The topic of compensation for college athletes is one that President Trump has decided to address directly.
In recent years, college sports have undergone significant changes due to legal battles and name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements. Now, the president is looking to reshape this already precarious situation.
His latest move is an executive order, which, while lacking strong legal weight, aims to open discussions on the matter. In what he describes as a mission to “save college sports,” Trump seeks to prohibit third-party payments to athletes and urges universities to allocate their resources towards women’s and Olympic sports.
Additionally, he wants the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board to clarify the employment status of student-athletes, while also calling for the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate relevant antitrust laws.
“It’s clear that President Trump is deeply engaged in sports issues, and he’s making a statement with this executive order,” noted Mark Conrad, a professor of law and ethics at Fordham University, reflecting on the situation.
Currently, student-athletes are enjoying various victories regarding their earning potential, especially through endorsements and other financial agreements with specific schools.
With this new order, Trump is particularly targeting payments from outside entities that aim to financially support athletes, often disguising these transactions as endorsements.
For example, Texas Longhorns quarterback Arch Manning has achieved the remarkable earning potential of $6.5 million from partnerships with well-known companies such as Uber and Red Bull.
A recent landmark antitrust ruling, referred to as the House Settlement, granted universities the ability to pay athletes directly, capping payments at $20 million per school annually.
However, there’s a great deal of debate surrounding these victories, with critics voicing concerns over pay-for-play methods and rules that now allow athletes to switch schools without penalties.
These grievances have given rise to new lawsuits against the House Settlement.
“To sum it up, we’re still navigating a landscape filled with uncertainty, and it looks like we might remain in this gray area for a while,” Conrad explained, as national laws and various sports conferences grapple to establish their own rules or allow athletes to form unions.
Advocates are beginning to worry that only a handful of compensated athletes could jeopardize other sports.
Trump’s executive order expresses concern over a recent surge of lawsuits that challenge the rules governing athlete compensation and recruitment practices, suggesting they could destabilize university sports.
“While some changes that benefit student-athletes should continue, failing to keep reasonable regulations in place poses a serious risk to many college sports,” he emphasized.
Many sports that rely on Olympic funding, such as swimming and gymnastics, bring in little revenue compared to NCAA football and basketball.
“There’s anxiety that this issue is compounded by our ongoing uncertainty regarding how Title IX applies to payment allowances under the House Settlement. Schools might start cutting programs to address budget constraints,” he added.
Though Trump’s executive order lacks legal backing, he has hinted at withholding federal funds over these matters—something he’s done before, particularly related to issues around transgender athletes in women’s sports.
However, should laws aligned with Trump’s views be enacted, the impact could be substantial.
“If you look at Trump’s influence within the Republican Party and the current congressional majority, it appears unlikely that any law or bill would be favorable unless it aligns with this executive order,” remarked an observer.
The “score law” currently under consideration in Congress shares several features with Trump’s executive order, primarily offering antitrust protections to the NCAA. However, it faces pushback from Democrats who argue that college athletes are not compensated fairly, complicating its passage.
“If the score law is enacted, the implications are real. We won’t revert to pre-2000 eras, but we likely won’t treat students as employees, which would establish more stability,” he noted.
“This could indeed benefit the NCAA and contribute to system stability, but it may not serve the best interests of many student-athletes,” he warned.
Moreover, some universities might possess enough resources to operate outside the NCAA framework altogether.
“When discussing NCAA regulations, keep in mind that it’s simply an organization. Schools aren’t required to participate. Wealthy institutions can choose to detach from the NCAA and function independently,” said Michael Lowe, a higher education lawyer.
