Trump dives into the turbulent waters of pay for college athletes
In recent years, university sports has already gone through major changes from litigation and the world of name, image and likeness (NIL) deals, but the president has signaled he wants to reshape the already fragile system.
His most recent action on the subject was an executive order that, though it has little legal force, could drive the conversation going forward. In the order, which boldly proclaims it 'saves college sports,' Trump seeks to ban 'pay-for-play' deals with third parties, as well as calling on schools to dedicate scholarships and money to women's and Olympic sports.
Trump also wants the secretary of labor and the National Labor Relations Board to clarify the employment status of student athletes and the attorney general and Federal Trade Commission to examine relevant antitrust laws.
'It's very clear that President Trump is very interested in the sports issues, and it's very clear that he has inserted himself into this debate, and that's really the background of that executive order,' said Mark Conrad, director of the Sports Business Concentration and a professor of law and ethics at Fordham University's Gabelli School of Business.
Currently, student athletes have snagged multiple wins for revenue streams, particularly through endorsements and pay-for-play to participate at a specific school.
In his order, Trump targeted third-party pay-for-play, when an outside entity tries to pay an athlete for their sports participation, sometimes disguising it as an endorsement.
Arch Manning, the quarterback for the Texas Longhorns, has the highest current NIL evaluation of any college athlete at $6.5 million, earning money from partnerships with companies including as Uber and Red Bull.
Students saw a major victory in June after a landmark anti-trust ruling known as the House settlement said universities will be allowed to directly pay their athletes, with an annual cap of $20 million per school.
But all of these wins have been controversial, Conrad notes, with critics unhappy about pay-to-play and new rules that allow players to transfer between colleges without a penalty in play time.
The dissatisfaction has led to fresh lawsuits against the House settlement.
'Basically, to sum this whole thing up, is that we're in a still in a period of uncertainty, and we probably will remain in the period of some uncertainty until' there is national legislation, sport conferences create their own rules or players unionize, Conrad said.
Advocates have begun to fear a small number of well-compensated students could jeopardize other sports.
'Waves of recent litigation against collegiate athletics governing rules have eliminated limits on athlete compensation, pay-for-play recruiting inducements, and transfers between universities, unleashing a sea change that threatens the viability of college sports,' Trump's executive order reads.
'While changes providing some increased benefits and flexibility to student-athletes were overdue and should be maintained, the inability to maintain reasonable rules and guardrails is a mortal threat to most college sports,' it added.
Many of the sports that feed into the Olympics, such as swimming, track and gymnastics, do not generate nearly the revenue brought in by NCAA football or basketball.
'It's a concern that's compounded by the fact that we don't really know yet how Title IX is going to be interpreted in connection with the payments permitted under the House settlement. So, right now, there is this concern that schools are going to start cutting programs to make up their budget shortfalls,' said Callan Stein, a lawyer who advises higher education clients in the area of college athletics for Troutman Pepper Locke.
While the executive order does not have the backing of law, Trump threatened the loss of federal funding over the issue. And it wouldn't be the first time he has withheld federal money from universities for sports-related issues after previously hitting institutions over transgender athletes in women's sports.
But legislation with Trump's backing could have a far greater impact.
'Given President Trump's leadership over the party, over the entire Republican Party, which is the majority in Congress right now, it seems unlikely to me that any law or bill would progress through either chamber, really, if it wasn't consistent with the policy, the policies that are stated in this executive order,' said Stein.
The legislation on the issue currently working its way through Congress is the SCORE Act, which has many of the same characteristics as Trump's executive order.
The SCORE Act would give some antitrust protection to the NCAA, among other things, but is unpopular among Democrats due to concerns college athletes will not be compensated fairly, meaning it would be difficult to overcome a Senate filibuster to pass it.
'If SCORE becomes law, there will be practical implications. It won't go back to the pre-2000 era, but it will certainly go back. You're not going to see this movement to treat students as employees,' along with creating stability for schools, Conrad said.
'It will certainly help the NCAA. It'll help, arguably, stabilize the system, but not necessarily in the best interest of many students,' he added.
And there may even be colleges rich and powerful enough to feel like they no longer need to be part of the NCAA or beholden to its rules.
'If we're talking about just law that relates to the NCAA, remember, the NCAA is just an organization. Schools don't have to be part of the NCAA. There's long been concerns that the big money schools don't need the NCAA anymore, and could just form their own entity and do their own thing, and at a certain point, if the money's enough, why would they, and if you start passing laws to restrict how they operate in the framework of the NCAA, why wouldn't they just say, 'Bye, bye, NCAA,'' said Michael Lowe, an attorney in the higher education and NIL space for Troutman Pepper Locke.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Bill Maher, Dr. Phil weigh in on Trump's redistricting fight: ‘Bulls—'
Dr. Phil McGraw called the President Trump-led national redistricting war 'Bulls—' during an interview with Comedian Bill Maher. McGraw, during a Friday interview on HBO's 'Real Time with Bill Maher,' debated with Maher around the fact that redistricting is done by both Democrats and Republicans, as well as between censuses. 'Texas is doing it because they say because they've got more Republican voters now, they should have more representation,' McGraw said in the interview highlighted by Mediaite. 'Is that bulls—? Yeah, sort of.' This comes amid a brewing battle over redistricting as Trump calls for the Commerce Department to conduct a new census ahead of the next scheduled one in 2030. Earlier this month, Texas Democrats fled the state to prevent a quorum to vote on a new gerrymandering map that would give Republicans five new seats in Congress come the 2026 midterms. Texas Gov. Greg Abbot (R) called for the lawmakers to be arrested for abandoning their post. The goal is to bring them back and force a vote in the Texas House. Since the Democratic legislators are not in Texas, however, Trump has touted the idea of enlisting the FBI to arrest them, which has sparked fury among Democrats. Trump, seeking to maintain a Republican majority in Congress, also asked the Commerce Department to do a new census ahead of the one planned for 2030. In normal times, the census is done every ten years, and redistricting is done after this data is collected.
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
CIA must pull its weight to free Mahmood Habibi in Afghanistan
For many people, August is a fun time to enjoy summer vacation. But for our family, each Aug. 10 reminds us that another year has passed and my brother, Mahmood Habibi, remains in Taliban custody. My brother is a U.S. citizen who obtained citizenship after working on civil aviation issues in support of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. After the U.S. left Afghanistan, he returned to work as a contractor for Asia Consultancy Group, which manages the air traffic control system at Kabul's airport and the cell towers in downtown Kabul. Shortly after the July 2022 drone strike that killed al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, my brother was arrested along with 30 other employees of his company. They were taken to the headquarters of the General Directorate of Intelligence, the Taliban's feared secret police, and interrogated about the company's involvement in the strike. It became apparent that the Taliban believed the CIA used cameras atop the company's cell towers to target its strike against Zawahiri. Indeed, the missile they used had to be guided to its target by sight, as it used blades rather than a warhead. Eventually, almost all the 31 people were let go, but not my brother — the only U.S. citizen they have. We have been fighting for three years now to get the Taliban to admit they are holding Mahmood so that he can be traded for. Other Americans — Ryan Corbett, George Glezmann, Faye Hall, and William McKenty — were arrested and released in that time, but the Taliban denies they ever had my brother. This denial comes in the face of overwhelming witness testimonies and technical evidence affirming that they arrested him. The Taliban even claimed that they never heard of him — that they looked in their jails and did not find him. As a result, they asserted that he must be dead. In contrast, people held with my brother by the secret police testified that they saw him. One person detained with my brother later reported: 'Even though we were kept in separate rooms next to each other, I could hear Mahmood's voice when he talked. At one point I personally saw Mahmood and one more [Asia Consultancy Group] employee in this … facility.' Congress has been supportive of our efforts. Parallel House and Senate resolutions are being submitted by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Sen. Corey Booker (D-N.J.). The State Department and FBI have been incredibly supportive of my family, and their efforts under the Trump administration are so much more effective than under the Biden Administration. Whereas the Biden Administration politely asked for the Taliban's help, the Trump administration is now demanding that they hand my brother over. My family feels like we finally have someone fighting for us. Both the FBI and State Department worked together with us to offer a $5 million reward for my brother under the Rewards for Justice program. The National Security Council has also been working to create the conditions to bring Mahmood home and we are grateful to the Trump Administration for their advocacy. Unfortunately, the CIA has not been doing all it can to bring my brother home. They are the outlier in the U.S. government. Should my brother die in Taliban custody, I will consider his blood to be on their hands. Aside from its apparent inaction now, the CIA's first sin was that it failed to warn ACG to direct my brother, who was in the United Arab Emirates at the time of the drone strike, not to go back to Kabul. If the agency's collaboration with the company got my brother arrested, they had a duty of care to tell the company to warn employees against returning so soon after the strike. The best evidence that my brother had nothing to do with it was the fact that he returned to Kabul so soon afterward. At a time when the U.S. has cut off most of our funding to Afghanistan, we believe the CIA is still providing Title 50 support to its General Directorate for Intelligence — the same entity that arrested my brother and now denies having ever heard of him. We believe that the CIA has not leveraged this counter-terrorism relationship to encourage them to free my brother. We believe the CIA is ignoring an American citizen it could help, and who is only in a horrible situation because of its failure to warn him, in favor of a desire to play whack-a-mole with the Taliban against ISIS fighters in Afghanistan. I'm saying 'we believe' this because the CIA has refused every request we have made for a meeting — through the State Department, through the National Security Council and directly — for the last three years. If the CIA wants to be left alone in its efforts to work with Afghan authorities, we have no objection. We are taxpayers and we hate terrorists too. But the only way either the Taliban or the CIA will get peace from us is if the CIA leverages its relationship to encourage the Taliban to let my brother go. In the meantime, we hope the House and Senate Intelligence committees will look into this issue for us.
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Daylight saving time: Will this be the last time we ‘fall back?'
(NEXSTAR) — It can be hard to imagine the dark, cold nights of November when you're in the throes of August, but believe it or not, we're not far from those drearier days. That means we're also not far from the biannual tradition you either appreciate, despise, or otherwise forget about: the changing of the clocks for daylight saving time. You don't have to rush to check your calendar; we're several weeks from November 2. But not long ago, it seemed the U.S. may have been gearing up to treat it like any other Sunday. Within the last several months, bills to 'lock the clocks' have been introduced, a Senate committee hearing has been held, and even President Donald Trump has weighed in on the discussions. Nonetheless, introduced bills have stalled, no more hearings have been held, and the need to set your clocks (in most states) back an hour remains. 'Tariff rebates' proposed: How would they work? So what does the future of the biannual changing of the clocks look like for the U.S.? So far, a lot like its past. More than a century ago, the U.S. temporarily observed permanent daylight saving time — setting the clocks forward an hour without setting them back a few months later — during World War I. It lasted roughly a year and returned during World War II. That then set off decades of states and cities deciding what time to observe without much guidance. There was a brief reprieve from the chaos when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act in 1966, formalizing when the country was on daylight saving time and standard time. A few years later, we tried permanent daylight saving time during an energy crisis, only for it to lose favor and be ditched. Since the mid-1970s, we've changed our clocks twice annually. Most recent efforts targeting the practice — primarily led by Congressmen from Florida — have focused on putting the country back on permanent daylight saving time, a move many health experts disagree with. As in years past, the Senate and House bills to do as such have received bipartisan support and been passed off to committees, only to stall out. What would change if daylight saving time became permanent? The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation did hold a hearing in April that examined 'the various issues around whether the country should continue 'springing forward' and 'falling back' each year with time.' Witnesses who support permanent daylight saving time and an alternative, permanent standard time, shared their opinions, and the bill advanced out of committee. It still needs a revote in the Senate, a spokesperson told Nexstar. 'Americans are sick and tired of changing their clocks twice a year — it's an unnecessary, decades-old practice that's more of an annoyance to families than a benefit to them,' Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) previously said while introducing his Sunshine Protection Act alongside Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) introduced companion legislation in the House. 'President Trump and the American people are on board with locking the lock, and now it's time we pass the Sunshine Protection Act to make Daylight Saving Time permanent.' 'It's clear that Americans want to do away with changing their clocks twice a year, and my bill will end this outdated practice,' Rep Buchanan said in a statement to Nexstar. 'We've had very promising conversations with House leadership, Energy and Commerce committee members and the Trump team about holding hearings and acting on my bill this Congress. It's clear that public support and political headwinds are on our side, and I look forward to my bill becoming law.' Some states, meanwhile, have taken it upon themselves to enact legislation that would put them on permanent daylight saving time — in most cases, however, they need Congress's approval. Only two states observe year-round standard time, an option afforded them by Congress' 1966 Uniform Time Act. States cannot opt for permanent daylight saving time. In most cases, the states standing on that side of the clock have introduced or passed measures calling on Congress to enact permanent daylight saving time or outlining conditions in which the state would observe daylight saving time permanently, typically based on actions by Congress or neighboring states. Why experts say keeping standard time is 'undeniably' better for us A House bill to give states the power to observe daylight saving time all year has been introduced and referred to committee. Multiple other states, however, have seen legislation introduced during their current legislative sessions to observe permanent standard time or exempt it from daylight saving time. Such bills in Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia have failed to pass already this year. Legislation to observe permanent daylight saving time in Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia was also unable to pass. Some states have not considered clock-locking legislation, either this year or in recent history. That includes Michigan, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. In the last five years, no related proposals have been brought forth in the District of Columbia or Rhode Island.
