistic are you that you’ll be able to get it done? TC: I’m quite optimistic. Right now, the bill has two Democrat sponsors and two Republican sponsors. So [Sen.] Maria Cantwell and I, but then also [Sens.] Chris Coons (D-DE) and Eric Schmitt (R-MO). On the Democrat side, both Cantwell and Koons are senior Democrats. They have a lot of respect in their conference. My hope is that the markup will produce a meaningful bipartisan vote. I don’t know if it will, but I hope that it will. We’re having very productive conversations with members of the Commerce Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, and trying to find consensus and common ground. We’ve seen overwhelming support for this bill. Twenty-two conferences have come out and endorsed the bill. It’s been endorsed by the NFL, the NFL Players Association, and the NBA Players Association. It’s been endorsed by Coach Nick Saban and upwards of 50 college coaches across the country. Coach John Calipari has been vocal in supporting it. It has been endorsed by Notre Dame’s athletic director, who testified at the hearing. The breadth of support is significant. There have been a handful of critics, and I would say any critic bears the burden of pointing to the alternative, and I don’t believe there is a viable alternative. Some have pointed to the SCORE Act in the House. I like a lot of provisions of the SCORE Act. The House has worked hard on the SCORE Act, but Senate Democrats strongly oppose it. In order to pass into law, we’ve got to get at least 60 votes, and the SCORE Act would get zero Democrats in the Senate. What made this difficult was negotiating a compromise that could actually pass the Senate. My objective is not just to eke by with barely 60 votes. My hope is to get substantially more than 60 votes — a big bipartisan vote — and to do that, we had to compromise. I made compromises that I don’t like. I think Senator Cantwell made compromises that she doesn’t like. And we tried to reach a middle ground designed to solve the problem, and I think this is the only path that can result in legislation that is actually signed into law and able to solve the problem. ***

Superhero films are no longer Hollywood’s coin of the realm. Video game-based films are a safer bet — think the “Super Mario” franchise, “A Minecraft Movie,” and the “Sonic the Hedgehog” saga. Even “Superman,” the most consequential hero in the comic book canon, didn’t deliver the box office bounty as expected last year. Yet a certain wall-crawler defies this pop culture trend. “Spider-Man: Brand New Day,” set to open July 31, just reached the best first-day presales figures since 2021, according to Deadline. The film’s latest trailer, released June 17, teased fellow superheroes (like the Hulk) and pointed to yet another summer blockbuster. Spidey crushed the competition with 2021’s “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” which earned nearly $2 billion worldwide. The fourth installment in the series may not make that much money, but it’ll prove we still have a soft spot for Lycra-clad heroes. Why does Spider-Man endure? We’ll start with Stan Lee. The Marvel Comics maestro cracked the superhero code in his early days, understanding that flawed, relatable heroes matter more than invincible ones. Spider-Man’s alter ego, Peter Parker, was a picked-upon teen who pined for the girl of his dreams, Mary Jane, and struggled to make ends meet. His boss barked at him at The Daily Bugle, his schoolmates bullied him, and the world took away his parents at an early age. A radioactive spider bite changed everything, at least on paper. He was still the sweet, insecure kid deep down. That’s true in both the comics and on the big screen. Tobey Maguire’s “Spider-Man” (2002) found the web-slinger struggling to woo his beloved Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst), even though he could have spilled his secret and potentially won her over in a super way. His innate decency wouldn’t allow it. And he knew it also might put her life in jeopardy. Credit Hollywood’s casting gurus for finding the right Spideys at the right time. Maguire nailed the character’s naive approach and Everyman status. Andrew Garfield, his immediate successor, conveyed a similar sense of unease while slowly growing into his skills over two “Amazing Spider-Man” movies. Tom Holland effortlessly took the baton, and his aw-shucks shtick from “Captain America: Civil War” gave the film endless highlights. His Spidey even read his frenemies their Miranda rights during that film’s epic battle royale. Would any other hero approach a fight in that fashion? In a way, Spidey is one of us — uncomfortable with being a hero. If anything, Spider-Man getting the girl in the recent films could prove problematic. We love him a wee bit more when he’s pining for the girl of his dreams, not swinging from rooftop to rooftop with her by his side. That’s why the big moment at the end of “No Way Home,” where Doctor Strange causes Zendaya’s MJ to forget all about her beau, sets “Brand New Day” up in a satisfying manner. It also helps that the “Spider-Man” film series never went woke. Sony technically holds the keys to the webbed character’s cinematic kingdom, but it pairs with Disney’s MCU to bring him to screens. While Disney movies like “Eternals” and “The Marvels” pushed a progressive agenda, the “Spider-Man” saga focused on the fun. That meant no awkward gender swaps or forced same-sex subplots. Zendaya’s MJ isn’t technically the classic character from the comics and big-screen adaptations. Her nickname was a tip of the cap to the source material. Her MJ shared a few woke asides in 2017’s “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” her first feature as the character. That’s where it started and ended, and she sounded like too many Gen Z types anyway. No lectures, no clunky messages beyond the hero’s signature wisdom, shared by Uncle Ben: “With great power comes great responsibility.” Even the animated “Spider-Verse” movies have avoided woke flourishes and maintained their cinematic excellence. The visuals from the first two installments — and a third has been delayed until 2027 — set a very high bar at a time when CGI animation is routinely stunning. Embracing the Miles Morales arc of the Spidey universe expanded the film’s appeal to a broader audience without detracting from the character’s core traits. So did the recent “Spider-Noir” Prime Video series, giving the web crawler a neo-noir edge. Credit also goes to the minds behind the recent “Spider-Man” live-action films. The saga’s newest iteration has felt organic in a way that has eluded both “Star Wars” and the once-mighty MCU. We’re watching Peter Parker grow up, establish his personal boundaries, and realize his full potential. The aforementioned franchises felt as if they were being assembled on the fly, with no overarching plan. The saga also found a way to shake up the formula without losing audiences. Consider the loss of Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) in “No Way Home.” Her death allowed Peter Parker to grieve a loved one in powerful ways. Yes, this saga is full of humor and heart, but it’s also achingly human. Holland recently nominated Owen Cooper, 16, of “Adolescence” fame, to take over as the next Spider-Man. That change is inevitable, given the character’s enduring popularity and Spider-Man’s creative DNA. Peter Parker should be a youthful figure. It’s part of his appeal and distinctive persona. At 30, Holland is getting a little long in the tooth to be playing a college student — even if he looks young enough to pull it all off. Either way, Spider-Man isn’t the mightiest Avenger, let alone the toughest superhero. He’s still able to put fannies in seats better than any other costumed crusader. Long may he swing. *** Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic, and editor of HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. He’s also the host of The Hollywood in Toto Podcast. Follow him at @HollywoodInToto.