Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

On July 24, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order, “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/saving-college-sports/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Saving College Sports</a>” (the “EO”), addressing the “sea change” in college sports resulting from antitrust litigation and the related impacts on athlete compensation, pay-for-play recruiting inducements, and transfers. The EO asserts that while some changes to benefits and flexibility to student athletes should be maintained, the current lack of “reasonable rules and guardrails is a mortal threat to most college sports.”

core/paragraph

Since the early 2020s, rules on how college athletes may profit from their athletic achievements have been in flux. In 2021, the United States Supreme Court in the Alston case held that the NCAA’s rules limiting certain types of compensation violated antitrust law. This decision, combined with state laws allowing college athletes to benefit from their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”), ushered in a new era in collegiate athletics. After the Alston ruling, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) adopted a <a href="https://www.ncaa.org/news/2021/6/30/ncaa-adopts-interim-name-image-and-likeness-policy.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">policy</a> allowing college athletes to earn money through third-party NIL activities and sponsorships. These changes led to the rise of NIL agreements between student athletes and collectives – organizations of boosters and supporters of an institution that provided the funding for third-party NIL agreements with current and prospective student athletes.

Over the next few years, the NCAA and major conferences continued to litigate various cases from student athletes challenging limits on compensation, seeking labor recognition under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), and seeking recognition of student athletes as statutory employees. The NCAA also was subject to lawsuits from certain member institutions challenging the limits on the use of NIL agreements with collectives in recruiting. Ultimately, the NCAA entered into the House settlement, seeking to resolve multiple lawsuits related to limits on NIL rights and compensation, and the settlement received final approval on June 6, 2025. In addition to approximately $2.8 billion dollars in damages, the House settlement, for the first time, permits Division I colleges and universities to enter into revenue-sharing NIL agreements directly with student athletes. Each institution may enter into revenue-sharing NIL agreements with student athletes in a total amount of up to $20.5 million per institution per year. The settlement also permits third-party NIL agreements to continue, with reporting requirements and fair-market-value requirements for certain third-party NIL agreements.

It is in this context that President Trump has issued his executive order. The EO describes the current landscape as an “out-of-control, rudderless system,” where university donors compete for the best players via “bidding wars,” and where states pass laws “in a chaotic race to the bottom.” The EO highlights the millions of NIL dollars being spent on players in this new era, particularly in college football. The EO voices concern that the current system will reduce competition by creating an “oligarchy of teams” with the greatest resources, which will also siphon resources from non-revenue sports, women’s sports, and Olympic sports by allocating funding towards “third-party, pay-for-play deals.”

The EO points out that the House settlement imposes new roster limits on sports but also permits increased scholarships beyond the old scholarship limits. The EO states that “this opportunity must be utilized to strengthen and expand non-revenue sports.” In addition, the EO asserts “the third-party market of pay-for-play inducements must be eliminated before its insatiable demand for resources dries up support for non-revenue sports.”

The EO includes three directives and a policy statement in an attempt to preserve and expand scholarships and opportunities in women’s and non-revenue sports.

First, the EO states athletic departments with revenue greater than $125 million during the 2024-25 athletic season “should provide more scholarship opportunities in non-revenue sports than during the 2024-2025 athletic season and should provide the maximum number of roster spots for non-revenue sports permitted under the applicable collegiate athletic rules.” This directive provides further challenges to athletic departments that are trying to comply with the House settlement and other applicable legal requirements, such Title IX. According to a 2024 report on NCAA finances at public universities published by the USA Today, thirty public schools had athletics revenue greater than $125 million in 2024, including all but one member of the SEC, all but four members of the Big 10, and four members of the Atlantic Coast Conference (“ACC”).

core/list-item

Second, the EO states athletic departments with revenue from $50 million to $125 million during the 2024-25 athletic season “should provide at least as many scholarship opportunities in non-revenue sports as provided during the 2024-2025 athletic season and should provide the maximum number of roster spots for non-revenue sports permitted under the applicable collegiate athletic rules.” According to a USA Today report, this bracket would include another 39 schools in both the Power 4 Conferences and other conferences.

Third, the EO states athletic departments with revenue $50 million or less during the 2024-25 athletic season or do not have revenue-generating sports “should not disproportionately reduce scholarship opportunities or roster spots for sports based on the revenue that the sport generates.”

In addition, the EO states “any revenue-sharing permitted between universities and collegiate athletes should be designed and implemented in a manner that preserves or expands scholarships and collegiate athletic opportunities in women’s and non-revenue sports.” Notably, the EO does not take the position that revenue-sharing funds should be distributed equitably to male and female student athletes, like the Title IX requirements for distribution of scholarship funds.

core/list

The EO directs the Secretary of Education, in consultation with other executive agencies, to develop a plan to advance these policies “through all available and appropriate regulatory, enforcement, and litigation mechanisms,” including without limitation Federal funding decisions and Title IX enforcement.

The EO also states “third-party, pay-for-play payments to collegiate athletes are improper and should not be permitted by universities,” but carves out third-party compensation at fair market value, such as for brand endorsement. This position is similar to the fair-market-value requirements found in the House settlement.

Moreover, the EO calls on both the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) to clarify the “status of collegiate athletes,” presumably referring to statutory employment status, through “guidance, rules, or other appropriate actions.” Additionally, the EO directs the Attorney General and Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to review their litigation positions and guidelines and to develop a plan of action within 60 days to protect the rights and interests of student-athletes and “the long-term availability of collegiate athletic scholarships and opportunities.” Finally, the EO directs the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison to consult the United States Olympic and Paralympic Center on “safeguarding the integral role and competitive advantage” provided by American collegiate athletics.

Student Athlete Status

The NLRB will have a difficult time adhering to the directives set forth by this Administration within sixty (60) days. The EO calls on the NLRB to issue guidance, rules, or other appropriate actions; however, the NLRB cannot carry out major actions – such as issuing decisions, rulemaking or clarifying legal policy – without a quorum of at least three members. The Board currently has two sitting members: Republican Chair Marvin Kaplan and Democrat David Prouty. Kaplan’s term will expire on August 27, 2025, and he is reportedly not seeking renomination. As of late July 2025, President Trump has nominated Scott Mayer (Boeing’s chief labor counsel) and James Murphy (former NLRB official) to fill two vacant seats on Board. Both nominees have strong management-side credentials and, if confirmed by the Senate, would give the NLRB a Republican majority (at least temporarily). Senate confirmation timing remains uncertain and could take months.

Until the NLRB establishes a quorum, it is possible that acting General Counsel, William Cohen, issues guidance addressing whether or not student-athletes are classified as “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Interestingly, in February 2025, Cowen formally withdrew the September 2021 memorandum issued by his predecessor, Jennifer Abruzzo, which had argued student-athletes could be considered employees and thus have rights to organize and bargain collectively under the NLRA. At the time, Cowen’s action signaled a return to treating collegiate athletes as students, not employees, and marked a major setback for those advocating for student-athlete unionization. This rescission was part of a broader rollback of policy memoranda from the previous (Biden-appointed) General Counsel, reflecting Cowen’s stated intent to focus agency resources and move away from expansive interpretations of the NLRA—including the employee status of student athletes.

In the event the NLRB recognizes student athletes as employees under the NLRA, private colleges and the NCAA will be faced with a litany of pressure from not only student athletes, but Unions seeking to represent those players’ interests, should the NLRB recognize student athletes as employees under the Act. In December 2024, an unfair labor practice charge filed by the National College Players Association against the NCAA and others was withdrawn, partly due to changes in NIL (name, image, and likeness) rules and shifting NLRB leadership. Efforts to unionize Ivy League athletes also stalled after the Service Employees International Union (the “SEIU”) withdrew its petition in January 2025, even though a regional director had found basketball players to be statutory employees in 2024.

Empty rows of modern lecture hall seating with warm natural light streaming in through a large window.

Executive Order on College Sports Seeks to Protect Female Participation and Non-Revenue Sports and Block Third-Party, Pay-For-Play NIL Deals

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

From Idea to Asset: Turning a Business Name into a Protectable Brand

Merging Missions: What Religious Non-Profits Need to Know Before Joining Forces

NLRB 2026 Outlook: Return to the 2020 Joint‑Employer Rule and a Shift Away from Work‑Rule Enforcement