New Executive Order Aims to Reshape Athlete Pay, Fair Access & College Sports Revenue Models

President Donald Trump on July 24, 2025 issued an executive order titled “Saving College Sports.” This order, which follows recent significant changes to compensation rules and limitations in the collegiate sports landscape, introduces certain guardrails intended to maintain competition and parity within intercollegiate athletics.

Starting with the 2025–2026 athletic season, which is set to begin for many sports in just a few weeks, this executive order states the following:

• Collegiate athletic departments with significant revenue should maintain or increase scholarship opportunities and roster spots for “non-revenue sports” to strengthen and expand non-revenue generating sports
• Any revenue-sharing between universities and student-athletes should be implemented in a way that protects women’s and non-revenue generating sports, aiming to ensure that financial resources are not completely or disproportionately allocated to revenue-generating sports like football and basketball
• Universities should not permit third-party pay-for-play payments to student-athletes, except for compensation for fair market value that the athlete provides (such as brand endorsement), seeking to curb expected bidding wars among universities competing for top athletes

• The US Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission are to develop litigation strategies to immunize collegiate athletics from legal challenges, such as antitrust lawsuits
• The US secretary of labor and the National Labor Relations Board are to clarify the employee status of collegiate athletes to maximize educational benefits

BACKDROP TO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

Leading up to this executive order were a couple of court decisions that changed the landscape for compensation of collegiate student-athletes. O’Bannon v. NCAA and National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston each played crucial roles in laying the foundation for student athletes to hold the rights to their name, image, and likeness (NIL), leading the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to issue an interim NIL policy in 2021 that allowed student-athletes to profit from their NIL for the first time.

Then came the multi-billion-dollar House v. NCAA settlement, approved by Judge Claudia Wilken of the US District Court for the Northern District of California on June 6, 2025, which requires schools to distribute $2.8 billion to former collegiate student-athletes for previously denied NIL earnings and established a revenue-sharing framework that allows universities to pay student-athletes up to $20.5 million per year, with that figure set to increase 4% annually over the next 10 years. For now, distribution of the $2.8 billion backpay amount is paused while the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears an appeal arguing that the approved allocation significantly favors male student-athletes over female student-athletes and, therefore, violates Title IX.

The US Congress is also working to weigh in on this ever-developing area. Less than a month before President Trump issued this executive order, on July 10, 2025, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Committee on Education and Workforce, and Committee on the Judiciary introduced the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act (SCORE Act). The SCORE Act seeks to codify the House settlement, prevent restrictions on student-athletes entering NIL deals (including by preventing state laws on the same), prohibit student athletes from being classified as employees, and grant the NCAA antitrust protections. The bill’s backers argue that the SCORE Act is necessary to bring uniformity to a fractured landscape and protect the long-term viability of college sports.

However, the bill is reportedly being largely opposed by House Democrats, who warned that the bill would shield the NCAA from future legal challenges while offering athletes little recourse if the terms of the $2.8 billion court settlement over NIL and student-athlete pay are violated. The SCORE Act is currently on the cusp of being brought to the House floor, but passage in the House, let alone the US Senate, where 60 votes are required for cloture, remains uncertain.

Looking Ahead

While the executive order clearly identifies the areas in which the US administration intends to limit direct payments and revenue sharing in collegiate athletics, much of what is requested of schools, as well as how this impacts decisions already made for the upcoming athletic season, is left to be determined by the implementing administrative agencies. As a result, higher education institutions and third parties alike must remain flexible in making decisions involving these issues.

But, given President Trump’s stated intent in issuing this executive order—protect student-athletes and collegiate athletic scholarships and opportunities, including in non-revenue generating programs—and ongoing litigation around what is required by way of providing compensation and other opportunities for all student-athletes, it is safe to assume that some higher level of proportionality may be required. Although the executive order does not specifically call out Title IX, its practical implications foreshadow that the administration may focus on enforcing the gender equity law as schools implement changes to their athletic programs.

To learn more about the legal and compliance challenges underlying these shifts in college sports, register for part two of our College Sports at a Crossroads webinar series on July 29, 2025 at 2:00 pm ET.

STAY INFORMED

Visit our US Administration Policies and Priorities resource center and subscribe to our mailing list for the latest on programming, guidance, and current legal and business developments.