By Robert J. Romano, JD, LLM, St. John’s University, Senior Writer
As most involved in the world of college sports are aware, on June 5, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a final judgment in the House v. NCAA class action lawsuit.[1] The House settlement, for the most part, after decades of litigation puts an end to the NCAA’s time-honored definition of amateurism by allowing (but not requiring) colleges and universities to compensate Division I student-athletes directly. Per the terms of the agreement, starting July 1, 2025, Division I schools that “opt in” must comply with thesettlement’s financial terms and pay a portion of their revenue directly to student-athletes, with $20.5 million being set as the cap for the 2025-2026 academic year and increasing annually over the next 10-years to a projected $32.9 million by the academic year 2034-35.
Not to be outdone, the Trump administration inserted itself into an issue, that for the most part has been working itself out through the courts, by signing its 176 Executive Order ironically titled: “Saving College Sports” on July 24, 2025.[2] That order, while making passing reference to women’s and non-revenue producing college sports and duplicating many of the core principles of the House settlement, does mandate, however, that pay-for-play payments to student-athletes be banned, although making some exceptions for “fair market value” endorsement and sponsorship (NIL) deals with third parties. Trump’s executive order goes on to state that institutions “should” implement certain revenue-sharing standards based on that school’s annual revenues, broken down as follows:
- Athletic departments with revenues greater than $125 million should provide the maximum number of roster spots and increase scholarships above the 2024-25 limits in non-revenue sports.
- Athletic departments with revenues greater than $50 million should provide the maximum number of roster spots and at least as many scholarships as permitted in 2024-25 for non-revenue sports.
- Athletic departments with revenues of $50 million or less should not disproportionately reduce scholarships or roster sports based on revenue generated.
Additionally, the order requires the National Labor Relations Board toclarify the current “employment” status of student-athletes, which could impact whether they’re eligible for collective bargaining, and compels the attorney general and Federal Trade Commission offices to evaluate and create plans to clarify athletes’ rights. And, although the executive order does have the power to direct its administrative agencies to handle cases in certain ways and to prioritize certain political ideologies, it doesn’t create any new or expand on any existing law, nor does it create an antitrust exemption for the NCAA.
What this executive order does actually do is keep the issue of college sports and the issue of revenue sharing information in a state of uncertainty because it can be challenged legally or removed by the next administration unless Congress steps up and creates some form of resolution. That, however, is unlikely since any legislation will require bipartisan support where the Republicans’ focus in on shielding the NCAA from litigation (antitrust exemption) and state laws involving NIL and national competitions, while the Democrats’ efforts are on protecting the athletes whom they view as employees and, for the most part, are against an outright antitrust exemption. With that said, the SCORE Act, a bill currently being debated in the House of Representatives, gives the NCAA some antitrust protection, preempts state laws related to NIL compensation, and strengthens the terms of the House settlement, did make it out of committee and could be voted on by the entire House when Congress returns this fall.
Despite the fact that Trump’s “Saving College Sport” executive order has no real or meaningful legal or enforcement power, it is perhaps one of the most significant and direct attempts by the executive branch to influence college sports since President Theodore Roosevelt’s calls to reform college football. And we all know how that worked out – the creation of the NCAA.
[1] No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).
[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/saving-college-sports/
