President Trump working on executive order intending to ‘preserve’ college sports from ‘threat’

Sports

add

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A draft of the long-discussed presidential executive order intends to “preserve” college athletics from “unprecedented threat” and destruction, it says, by implementing new policies related to athlete compensation, antitrust protection, athlete employment, state law uniformity and Olympic sport participation.

The draft, though not believed to be the final version, is expected to align closely with the order that President Donald Trump has long been exploring and offers a window into his thinking. It is not clear when, or even if, Trump will announce an executive order, which for four months has been discussed in the public sphere.

Advertisement

The draft was provided to Yahoo Sports by three different congressional sources, all confirming that the document is believed to have originated from the White House. Attempts to reach White House staff were unsuccessful.

The draft, seven pages long and titled “SAVING COLLEGE SPORTS,” outlines directives from Trump to members of his Cabinet to create policy related to various aspects of college athletics. Those aspects primarily include directing the attorney general and Federal Trade Commission to: (1) provide college leaders with protection from antitrust law around the “long-term availability” of scholarships and opportunities for athletes; (2) prevent “unqualified and unscrupulous agents” from representing athletes; and (3) support uniformity by, presumably, preempting the varying NIL state laws.

The draft also requests that the assistant to the president for domestic policy work with the U.S. Olympic team to provide “safeguards” for NCAA Olympic sports; and directs the secretary of education and National Labor Relations Board to implement policy “clarifying that status” of athletes, presumably as students and not employees.

In its introduction, the order purports that such directives are necessary to preserve an industry in chaos and on the brink of destruction.

Advertisement

“It is no exaggeration to say that America’s system of collegiate athletics plays an integral role in forging the leaders that drive our Nation’s success,” the order says. “Yet the future of college sports is under unprecedented threat.”

Court rulings, the order says, have “eliminated limits on athlete compensation, recruiting inducements, and transfers between universities, unleashing a sea change that threatens the viability of college sports.”

While some of these changes are “long overdue,” the order says that the inability to maintain rules “will destroy what Americans recognize today as college sport.”

“It is the policy of my Administration that college sports should be preserved,” the draft reads.

Advertisement

The order says that the House settlement “provides little assurance” in preserving the sport and expects it to be “upended soon” by new litigation over increased compensation and fewer rules. The order describes a potential athlete-employment model as making the industry “financially untenable.”

Steve Berman, one of the co-lead plaintiff attorneys in the House settlement, released a statement to Yahoo Sports calling a potential executive order as “unwarranted” and describing it as flouting the president’s “own philosophy on the supposed ‘art of the deal.'”

“Plain and simple, college athletes don’t need Trump’s help, and he shouldn’t be aiding the NCAA at the expense of athletes,” Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman, said in a statement to Yahoo Sports. “Step back, Mr. President. These fabulous athletes don’t need your help. Let them make their own deals. And the Supreme Court with your appointee, Justice Kavanaugh, condemned the NCAA’s compensation rules as a violation of the antitrust laws. Why give them immunity, Mr. President, in light of that ruling?”

The order gives the attorney general and Federal Trade Commission 60 days to make necessary revisions to new policy and gives the secretary of education and secretary of the treasury 120 days to develop financial education for athletes.

Advertisement

Any timing on the release of the order — if it is released at all — remains a murky topic.

Trump has been determined to get involved in college athletics. Most recently, he held a golf outing with two of the sport’s most notable names, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua.

Reports of an executive order surfaced in late April, as well as plans to form a presidential commission to study the industry. In fact, the executive order appears to create a commission (though it does not describe it as such) of “individuals and organizations involved in collegiate athletics, including athletes, schools, conferences, governing bodies, and leaders with experience relating to college sports, as well as the Congress and State governments” to assure that college sports is being preserved.

Trump’s plans — both the order and commission — were “paused” in May as congressional lawmakers urged White House leadership to give them more time to agree to college sports legislation. A congressional bill governing the sport is believed to be a more permanent solution than an executive order that is subject to legal challenges.

Advertisement

The pause in White House action in May provided a runway for House and Senate negotiations over college sports legislation. More movement has taken place in the House, where a bipartisan bill, the SCORE Act, is expected to soon go before a full House committee for vote, at which point it could land on the House floor — the furthest that any all-encompassing college sports legislation has advanced since the NCAA’s lobbying effort began five years ago.

However, the bill faces steep odds in gaining enough Democrat support for passage in the Senate, where filibuster rules require a 60-vote minimum. There are 53 Republicans in the Senate.

The Senate, though, has been working toward the introduction of its own legislation, led by Sen. Ted Cruz, who, much like Trump, has made college sports regulation a priority. He’s been in negotiations now for months with several Democrats, most notably Chris Coons, Richard Blumenthal and Cory Booker. No agreement has been reached despite more than a year of intense talks.

Though at first deemed to be a “bipartisan issue,” college sports legislation has created significant enough differences among Democrats and Republicans that no single bill has reached the House or Senate floor despite the introduction of more than a dozen pieces of legislation over five years.

Advertisement

Dividing the two parties is an array of issues, most notably the idea of preventing athletes from being deemed employees. Democrats are less inclined in such a provision because of their relationship with trial lawyers and labor unions, Cruz said during an interview in September of 2023.

On the same day and at the same event, Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, and Rep. Lori Trahan, a Democrat from Massachusetts, pushed college leaders to examine a model to share revenue with athletes and collectively bargain with them.

“You might disagree,” Murphy said, “but I think it feels and smells a lot like employment at the highest level of the sport.”

Advertisement

But there are other problematic concepts. For instance, the oversight and enforcement of the college athletics industry (should the NCAA or College Sports Commission be granted such authority or a federal entity, something that many Democrats support); guarantees around long-term athlete healthcare for lower-resourced Division I schools that cannot afford such (will the power conference schools subside?); and how limited is the liability or antitrust protection for the leadership of college sports?

Meanwhile, as lawmakers continue negotiations, college administrators are mired in legal negotiations of their own related to the new House settlement and revenue-sharing concept. The settlement’s primary goal — to shift athlete pay from NIL booster collectives to the schools — is at risk of crumbling as House plaintiff attorneys contend that college leaders are violating terms of the settlement by denying certain collective contracts.

This news was originally published on this post .