On July 24, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order: Save College Sports (the “Order”), which outlines federal guidelines and positions on the evolving landscape of student-athlete compensation for name, image, and likeness (NIL), student-athlete scholarships, and student-athlete employment status. The Order seeks to preserve access to scholarships and participation opportunities—particularly for women’s and non-revenue-generating sports. The Order reflects a growing shift toward increased federal oversight to regulate student-athlete compensation and college athletics.
Notably, President Trump’s signing of the Order coincides with the recent advancement of the SCORE Act for a House vote, which seeks to protect student-athlete compensation rights and promote fair competition. The Order also follows a landmark legal settlement in a consolidated class action brought in federal court in 2020 by former Division I student-athletes against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and five of its conferences (the “House Settlement”), the result of which allows universities to pay student-athletes directly.
Prohibition on “Pay-for-Play”
Consistent with current NCAA rules and the House Settlement, the Order seeks to eliminate “pay-for-play” NIL transactions between student-athletes and third parties. The Order disfavors “pay-for-play” arrangements that may incentivize student-athletes to transfer between institutions, such as booster and/or collective-backed transactions that bid for the best players, which may undermine competition and roster continuity. To facilitate the elimination of such “pay-for-play” transactions, the Order directs the Secretary of Education, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to develop a plan to advance the policies set forth in the Order within 30 days.
Protection and Expansion of Women’s and Non-revenue Sports
The Order seeks to maintain, promote, and expand women’s and non-revenue sports. The revenue-sharing model introduced by the House Settlement caps direct payments to student-athletes at 22% of a school’s athletic revenue, not to exceed $21 million. However, not all institutions have the financial capacity to distribute $21 million to its student athletes, potentially placing them at a competitive disadvantage. As a result, some schools may be forced to reduce funding for non-revenue sports or, in some cases, eliminate them altogether.
To prevent disproportionate resource allocation to high-revenue sports and to promote continued opportunities across a broader range of college sports, especially for women’s and non-revenue programs, the Order directs collegiate athletic departments to provide certain scholarship opportunities and roster spots for non-revenue sports based on their annual revenue. The Order requires collegiate athletic departments to provide the following during the 2025-2026 season:
- Departments with greater than $125 million in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season must provide more scholarship opportunities in non-revenue sports and the maximum number of roster spots for non-revenue sports permitted under the applicable collegiate athletic rules.
- Departments with greater than $50 million but less than $125 million in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season must provide at least as many scholarship opportunities in non-revenue sports and the maximum number of roster spots for non-revenue sports permitted under the applicable collegiate athletic rules; and,
- Departments with less than $50 million in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season or that do not have revenue-generating sports must not disproportionately reduce scholarships or roster spots for sports based on the revenue that the sport generates.
Student-Athlete Employment Status
The Order directs the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to clarify the employment status of student-athletes. This widely debated topic has been driven by the evolving NIL landscape, including the now permissible revenue-sharing model established by the House Settlement, student-athlete union organization attempts, actions before the NLRB, and litigation on this precise issue pending in Pennsylvania. While some lawmakers advocate for recognizing student-athletes as employees entitled to labor protections, others support maintaining their amateur status. The Order calls for guidance, rules, or other appropriate actions to resolve a student-athlete’s employment status.
Legal Protections for College Athletics From Lawsuits
Over the past decade, the NCAA, along with its member institutions and athletic conferences have faced a surge of litigation. These lawsuits have fundamentally challenged the structure and policies of college athletics. The Order requires the Attorney General and FTC Chairman to work to protect the rights and interest of student-athletes and the long-term availability of collegiate athletic scholarships and opportunities “when such elements are unreasonably challenged under antitrust or other legal theories.” The Order directs the Attorney General and FTC Chairman to develop a plan to implement appropriate future litigation guidelines, policies, or other actions within 60 days.
Uniformity
The Order also aims to establish consistency and uniformity for NIL regulation and enforcement. Currently, more than 30 states have enacted their own NIL laws, many of which differ in scope, compliance, and enforcement mechanisms. These variations heighten the risk of inconsistent application, putting colleges and student-athletes in markedly different regulatory environments depending on their state. As just one example, legislation was just passed in Oregon that exempts student-athletes from disclosing NIL deals if the contract prohibits such disclosure, which may conflict with the reporting requirements contemplated by the House Settlement.
With a growing number of lawsuits across the country challenging various aspects of NIL policy—including antitrust implications, athlete eligibility, and the scope of permissible compensation—the Order’s push for a “national solution” reflects the need for further clarity and consistency of the continuously evolving NIL landscape.
