How President Trump’s New Executive Order Could Change College Sports

President Trump issued an executive order aimed at stabilizing the rapidly evolving landscape of college athletics, particularly in football and basketball. Its stated goal is to preserve opportunities across college sports — especially women’s and Olympic sports. The order responds to what it characterizes as an “out-of-control financial arms race” driven by loosened eligibility, transfer, and name, image and likeness (NIL) rules, combined with inconsistent state legislation and ongoing litigation.

The order frames college football (and, to a lesser degree, men’s basketball) as the primary economic engine supporting athletic departments nationwide. It asserts that unregulated transfers, loosened eligibility standards, and NIL and revenue sharing arrangements have driven universities into significant debt and threatened the funding of women’s and Olympic sports. The order also connects the financial health of major universities to the federal government’s own interests, noting that many institutions are significant defense, medical and scientific research contractors and grant recipients.

While the order may not lead to immediate action, it articulates a clear federal vision for how college sports should be structured and identifies enforcement mechanisms that could materially affect universities. Rather than imposing direct mandates, the order relies heavily on intercollegiate athletic governing bodies — most notably the NCAA — to implement its preferred framework.

What Changes Does the Order Propose?

The order strongly favors uniform, nationwide rules governing college athletics, particularly in three areas: eligibility, transfers, and NIL and revenue sharing.

Eligibility

The order urges the NCAA to adopt defined, “age-based eligibility limits,” including a five‑year participation limit with narrow public‑interest exceptions (e.g. military service and missionary service). The order also urges a ban on professional athletes returning to college competition.

Transfers

The order criticizes unrestricted transfers and calls for a more constrained transfer framework that permits:

• One transfer with immediate eligibility during the five-year eligibility window
• A second transfer with immediate eligibility only after completion of a four‑year degree
• Transfer windows that do not disrupt athletic seasons or academic calendars

NIL and Revenue Sharing

Rather than eliminating NIL and revenue sharing, the order seeks to narrow its scope. From an NIL standpoint, the order distinguishes between legitimate, fair‑market endorsement activity and “improper financial activities,” including collectives facilitating pay‑for‑play payments and the use of federal funds to support coach or athlete compensation.

Additional Oversight Measures

Additionally, the order states that the NCAA should create a national agent registry and enact reasonable protections for student-athletes from excessive agent commissions. The order also urges the NCAA to provide medical care for student-athletes for athletics-related injuries during enrollment and for a reasonable period of time thereafter.

What Are the Order’s Legal Limits, and How Will It Be Enforced?

As with most executive orders, the order’s legal effect is bounded. It does not override federal statutes, court decisions or antitrust law, and it expressly disclaims the creation of privately enforceable rights.

Any meaningful legal consequences would arise only when federal agencies take action pursuant to the order — for example, if a federal agency conditions a grant to a university on compliance with certain athletics‑related standards or otherwise takes action affecting a university’s eligibility for federal funding or contracts. For that reason, any legal challenges are far more likely to focus on agency actions implementing the order, rather than the order itself.

The order’s most consequential feature is not the rule set it describes, but how it proposes to encourage compliance. Amidst the lack of federal legislation or uniform state legislation, the order attempts to provide national uniformity to the college athletics space.

The order’s present significance lies primarily in how it signals federal priorities. It sets the stage for agency action starting Aug. 1, 2026. The order directs the NCAA to enact bylaws or rules mirroring the order by this date. After that, federal contracting and grantmaking agenciesdetermine whether universities are compliant with the NCAA rules and therefore fit for federal grants and contracts.

The order calls for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice to all take “appropriate” action under the order. The Chairman of the FTC can enforce federal law with respect to the actions of student-athlete agents. The Secretary of Education can require regular reporting by universities regarding roster sizes and the total money spent on student-athlete aid for men’s and women’s teams, respectively. And the Attorney General can take action to invalidate state laws that conflict with NCAA rules.

These federal agencies can consider serious violations of the rules on eligibility, transfers, and NIL and revenue sharing when assessing a university’s “present responsibility” as a federal contractor or grantee. In effect, athletics compliance could become relevant to federal funding and contracting decisions, introducing new requirements for institutions with major research relationships with the federal government (e.g. defense research, medical research and scientific research).

What’s Next?

In the near term, the order will serve as a policy signal. The NCAA may respond by developing and refining bylaws aligned with the order’s framework, using the order as potential political and litigation cover while awaiting congressional action. Universities may begin tightening internal controls around NIL valuation and take other steps to prepare for new NCAA bylaws or federal legislation. With that said, universities are unlikely to take immediate action, as competitive realities and lingering antitrust risks discourage schools from restricting athlete compensation or mobility.

Ultimately, the order is best understood as a means to an end. Its durability depends on the NCAA enacting bylaws aligned with the order, future agency enforcement, and judicial tolerance. The realistic “end” may still be Congress enacting comprehensive legislation to establish a national framework for college athletics.

Federal legislation regulating college sports is currently at a standstill. The most recent attempt was through the SCORE Act, which was scheduled for a House vote on Dec. 3, 2025. But, due to disagreements regarding the balance between empowering schools and conferences and empowering student-athletes, the SCORE Act was not ultimately put up for vote.

If nothing else, the order signals a federal preference for fewer transfers, clearer eligibility limits, restrained NIL practices, and financial guardrails designed to protect the broader collegiate sports ecosystem. For the order to have practical effect, the NCAA will need to enact rules on these topics by Aug. 1, 2026.

Please contact Steven Blank, Rhett Parker or any member of Phelps’ sports or education teams if you have questions or need guidance.