Saving College Sports
This order (14322) declares that the future of college athletics is under “mortal threat” due to donor-driven Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) payments, frequent player transfers, and a patchwork of state laws that have undermined the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) ability to maintain consistent rules. Additionally, it blames litigation for eliminating “reasonable guardrails,” and claims that escalating compensation in high-revenue sports like football is draining resources from women’s and non-revenue sports. The executive order (EO) calls for the elimination of third-party pay-for-play incentives and directs agencies to use federal funding conditions, Title IX enforcement, and limits on state interference with interstate commerce to stabilize the system. It also directs the Labor Department and National Labor Relations Board to clarify the legal status of student-athletes and calls on Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to protect schools and the NCAA from future litigation.
What to watch: The order is a major expansion of federal involvement in a historically state-governed policy area of college sports. It singles out state actions as a key driver of instability, warning that “more than 30 States have passed their own NIL laws in a chaotic race to the bottom, sometimes to gain temporary competitive advantages for their major collegiate teams.” It directs federal agencies to advance policies that are likely to conflict with existing state laws, particularly those that authorize NIL collectives.
The EO directs federal agencies to set scholarship benchmarks tied to athletic department revenue, effectively imposing quotas for non-revenue sports. While Title IX ensures gender equity, this goes further, establishing a federally prescribed allocation formula that intrudes on state-run university budgeting. Most notably, the EO asserts that some university-level NIL practices reflect “unconstitutional actions by States to regulate interstate commerce,” signaling a willingness to challenge state NIL frameworks under the Dormant Commerce Clause and other constitutional theories.
As agencies develop implementation plans, they should take care to avoid overstepping into areas of state policy and ensure that any enforcement actions or conditions tied to federal funding remain clearly grounded in statutory authority and constitutional limits.
Federal Register :: Saving College Sports
July 24, 2025