
College sports leaders shouldn't get too excited about Trump NIL executive order
And yet that was the case Wednesday after CBS reported the night before that Trump intended to sign one 'establishing national standards for the NCAA's Name, Image and Likeness program' in the coming days.
What does that mean exactly? People who are generally informed on the interplay between college sports and the federal government didn't seem to know an executive order was imminent or what exactly would be in it – even folks with a direct line to Trump and who have engaged with about potential federal action that would bail college sports out of its current dysfunction.
So now we wait. For something – or maybe nothing. With the Trump Administration, you can never quite tell.
What we do know, however, is that the White House has, in fact, been working on something in the form of a likely executive order since Trump met with former Alabama coach Nick Saban at the school's graduation ceremony in May.
Regardless of what's ultimately in it, however, coaches and administrators should resist the temptation to get excited about the possibility of Trump saving the day for a few simple, but important reasons.
An executive order isn't a law. College sports and the NCAA do not operate under the purview of the executive branch of the federal government, thus any executive order compelling them to do anything would be legally questionable at best. And finally, any so-called 'fix' for college sports made with the stroke of one man's pen can be undone by the next one who occupies that office.
UNWANTED TALK: Nick Saban rumor is last thing Alabama needs
Sorry, college sports executives. You're going to have to actually do the work on this one.
We know that's not easy, which makes the temptation to rely on Trump more tempting. It's been nearly six years since the NCAA pivoted toward begging Congress for relief from its never-ending string of lawsuits, and so far they've gotten no reward for their effort. Unless, of course, you consider it a reward to be dragged into more committee hearings to answer ridiculous, superficial questions from legislators who know as much about college sports as they do about the Finnish language.
Oh sure, there's another bill on the way. And this one apparently has bipartisan support in the House. But then there's the Senate, where the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., last week called it 'the National Championship of all heists' because it is too favorable to the NCAA's interests. Remember, any bill must get 60 votes due to filibuster rules in the Senate, which means a minimum of seven Democrats will need to sign off on it. That's not going to be easy, especially if it puts hard caps on how much college athletes can earn and eliminates the potential to bargain collectively for their rights in the future.
Purely from a political standpoint, I'm not sure why Senate Democrats would cooperate at all here. If a bill finally passes that fixes some issues with the NCAA, they won't get credit – because Trump will take it. And he'll play it to the hilt, which doesn't seem particularly helpful to their electoral goals heading into the midterms next year.
That's just how stuff works in Washington, and both parties play that game on issues far more serious and important than the NCAA's ability to regulate the transfer portal. It's part of why the NCAA's 'let Congress fix our mess' strategy has been a complete failure thus far and may never pay off. At the end of the day, there's a lot more upside for Congress to use college sports as a political plaything than to make a law that will only impact a relatively small number of people and isn't an urgent matter of national interest.
But a 'let Trump fix it' strategy could be worse, particularly right now as institutions are scrambling to implement terms of the House vs. NCAA settlement that allow athletic departments to pay their athletes directly.
At the moment, the House settlement and the College Sports Commission – a regulatory body created by the power conferences to enforce the settlement rules – hold the key to how college sports will operate over the next several years.
Will the CSC get sued by athletes and booster collectives whose deals get denied because they aren't considered true NIL? Of course, but they already knew that. Unless Congress quickly grants college sports some type of antitrust exemption, the CSC will have to go in front of a judge and show that it follows the law to continue having regulatory power over college athletes' paychecks.
That's really the only issue worth talking about right now, regardless of what Trump may write in an executive order. And what can he possibly do anyway? Maybe he can decree that college athletes can't be made employees through some type of National Labor Relations Board policy -- but they already aren't.
So unless the NCAA is going to become a federal agency, where the president would have significant legal authority to regulate it, anything in an executive order is mostly going to be performative. And anything that touches actual NCAA business like the transfer portal or limiting how athletes earn money stands on far shakier legal ground than the guardrails that were already installed through the House settlement.
Regardless of which direction a president wants to take college sports – any president, for the record – the fundamental problem will not change no matter who's in the office or how many executive orders they write.
By refusing to engage in a true collective bargaining effort that mimics the relationship between the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB and their respective players associations, the college sports industry left itself in a vulnerable position where any attempt to enforce its rules will face legal scrutiny.
For better or worse, that's the American Way. And at this point, the focus of college sports should be long-term stability through the appropriate legal and legislative means instead of a flimsy proclamation.
Colleges need to be especially careful right now. We've seen how the Trump Administration strongarms schools it has ideological disagreements with: Withholding federal grants, deporting international students, pressuring university presidents to resign. His involvement in college sports issues on behalf of the NCAA's immediate interests is going to inevitably create the appearance of long-term leverage.
As frustrated as college sports executives might be with Jeffrey Kessler and other sports attorneys who keep them in court, creating space for tussles with this White House might not be the best tradeoff.
Keep all that in mind when Trump issues his mysterious executive order. Because at the end of the day, only the people in charge of college sports can truly save it – no matter how much a president is itching to claim credit for doing so.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
James Carville Gives Fox News Viewers An Uncomfortable Reminder About Jeffrey Epstein
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville on Thursday reminded Fox News viewers of a name that's rarely heard on the right-wing network: Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted sex offender who was once close with President Donald Trump. Fox News host Jesse Watters asked Carville if Democrats would consider Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden, as a possible presidential candidate. 'You know, everybody in the world is talking about Epstein, and Fox is still talking about Biden's memory,' Carville said. 'That's so long ago I can't even remember it.' 'Well, do you want to talk about Epstein?' Watters asked. 'I don't mind talking about Epstein,' said Carville. Carville's reminder comes as a new report found that Fox News has indeed shied away from Epstein coverage ― just as Trump has asked. The report by Media Matters for America finds that on Monday, for example, Fox News mentioned former President Barack Obama 117 times and Epstein just twice. Carville and Watters resumed talking about the Bidens but returned to Epstein later in the segment. 'I wasn't even going to bring Epstein up,' Watters said. 'But because you did, do you, James Carville, a Clinton guy, think that the Democrats should be begging for the release of the Epstein files?' Like Trump, former President Bill Clinton was also once close with Epstein, who was convicted of sex crimes in 2008. He was arrested again in 2019 and died in custody later that year, apparently of suicide, while awaiting trial on allegations of trafficking underage girls and other charges. Carville said he didn't know what was in the files. 'I suspect that they'll come out. I don't know what they are, but the story is not going away,' he said. 'That's pretty clear. It's just not going anywhere.' Trump has been facing new questions over his ties to Epstein after the Justice Department said it would not release any new material related to the case despite Trump's promises to do so. When asked about the case, Trump has deflected and complained about Obama instead. See the full segment below:
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will the Big Beautiful Bill Make Your Utility Bills More Expensive? Experts Weigh In
Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, signed into law on July 4, rolls back clean energy tax credits, repeals climate-focused funding and expands oil and gas development. While some Senate Republicans claim the bill is pro-growth, energy experts warn it could raise utility bills across the U.S. and make long-term power costs more volatile — below is what they had to say. Also here's ChatGPT's simple explanation of what the Big Beautiful Bill is. Explore More: Read Next: Power Bills Could Jump According to a report from Energy Innovation, households across the U.S. could pay a combined $170 billion more for energy between 2025-2034 due to the Big Beautiful Bill. Patrice Williams-Lindo, a workforce futurist, visibility strategist and CEO of Career Nomad, who has advised energy firms on digital adoption and job transitions, said the Big Beautiful Bill doesn't support the energy systems people actually rely on. 'Consumers might see temporary dips in prices if domestic oil and gas production is amped up,' she said. 'But that's a supply illusion. Without long-term investment in resilient grids, diversified energy sources or consumer subsidies, bills will spike again — especially in disaster-prone regions.' Owen Quinlan, head of data at Arbor, said households are already feeling it. 'In many cities, rates have jumped 10% to 45% this summer,' he said. 'And that's before factoring in the potential impact of this bill.' Quinlan's team tracks real-time energy prices across the country. He warned that pulling back on clean energy now could make things more difficult for households already feeling the strain of higher bills. For You: Clean Energy Keeps Prices Down, but That Could Change Quinlan pointed out that solar already plays a big role in keeping daytime prices low. 'The challenge comes when the sun goes down and demand stays high — that's when the grid relies on costly backup power and prices can spike dramatically,' he explained. 'Without more investment in clean energy and the infrastructure to support it, those price spikes could become more common and expensive.' Williams-Lindo said rolling back clean energy also hits the workforce. 'Rolling back climate-forward policies will stall the growth of future-ready jobs in solar, wind, grid optimization and green infrastructure,' she said. She added that it could mean fewer affordable energy options for consumers and fewer high-wage jobs in underserved regions. What's Missing From the Energy Conversation Williams-Lindo shared what she called the RNA framework: Rebrand, Network, Achieve Recognition and said that consumers and industry leaders will need to rebrand how they engage with energy, moving from passive users to educated advocates. 'Utilities will need to network across sectors — tech, policy, labor — to build smarter, equitable pricing models,' she said. 'And marginalized communities, especially Black and brown households often hit hardest by utility hikes, must be recognized in energy policy as stakeholders, not just line items.' According to Lindo, patriotic branding doesn't pay your power bill. Without transparency, equity and investment in energy innovation, the Big Beautiful Bill could lead to big ugly bills for everyday Americans. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) This article originally appeared on Will the Big Beautiful Bill Make Your Utility Bills More Expensive? Experts Weigh In


Axios
14 minutes ago
- Axios
Padilla to propose bill easing immigrant residency rules
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is introducing a bill that would amend decades-old requirements for immigrants seeking permanent status — another long-shot proposal amid the Trump administration's immigration raids. The big picture: Congress has not passed a major immigration overhaul since 1986, resulting in residency requirements that are now over 50 years old. Zoom in: Under a bill that Padilla will announce Friday, the Immigration Act of 1929 would be amended so some immigrants may qualify for lawful permanent resident status if they have lived in the U.S. continuously for at least seven years. The current registry cutoff date is January 1, 1972 — more than 50 years ago. The change would provide a pathway to a green card for DACA recipients and those who had temporary protective status (TPS) State of play: The proposal comes as the Trump administration is letting TPS deals expire and going after what could be hundreds of thousands more immigrants who were given humanitarian "parole" under former President Biden. Many of those immigrants are being detained at immigration court hearings and are being placed in removal proceedings. What they're saying:"Roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States today, yet most have no way to earn permanent legal status," Padilla's office said in a statement. "The overwhelming majority of these undocumented immigrants have established roots in the U.S. They work in essential jobs and pay taxes." His office said Padilla will formally introduce his bill on Monday. Reality check: Republicans control both chambers in Congress and such immigration proposals are hardly getting heard. Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) and Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) have introduced the DIGNITY Act of 2025, a bill that is lingering in the House, which focuses on border security, mandatory E-Verify, asylum reform and legal immigration reform. Zoom out: Padilla's latest bill comes after he and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) introduced a bill that would ban federal immigration agents from wearing most face coverings but require them to wear visible ID during public enforcement operations. That long-shot proposal comes following images of masked, heavily armed immigration agents snatching people off the streets and taking them away in unmarked cars have shocked many Americans. What we're watching: The pressure to rein in some of ICE's enforcement tactics does have support among some conservatives worried over policing.