Trump Executive Order on College Sports Unlikely to Move the Needle
A draft of the order, obtained by Yahoo, adopts the viewpoint that big-time college sports has morphed into an unworkable, volatile and overly litigious framework. The order negatively references unlimited transfers, the prospect of college athletes gaining employment recognition and a 'chaotic race to the bottom' with states opportunistically using NIL laws to supply 'competitive advantages' to their universities.
More from Sportico.com
Sporticast 468: 'Pay Us What You Owe Us'
Nevada WR Catches Court Win as NCAA Eligibility Cases Split
NBA Seeks Supreme Court Review of 'Bork Bill' Case After Split Rulings
Dubbed 'Saving College Sports,' the order directs several federal officials and agencies— including the U.S. Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Secretary of Education, the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board—to pursue policies that would allegedly ensure the 'long-term availability' of college sports opportunities. Another aspiration is 'greater uniformity, predictability, and cooperation with respect to Federal and State laws and enforcement practices concerning college athletics.'
The order provides several specific requests. They include agency actions within 60 or 120 days and a directive that 15 U.S.C. 7802—the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, a law that Sportico revealed has not been enforced—be enforced.
For the most part, however, the order is aspirational and refrains from enunciating policy positions. Notably absent are declarations that the NCAA and its members ought to be exempt from antitrust scrutiny or that college athletes aren't employees.
The absence of many specifics is important for several reasons. For starters, agencies that would be directed by Trump are already capable of issuing regulations and other administrative actions to exert control over college sports.
To that point, in the last week of Joe Biden's presidency, federal agencies entered the college sports legal debate without an accompanying executive order. The Department of Education issued a fact sheet expressing that colleges paying athletes for their NIL counts as athletic financial assistance under Title IX. A month later, Trump's Department of Education rescinded that fact sheet.
Biden's Department of Justice also filed a statement of interest in the House litigation. The statement expressed that a revenue share cap of $20.5 million, while better than not sharing any revenue, is still an antitrust problem, because it's a cap that hasn't been collectively bargained. The DOJ under Trump didn't pursue the issue as U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken weighed the granting of final approval to the settlement.
To be sure, a Trump executive order would elevate the importance and urgency for those agencies to tackle college sports issues. But it's not an essential ingredient. Agencies could act on their own just as they did in January.
Also consider how agencies would implement Trump's order. The more agencies look under the hood of college sports, the more likely they'll see potential drawbacks and limitations of weighing in. The federal government doesn't control the universe of college sports issues, some of which extend well beyond government control.
Take employment. A federal declaration that college athletes aren't employees would presumably mean they're not—at least as the Trump administration sees it—employees under the two most relevant federal laws, the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
That type of declaration would be challenged in court, since it is a debatable interpretation of federal statutes. Put another way, whether college athletes are employees under the NLRA or FLSA is ultimately a question for the courts, not an agency or even the president.
That is particularly true given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Judges are no longer expected to defer to agency interpretation when a statute is ambiguous, meaning judicial deference to agencies, including those in the Trump administration, has been reduced.
Even assuming an agency declaration that college athletes aren't employees withstood judicial review, it wouldn't foreclose the possibility of athletes being recognized as employees under states' laws. There are labor and employment laws in all 50 states, and they vary. There's also the chance that a college or conference voluntarily recognizes athletes as employees, a move that has not happened at least in part because it would violate NCAA rules. But such a move is not implausible—especially since collective bargaining with college athletes would put an end to antitrust lawsuits over those athletes' rights.
Even if an agency declaration says that any, and all, conflicting state employment laws are preempted by federal action, that wouldn't automatically make preemption happen. Preemption is a highly litigated topic that intersects with powers enunciated by the U.S. Constitution and would surely be litigated in this context.
Antitrust is another relevant subject for Trump's possible executive order. The draft states that though the settlement resolving the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations will provide back pay and revenue sharing, it 'provides little assurance that it will not soon be upended by new litigation seeking more compensation with fewer rules, further reducing in the number of student-athletes.'
Trump might want the NCAA, conferences and colleges to be exempt from antitrust scrutiny or to receive deferential treatment.
On the surface, a Trump or agency-announced antitrust exemption or deferential standard would make it more difficult for athletes to sue regarding topics like compensation and eligibility. But the president and his agencies can't change the language of the Sherman Act, which has applied to college sports for decades and which the U.S. Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston (2021) said not only governs NCAA rules but does so without deference.
It's also noteworthy that conservative judges, including those whom Trump nominated, have been among the most critical of college sports amateurism from an antitrust perspective. And there are state antitrust laws, too, that fall outside of federal authority and thus outside any executive order.
Trump might want the Department of Justice to take a permissive approach to antitrust issues in college sports. One could say the DOJ under both Republican and Democratic presidents has already done that: Save for the DOJ joining Ohio v. NCAA (2024), which concerned transfer rules, and suing the NCAA in 1998 under the Americans with Disabilities Act over treatment of college athletes with learning disabilities, the DOJ has largely been on the sidelines. Meanwhile, a long list of athletes, from Ed O'Bannon to Shawne Alston, sued the NCAA on antitrust grounds.
That highlights a key point: Private individuals and businesses can bring antitrust lawsuits. The government isn't needed since federal antitrust law provides for a private right of action. No matter how the DOJ and other agencies oversee college sports, athletes will continue to be able to bring antitrust claims.
There are still other legal complications from a potential executive order on college sports. Any order that leads to college athletes being denied the same rights and opportunities as their classmates would invite an Equal Protection lawsuit. Restricting athletes' expressions, including through limiting NIL opportunities, could trigger First Amendment and right of publicity litigation.
Trump might not need an executive order to influence college sports. If the SCORE Act passes Congress—a big 'if' given that college sports bills in Congress in recent years have all flamed out—Trump would have the chance to sign a college sports act into law. Of course, the SCORE Act could be challenged in court, including on grounds mentioned above. But given that it would be federal law, it would stand a stronger chance of sticking than an executive order.
Best of Sportico.com
College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Witkoff says US cutting short Gaza ceasefire talks over Hamas's ‘lack of desire'
US President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff said on Thursday the US is cutting short Gaza ceasefire talks and bringing home its negotiating team from Qatar for consultations after the latest response from Hamas 'shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire in Gaza'. 'While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be co-ordinated or acting in good faith,' Mr Witkoff said. 'We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza.' He said it was 'a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way' and that the US is 'resolute' in seeking an end to the conflict in Gaza. A breakthrough in talks on a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas has eluded the Trump administration for months as conditions worsen in Gaza. The sides have held weeks of talks in Qatar, reporting small signs of progress but no major breakthroughs. Officials have said a main sticking point is the redeployment of Israeli troops after any ceasefire takes place.


American Press
25 minutes ago
- American Press
Trump grants exemptions to Louisiana chemical facilities
(Metro Creative Serivces) President Donald Trump issued a proclamation exempting certain chemical manufacturing facilities from upcoming changes to the EPA's Hazardous Organic National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The new rule, finalized on May 16, 2024, would impose stricter emissions control requirements on facilities in the synthetic chemical and polymer manufacturing sectors. In his proclamation, President Trump highlighted the 'substantial burdens' that these regulations would impose on chemical manufacturers who are already operating under stringent regulations. The president expressed concerns that many of the testing and monitoring requirements outlined in the HON Rule rely on technologies that are either unavailable, unproven at the required scale, or unsafe to implement under real-world conditions. 'These requirements assume uniform technological availability across facilities, despite significant variation in site conditions, equipment configurations, and permitting realities,' the proclamation reads. 'For many facilities, compliance would require shutdowns or costly capital investments without a clear path to meeting the new standards.' The new HON rule aims to reduce toxic air pollutants from equipment and processes used in synthetic chemical manufacturing. It directly affects facilities across Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Ohio River Valley. The rule targets smog-forming volatile organic compounds and establishes new emission limits for dioxins and furans. Additionally, facilities will be required to implement fenceline monitoring if they handle any of six high-risk chemicals. The facilities in Louisiana granted an exemption from these new regulations include prominent chemical plants such as Shell Geismar, Dow Chemical Glycol Plant, Formosa Plastic, Union Carbide/Dow Chemical in Hahnville, Westlake Vinyl and several others. 'LDEQ leadership was aware that some Louisiana facilities had applied for this exemption, and we were closely monitoring the status,' said Courtney Burdette, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 'We will continue to enforce existing HON rules for these plants, with no changes in how the agency oversees their operations.' The proclamation also stresses the importance of maintaining a robust domestic chemical industry, citing its vital role in national defense, energy, agriculture, and public health sectors. Trump emphasized that a disruption in the industry would weaken key supply chains, increase dependence on foreign producers, and impair the country's crisis response capabilities. The exemption granted to these facilities delays compliance with the HON rule for an additional two years beyond the original deadline. During this period, these facilities will continue to operate under the previous emissions standards.


New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump threatens to escalate trade war with new round of tariffs up to 50%
President Donald Trump said he will impose tariffs ranging from a minimum rate of 15% to a clip as high as 50% as his Aug. 1 deadline looms. 'We'll have a straight, simple tariff of anywhere between 15% and 50%,' Trump said Wednesday at an artificial intelligence summit in Washington, DC. Trump's latest tariff salvo was aimed at countries that have not yet secured bilateral trade frameworks with Washington. Advertisement 4 President Donald Trump said Wednesday that his administration is preparing to impose a new round of tariffs ranging from a minimum rate of 15% to a clip as high as 50%. REUTERS While some nations are actively negotiating to lower their rates, Trump emphasized that he intends to apply a 'very, very simple tariff for some of the countries,' citing the logistical challenge of negotiating individual deals with over 150 nations. 'You can't negotiate deals with everyone,' Trump said. Advertisement He added that negotiations with the European Union were 'serious' and tied potential reductions in tariffs to increased access for American businesses. 'If they agree to open up the (EU) to American businesses, then we will let them pay a lower tariff,' Trump said. The markets were mixed Thursday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling 164 points, or 0.36%, to 44,846.29 as of noon. The S&P 500 rose 13.68 points, or 0.22%, to 6,372.59, while the Nasdaq gained 43.05 points, or 0.21%, to reach 21,063.06. Advertisement 4 Trump laid out his latest tariff plans, describing them as 'reciprocal' duties ahead of an Aug. 1 deadline. Getty Images Trump's comments mark a shift from statements when he initially proposed a universal tariff of 10% on nearly every country during his 'Liberation Day' rollout in April. While his team has previously floated rates between 10% and 15%, Wednesday's remarks indicate that the baseline is now expected to begin at 15%, with significantly higher rates for countries with strained relations with the US. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Sunday that smaller nations — including 'the Latin American countries, the Caribbean countries, many countries in Africa' — would face a baseline tariff of 10%. Advertisement Despite initial expressions of interest in formal trade agreements, Trump has recently suggested that the letters themselves constitute a form of dealmaking. Still, countries may reduce their rates through side agreements. 4 Trump's tariff initiative, which he began rolling out in April, is aimed at countries that have not yet secured bilateral trade frameworks with Washington. REUTERS On Tuesday, the White House announced that Trump had agreed to reduce a proposed 25% tariff on Japan to 15%. The reduction was made in exchange for Japan lifting certain restrictions on US products and pledging $550 billion in US investments. A similar deal is reportedly under discussion with South Korea, according to people familiar with the matter. That country is also working toward securing a 15% tariff rate, including on automobiles. In Southeast Asia, the Philippines is also seeking to lower its rate. According to the country's ambassador to the US, Jose Manuel Romualdez, the Philippines hopes to bring down its current tariff rate from 19% to 15%. Vietnam, another country weighing its options, is assessing the possible consequences of not securing a trade agreement. An internal Vietnamese government estimate projects that its exports to the US could fall by as much as one-third if higher tariffs take effect. 4 An aerial view of a container shipped docked at the Port of Oakland on May 20. Getty Images Advertisement India and members of the European Union are also pushing for trade agreements before the new tariffs are enacted. As the deadline nears, multiple governments are working to either strike a deal or gauge the economic impact of the proposed levies. Trump's increasingly firm stance on tariffs suggests a broader strategy to use trade policy as a lever for international concessions. With the Aug. 1 implementation date fast approaching, the administration is signaling that countries will either accept the new terms or negotiate quickly to avoid higher costs.