NIL

Trump Executive Order on College Sports Would Create New Legal Issues

Published

8 months ago

May 4, 2025

President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing the issuance of an executive order that would attempt to place restrictions on college athlete compensation. The president’s interest follows conversations with two former coaches: Nick Saban and U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.).

Any executive order that restricts athletes, schools, conferences or the NCAA would encounter a bevy of problems since it would interact, and possibly conflict, with multiple areas of federal and state laws. It could also pose problems for the NCAA as it waits for U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to grant or deny final approval of the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations.

An executive order would likely be pitched as providing stable and predictable rules for compensating college athletes. For instance, an order that says college athletes cannot be recognized as employees would sound simple enough.

Except in the law, nothing is simple and that certainly is true of employment.

For starters, an executive order can’t conflict with a federal statute. If a court finds that college athletes are employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act, they will be employees. If a court finds they aren’t employees under those laws, then they aren’t employees.

Then there are state laws governing labor and employment. An executive order can’t compel a state to interpret its own laws a certain way. In Johnson v. NCAA, for example, the athletes argue they are employees within the meaning of the FLSA and applicable state laws, such as the New York Labor Law, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act. Or take whether athletes at public universities are employees who can unionize. That’s a question for state law, not federal law. An executive order can’t cast away state claims or accompanying states’ rights.

The same goes for the prospect of Trump issuing an edict on name, image and likeness.

NIL, as its typically called, is often portrayed as a new legal right for college athletes, but that’s an erroneous depiction. NIL is a subset of the right of publicity, which is a matter of state laws (there is no federal right of publicity) and which forbids the commercial use of another person’s identity—be it their NIL or perhaps their voice, mannerisms, signature or other characteristics that make them unique—without their consent. In the college sports parlance, “NIL” is best understood as removing an NCAA eligibility restraint on college athletes to use a right they already had (the right of publicity) under applicable state law.

To be sure, NIL has morphed into a different creature than its early billing. Some NIL collectives, at the behest of schools, have offered recruits what are labeled NIL deals but are better understood as pay-for-play arrangements. Those arrangements substantively violate NCAA rules. The NCAA has tried to curb that practice, but last year a federal judge in Tennessee and Virginia v. NCAA issued a ruling to block the NCAA.

But if approved, the House settlement would create an independent review system for NIL deals that exceed $600. The system would try to ensure these deals are not disguising pay-for-play arrangements. An order by Trump on NIL that is interpretable as conflicting with this independent review model could upend a key settlement term.

Trump could also weigh in on the new horizon of NCAA antitrust litigation: college athletes suing to remain in school so they can earn NIL money and, if the House settlement is approved, a share of media, ticket and sponsorship revenue. Those lawsuits have led to conflicting rulings in different states. Trump might decree that antitrust law be interpreted a certain way in relation to eligibility claims. That type of decree would impact how the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies interpret antitrust law in the context of college sports, but it wouldn’t stop athletes from continuing to bring private antitrust actions against the NCAA.

It’s been suggested that Congress or Trump needs to intervene to prevent college sports from morphing into pro sports. Often that viewpoint erroneously blames the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston. Remember, Alston had nothing to do with NIL or paying college athletes to play sports. It concerned the peripheral issue of NCAA rules restricting how colleges compensate athletes for education-related expenses. Many of the justices who voted against the NCAA in Alston expressed worry about the commercialization of college sports. That could foretell how the justices would rule on antitrust cases regarding NIL or paying athletes to play sports. Alston is not an especially persuasive reason for Trump to intervene.

There are also potential constitutional problems with a Trump executive order on college sports. It could run afoul of Equal Protection if college athletes are denied the same rights, including for employment and other economic opportunities, that their classmates enjoy. An executive order might also run afoul of the First Amendment to the extent it limits how college athletes express themselves.

Trump might be well served by meeting with other stakeholders, including those whose opinions and viewpoints aren’t necessarily aligned with retired college coaches.

Paul McDonald, who is counsel to the plaintiff athletes in Johnson, told Sportico he’d “welcome the opportunity to speak with the President about NCAA reform.” A graduate of Princeton University and NYU School of Law, McDonald believes Trump would listen to him and find his athlete-focused viewpoint persuasive.

“I believe the President–and any reasonable Republican or Democrat–would support college athletes having the same, limited student employee status as classmates selling popcorn at NCAA games,” McDonald said. “Equal treatment to classmates in Work Study-style student employment, including student employees on academic scholarship, is consistent with Equal Protection, easy to implement using NCAA-mandated timesheets, and affordable on hourly, minimum wage scales–particularly if colleges stop overpaying some coaches. Colleges have never explained why they oppose this easy, and equitable, solution.”

(The quote in the final paragraph from Paul McDonald was incorrectly attributed in an earlier version of the story.)

Link

NIL

Taylor column: Wyoming’s Wicks not using NIL as an excuse | University of Wyoming

Published

25 minutes ago

December 26, 2025

Your Sports Nation

State

Zip Code

Country

Link

NIL

How to make college football worse

Published

1 hour ago

December 26, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Dec. 26, 2025, 5:03 a.m. ET

Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn has proposed the HUSTLE Act to create tax-deferred savings accounts for college athletes’ NIL income.
The need for congressional intervention is questionable, given that other wealthy groups, like NFL players, do not receive similar legislative protection.

If the hollowness of the bowl season or the irrationality of the playoff system has you saddened by the state of college football, it could always be worse. Congress could get involved.

It’s already bad enough that NCAA apologists want Congress to grant college athletics an antitrust exemption. Now Tennessee Senator (and gubernatorial candidate) Marsha Blackburn, in a timely act of pandering, wants to give college athletes special tax-advantaged savings accounts – “for their own protection.”

Blackburn’s comically named “Helping Undergraduate Students Thrive with Long Term Earnings (HUSTLE Act) would allow certain college athletes to create tax-deferred accounts for their Name Image and Likeness (NIL) income.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m a big fan of saving and investing, especially in a tax-deferred vehicle. But the aim of this act ‒ somehow protecting young people from squandering their NIL riches ‒ raises an obvious question: Where exactly is the constitutional mandate (or even suggestion) for Congress to pass laws discouraging 19-year-old millionaires from buying expensive cars and jewelry?

If Blackburn is genuinely concerned about young, wealthy athletes squandering their money, why didn’t she start with the NFL? A widely cited 2009 Sports Illustrated article claimed that 78% of NFL players “face financial stress or bankruptcy” within two years of retirement. This figure was likely exaggerated, but a statistically sound study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 15.7% of NFL players file for bankruptcy within 12 years of retiring. Yet this hasn’t prompted any urgent Congressional push to save professional athletes from themselves.

If age is really the determining factor in financial responsibility, why is the fastest growing demographic of bankruptcy filers over 65? Why is the median age of someone filing for bankruptcy 49 and not 29?

Blackburn could, of course, propose legislation allowing college athletes to participate in the existing tax-deferred retirement accounts at their respective universities, but that would concede that the players are employees ‒ something universities want to avoid at practically all costs.

Not to be outdone by the Senate, the House of Representatives proposed the SCORE Act, which would grant NCAA institutions exemptions from antitrust laws – essentially codifying the illegal wage collusion the schools practiced for decades ‒ while also legally declaring that players are not employees of the universities that pay for their athletic services. Too many old timers simply can’t accept the end of decades of illegal (and in my opinion, immoral) athletic department business practices, so they are begging Congress to protect them.

Even if you concede the premise that 20-year-olds are incapable of making wise financial decisions and require assistance, why would Congress be the entity to turn to for financial wisdom?

David Moon, president of Moon Capital Management, may be reached atdavid@mooncap.com.

Link

NIL

Chiefs Stadium Deal Is Insane

Published

3 hours ago

December 26, 2025

Your Sports Nation

stl.pony said:

Feel like it’s largely being paid for by sales tax the new stadium development will generate.

Not in finance, so someone should absolutely check my math/analysis on this.

State of Kansas has an 8.25% sales tax. For the sales tax to generate 3 billion, the total sales would need to be about 36 billion. According to this article the Royals stadium and Arrowhead stadium collectively generate 55 million a year in tax revenue. (Don’t know what the analysis is to produce that; admit it could be wrong.) If you round it up to 60 million a year, the break even point is 600+ years.

If you take the numbers the Chiefs put out, 1 billion in economic impact for the region and 29 million in tax revenue per year. The break even point from tax revenue would be 1800 years?

I don’t know what is considered the region for the economic impact evaluation and how that changes based on if the stadium is on the Missouri side or the Kansas side of Kansas City. I also remember reading a report about the state fair of Texas that claimed that events like the state fair and sporting events don’t necessarily generate additional economic activity in a region, it just concentrates it into the event rather the wider community. (Admittedly, that could mean more tax revenue for one city in the region over another.) In my layperson’s opinion, a sports stadium deal like this doesn’t seem to be as smart of a decision as offering economic incentives to a Toyota or other non-entertainment business to move to your city.

Link

NIL

Michigan urged to hire SEC coordinator over head coaches to replace Sherrone Moore

Published

4 hours ago

December 26, 2025

Your Sports Nation

As Michigan’s coaching search drags on, some overlooked possibilities could be floating back to the forefront. After apparently striking out on established head coaches like Kenny Dillingham and Kalen DeBoer, one SEC coordinator is exactly such a possibility for the Wolverines.

In a recent episode of Andy and Ari On3, Andy Staples and Ari Wasserman pointed out that the current coaching carousel has been virtually obsessed with established head coaches. Kentucky hired Oregon offensive coordinator Will Stein as its next coach, but otherwise, schools have passed on coordinators in favor of coaches with head coaching experience.

Both Staples and Wasserman singled out Georgia defensive coordinator Glenn Schumann as a strong coaching possibility who Michigan should consider. “Why hasn’t he been in the conversation,” asked Wasserman. “He’s been intereviewed by schools, they just haven’t hired him,” noted Staples. “Normally, multiple coordinators would have either gotten these jobs or been finalists for these jobs.”

“If I were Michigan, I would hire Schumann over all the others,” said Wasserman. “I feel like if you’re Michigan, you want to get the guy that reshapes how you do things. It’s not that Jedd Fisch wouldn’t or Jeff Brohm wouldn’t….Don’t you want to go get the younger coordinator from Georgia who recruits his ass off and has been around big builds and has he defense playing like this at the right time and try to build you program around that?”

Schumann is only 35 years old, but has spent the last 17 seasons with either the Alabama or Georgia programs. He went to Alabama to be a student assistant coach under Nick Saban, then moved up to graduate assistant and then to Director of Football Operations.

When Kirby Smart left Alabama to take the Georgia head coaching job, Schumann went with him. First, he was the inside linebacker coach. In 2019, he added co-defensive coordinator to his responsibilities and ahead of 2024, he became the sole defensive coordinator

Georgia has historically been a very aggressive big-play-oriented defense, but Schumann has helped remake them on the fly. In 2025, the Bulldogs have held opponents to 15.9 points per game, second in the SEC, despite being near the bottom of the conference standings in sacks (tied for last), tackles for loss (next to last), and turnovers forced (13th).

Schumann was considered in 2023 for the Philadelphia Eagles defensive coordinator role, but hasn’t been significantly linked with another collegiate job. Despite his relative youth, his experience inside two of the foremost college football dynasties of recent vintage makes him an intriguing possibility, should Michigan decide to take a chance.

Link

NIL

No easy fix for what ails college football, but it’s still fun

Published

9 hours ago

December 26, 2025

Your Sports Nation

As much as the state of college athletics these days drives people to distraction, coaches and administrators don’t have many options.

So, you don’t like players being paid? You don’t like players have the ability to transfer to another program anytime they choose? You don’t like lawyers and agents raking in huge amounts of cash? What can unhappy fans do about it?

You can stop supporting your favorite program. You can stop going to games or even watching games. If enough people do that, what they will accomplish is making it more difficult for their favorite programs to win. They will change nothing.

Despite all of it, coaches are expected to win. Athletics directors are expected to provide the resources for them to win. They have no choice but to play the game with the rules – or lack thereof – in place today.

Is it out of control? Of course it is, in football and basketball. Will there be efforts to mitigate the damage that is being done to the sports so many love? There will be. Will they be successful? Maybe, but so far we’re not seeing it. Yet, TV ratings are higher than ever. Stadiums are filled. It’s still fun, which is what it was always meant to be.

For sure, there are some misconceptions out there.

Players, in fact, can and do sign contracts. There is nothing to keep them from signing multi-year contracts, but those are iffy for both sides. Maybe a player turns out not to be worth what he is being paid. Or maybe he turns out to be worth more than he’s being paid.

None of this is simple. It is further complicated by agents who are neither qualified nor interested in much anything beyond making money for themselves.

Maybe, one day, someone will find a solution. Maybe Congress will step in and help, though there has been no indication that is close to happening.

Players and coaches are better-trained, better-informed and more knowledgeable than they have ever been. Players are not the spoiled, entitled young men they are accused of being. They are being pulled in all sorts of directions by family, agents, boosters and others with agendas of their own.

Almost every effort to find common ground has blown up.

The December signing period was meant to give players who had made up their minds opportunities to get the recruiting process over with. Previous to that move, it was rare for players to graduate early and enroll in time for spring practice. Now, it’s what every coach wants and most players want.

NIL was supposed to be about players having opportunities to earn spending money, maybe even get a car. It was never meant to make anybody wealthy. Along came collectives, and that changed.

Penalty-free transfers were supposed to be about players having opportunities to go in search of more playing time. Instead, added to NIL, it become a monster. Without penalty-free transfers, things would be different today.

For now, if people let this destroy their love for the game, they are letting the forces of chaos win. It’s still college students – yes, they are students – playing football. And they pay a fearsome price in blood, sweat and mental challenges to do it.

Once the portal has opened and closed and rosters begin to be set, things will calm down. The focus will return to where it should be, on those who play the game and the season ahead.

***

To all of you who do us the honor of coming here to read and comment and debate, and to Ron Sanders, Nathan King, Christian Clemente, Jason Caldwell and Patrick Bingham, my valued colleagues, I wish joy, peace and love on this day.

Link