Trump Executive Order on College Sports Unlikely to Move the Needle
A draft of the order, obtained by Yahoo, adopts the viewpoint that big-time college sports has morphed into an unworkable, volatile and overly litigious framework. The order negatively references unlimited transfers, the prospect of college athletes gaining employment recognition and a 'chaotic race to the bottom' with states opportunistically using NIL laws to supply 'competitive advantages' to their universities.
More from Sportico.com
Sporticast 468: 'Pay Us What You Owe Us'
Nevada WR Catches Court Win as NCAA Eligibility Cases Split
NBA Seeks Supreme Court Review of 'Bork Bill' Case After Split Rulings
Dubbed 'Saving College Sports,' the order directs several federal officials and agencies— including the U.S. Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Secretary of Education, the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board—to pursue policies that would allegedly ensure the 'long-term availability' of college sports opportunities. Another aspiration is 'greater uniformity, predictability, and cooperation with respect to Federal and State laws and enforcement practices concerning college athletics.'
The order provides several specific requests. They include agency actions within 60 or 120 days and a directive that 15 U.S.C. 7802—the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, a law that Sportico revealed has not been enforced—be enforced.
For the most part, however, the order is aspirational and refrains from enunciating policy positions. Notably absent are declarations that the NCAA and its members ought to be exempt from antitrust scrutiny or that college athletes aren't employees.
The absence of many specifics is important for several reasons. For starters, agencies that would be directed by Trump are already capable of issuing regulations and other administrative actions to exert control over college sports.
To that point, in the last week of Joe Biden's presidency, federal agencies entered the college sports legal debate without an accompanying executive order. The Department of Education issued a fact sheet expressing that colleges paying athletes for their NIL counts as athletic financial assistance under Title IX. A month later, Trump's Department of Education rescinded that fact sheet.
Biden's Department of Justice also filed a statement of interest in the House litigation. The statement expressed that a revenue share cap of $20.5 million, while better than not sharing any revenue, is still an antitrust problem, because it's a cap that hasn't been collectively bargained. The DOJ under Trump didn't pursue the issue as U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken weighed the granting of final approval to the settlement.
To be sure, a Trump executive order would elevate the importance and urgency for those agencies to tackle college sports issues. But it's not an essential ingredient. Agencies could act on their own just as they did in January.
Also consider how agencies would implement Trump's order. The more agencies look under the hood of college sports, the more likely they'll see potential drawbacks and limitations of weighing in. The federal government doesn't control the universe of college sports issues, some of which extend well beyond government control.
Take employment. A federal declaration that college athletes aren't employees would presumably mean they're not—at least as the Trump administration sees it—employees under the two most relevant federal laws, the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
That type of declaration would be challenged in court, since it is a debatable interpretation of federal statutes. Put another way, whether college athletes are employees under the NLRA or FLSA is ultimately a question for the courts, not an agency or even the president.
That is particularly true given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Judges are no longer expected to defer to agency interpretation when a statute is ambiguous, meaning judicial deference to agencies, including those in the Trump administration, has been reduced.
Even assuming an agency declaration that college athletes aren't employees withstood judicial review, it wouldn't foreclose the possibility of athletes being recognized as employees under states' laws. There are labor and employment laws in all 50 states, and they vary. There's also the chance that a college or conference voluntarily recognizes athletes as employees, a move that has not happened at least in part because it would violate NCAA rules. But such a move is not implausible—especially since collective bargaining with college athletes would put an end to antitrust lawsuits over those athletes' rights.
Even if an agency declaration says that any, and all, conflicting state employment laws are preempted by federal action, that wouldn't automatically make preemption happen. Preemption is a highly litigated topic that intersects with powers enunciated by the U.S. Constitution and would surely be litigated in this context.
Antitrust is another relevant subject for Trump's possible executive order. The draft states that though the settlement resolving the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations will provide back pay and revenue sharing, it 'provides little assurance that it will not soon be upended by new litigation seeking more compensation with fewer rules, further reducing in the number of student-athletes.'
Trump might want the NCAA, conferences and colleges to be exempt from antitrust scrutiny or to receive deferential treatment.
On the surface, a Trump or agency-announced antitrust exemption or deferential standard would make it more difficult for athletes to sue regarding topics like compensation and eligibility. But the president and his agencies can't change the language of the Sherman Act, which has applied to college sports for decades and which the U.S. Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston (2021) said not only governs NCAA rules but does so without deference.
It's also noteworthy that conservative judges, including those whom Trump nominated, have been among the most critical of college sports amateurism from an antitrust perspective. And there are state antitrust laws, too, that fall outside of federal authority and thus outside any executive order.
Trump might want the Department of Justice to take a permissive approach to antitrust issues in college sports. One could say the DOJ under both Republican and Democratic presidents has already done that: Save for the DOJ joining Ohio v. NCAA (2024), which concerned transfer rules, and suing the NCAA in 1998 under the Americans with Disabilities Act over treatment of college athletes with learning disabilities, the DOJ has largely been on the sidelines. Meanwhile, a long list of athletes, from Ed O'Bannon to Shawne Alston, sued the NCAA on antitrust grounds.
That highlights a key point: Private individuals and businesses can bring antitrust lawsuits. The government isn't needed since federal antitrust law provides for a private right of action. No matter how the DOJ and other agencies oversee college sports, athletes will continue to be able to bring antitrust claims.
There are still other legal complications from a potential executive order on college sports. Any order that leads to college athletes being denied the same rights and opportunities as their classmates would invite an Equal Protection lawsuit. Restricting athletes' expressions, including through limiting NIL opportunities, could trigger First Amendment and right of publicity litigation.
Trump might not need an executive order to influence college sports. If the SCORE Act passes Congress—a big 'if' given that college sports bills in Congress in recent years have all flamed out—Trump would have the chance to sign a college sports act into law. Of course, the SCORE Act could be challenged in court, including on grounds mentioned above. But given that it would be federal law, it would stand a stronger chance of sticking than an executive order.
Best of Sportico.com
College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NBA.com names Nuggets' Nikola Jokic top player in the West
names Nuggets' Nikola Jokic top player in the West originally appeared on The Sporting News The NBA season is creeping up with just over two months before the start of the regular season. This being said, rankings of teams and players are starting to come out. Shaun Powell of was able to make a list of the top players in the Western Conference on Wednesday, and the Denver Nuggets' Nikola Jokic topped the list, coming in at the No. 1 spot in front of top players like 2024-25 MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Anthony Edwards, Luka Doncic, and more. Jokic, 30, is widely known as one of the best – if not the best – basketball players on the planet. Although he lost the MVP race to the Oklahoma City Thunder's Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Jokic has won the Most Valuable Player award in three out of four years in 2021, 2022, and 2024. The Nuggets' franchise superstar just turned 30 in February, and he's shown no signs of slowing down. In the 2024-25 season, Jokic averaged a triple-double with 29.6 points, 12.7 rebounds, and 10.2 assists while shooting 57.6% from the field and 41.7% from beyond the three-point line. "Not only is he the best player in basketball, but he's having one of the all-time runs in basketball history... His triple-double capability on a nightly basis and franchise-carrying shoulders that still endure are evidence of No. 1 greatness," Shaun Powell wrote in his article. After getting eliminated by the championship-winning Oklahoma City Thunder in the 2025 NBA Playoffs, Jokic and the Nuggets will look to capture their second championship title next season.
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ESPN Analyst Gives Nuggets Excellent Offseason Grade After Multiple Moves
ESPN Analyst Gives Nuggets Excellent Offseason Grade After Multiple Moves originally appeared on Athlon Sports. It has been a busy offseason for the Denver Nuggets as they have made multiple changes to their roster to chase another championship next season. Of course, the Nuggets have been eliminated in the second round of the playoffs over the last two seasons after winning the title behind Nikola Jokic, Jamal Murray and Aaron Gordon in 2023. Denver began the offseason by trading Michael Porter Jr. and a 2032 first-round pick to the Brooklyn Nets for Cameron Johnson as they added a three-point sharpshooter to their lineup and also freed up cap space. With their extra cap space, the Nuggets signed Tim Hardaway Jr. and reunited with Bruce Brown, who played a key role for them during their championship run in 2023, while also landing Jonas Valanciunas from the Sacramento Kings for Dario Saric. With these moves, ESPN's Kevin Pelton gave the Nuggets an A- offseason grade. 'After the dust cleared, Denver's offseason resulted in the strongest Nuggets team on paper since they won the 2023 title, highlighted by swapping Michael Porter Jr. for Cameron Johnson at the cost of a valuable 2032 unprotected first-rounder,' Pelton wrote. Pelton makes a great point about how the Nuggets' roster looks to be the best they have had since their championship season in 2023. Of course, the Nuggets have struggled with their bench unit over the past few seasons but with the additions of Hardaway Jr., Valanciunas and Brown, they clearly made it a priority to upgrade their depth this summer. While that may be the case, they will likely not be bringing back Russell Westbrook who played a key role for them off the bench last season. Because of this, the Nuggets do lack a true backup point guard, though Brown could fill that role next season. With these moves, the Nuggets will now enter next season as a clear contender in the Western Conference with Jokic leading the way as they try to capitalize on another championship. This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Aug 4, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Firefly Aerospace to price US IPO as it sets sights on a positive liftoff
By Pritam Biswas and Arasu Kannagi Basil (Reuters) -Northrop Grumman-backed Firefly Aerospace, the buzzy space technology startup that put a lander on the moon, is set to price its U.S. IPO later on Wednesday. In a nascent but rapidly growing commercial space industry, Firefly's IPO has attracted investor attention because it successfully landed its uncrewed Blue Ghost spacecraft on the moon in its first attempt in March. Cedar Park, Texas-based Firefly Aerospace is set to sell 16.2 million shares of its stock, priced between $41 and $43 apiece. This range was raised earlier this week, signaling strong demand. U.S. President Donald Trump's focus on commercializing space technology and safeguarding the national interests in space has attracted venture capital firms and billionaires. Elon Musk's SpaceX — the most valuable private company in the world — has become a critical part of the U.S. satellite network, even prompting a need across the government to look for more contractors. The U.S. government is betting that diversifying its contractor base will foster innovation and cut the huge costs of sending rockets to space, as well as reduce over-reliance on a single provider for critical missions. NASA's procurement process now includes new entrants such as Firefly Aerospace and Sierra Space, alongside legacy companies, leveraging commercial partnerships for lunar landers, space station modules and cargo deliveries. While space-related IPOs have been scarce in recent years, the tide is starting to turn in 2025. Firefly's listing comes on the heels of the successful New York flotations of space and defense firms Karman, AIRO Group and Voyager. As of Tuesday's close, shares of Karman have more than doubled from their offer price, while Voyager has gained 10%. "Given Firefly and the success of Voyager, I think you are going to see several more space-related companies test the waters of a public offering," said Ross Carmel, partner at law firm Sichenzia Ross Ference Carmel. TO THE MOON Formed in 2017, Firefly designs and manufactures small- to medium-lift launch vehicles, lunar landers and orbital vehicles. It had a backlog of roughly $1.1 billion and over 30 planned launches under contract as of March 31. While Houston-based Intuitive Machines' Odysseus lander was the first private lander to reach the moon last year, it made a lopsided touchdown, landing mostly intact but dooming many of its onboard instruments. Firefly's was the second, but its Blue Ghost spacecraft landed safely, reaching the moon's surface a month and a half after launching atop a SpaceX rocket from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Last month, Firefly secured a $176.7 million contract to deliver five NASA payloads to the Moon's South Pole in 2029. Firefly was valued at more than $2 billion in a 2024 funding round. The company's backers include aerospace-focused private investment firm AE Industrial Partners. U.S. defense contractor Northrop Grumman, which invested $50 million into Firefly to aid the production of their jointly developed rocket, is one of three suppliers of solid rocket motors (SRMs) to the United States. Firefly is expected to begin trading on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "FLY" on Thursday.
