Trump Executive Order, SCORE Act signal renewed federal policy focus on college sports industry

Saving College Sports Executive Order

Describing the college sports industry as an “out of control, rudderless system” whose future is under “unprecedented threat,” the Trump EO states that a national solution is needed “to protect non-revenue sports, including many women’s sports, that comprise the backbone of intercollegiate athletics, drive American superiority at the Olympics and other international competitions, and catalyze hundreds of thousands of student-athletes to fuel American success in myriad ways.”³ The EO declares it is the policy of the administration to “provide the stability, fairness, and balance necessary to protect student-athletes, collegiate athletic scholarships and opportunities, and the special American institution of college sports.”⁴

The EO lays out several directives to accomplish these policy priorities. First, the EO directs institutions to take steps to preserve and expand opportunities for scholarships and competition in women’s and non-revenue sports, and states that any revenue sharing arrangements between institutions and student-athletes should be implemented in a manner that furthers these goals.⁵ Notably, the EO encourages institutions to take the following specific measures with respect to scholarships and roster spots for non-revenue sports in the upcoming academic year:

1. Institutions with greater than $125 million in athletic revenues should increase scholarship opportunities and maximize roster spots in non-revenue sports during the 2025-2026 academic year.
2. Institutions with greater than $50 million in athletic revenues should at a minimum maintain the number of non-revenue scholarships and maximize roster spots for the 2025-2026 academic year.
3. Institutions with less than $50 million in athletic revenues should not disproportionately reduce scholarship opportunities or roster spots based on the amount of revenue the sport generates for the institution.⁶

The EO also directs the Secretary of Education, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to develop a plan within 30 days of the date of the EO to advance these policies through federal funding decisions, administrative rulemaking, regulatory enforcement, and litigation.⁷ The deadline for the plan is August 23, 2025 and we are monitoring for any specific policy that emerges.

In addition to the guidance related to non-revenue sports, the EO also contains more general directives related to “pay-for-play” prohibitions, student-athlete employment status, and antitrust protections for the college athletics industry. Specifically, the EO declares that third-party, pay-for-play arrangements with student-athletes are improper and should not be allowed (but notes that this policy does not apply to compensation provided to an athlete for the fair market value that the athlete provides to a third party, such as an endorsement deals), and directs executive agencies to develop plans to enforce this prohibition through funding decisions, litigation, and legislative efforts.⁸ The EO also directs the Secretary of Labor and the NLRB to “clarify the status of collegiate athletes” through guidance and actions to “maximize the educational benefits and opportunities provided by higher education institutions through athletics.”⁹ Finally, the EO directs the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC to “stabilize and preserve college athletics through litigation, guidelines, policies, or other actions” when the “rights and interests of student-athletes and the long-term availability of college athletic scholarships and opportunities” are challenged on antitrust or other legal grounds.¹⁰

The Trump EO is important for at least two key reasons. First, it clarifies the policy priorities of the administration with respect to college sports and directs executive agencies to take action to implement such priorities through administrative guidance, regulatory enforcement, and litigation. It suggests institutions that cut scholarships and roster spots in non-revenue sports may face regulatory scrutiny, which underscores the need for institutions to think boldly and strategically about how to fund payments to student-athletes under the House settlement. Second, the EO provides additional momentum for federal policymaking related to college sports generally (especially when combined with the progress of the SCORE Act, discussed below), as it lays out the preferred positions of President Trump, who holds significant sway over a Republican party that controls both houses of congress.

That said, the EO ultimately leaves many key questions unanswered. It does not provide affirmative guidance on the application of Title IX to institutional revenue sharing, nor does it provide clarity as to whether the Trump administration considers student-athletes to be employees (although the administration has already rescinded Biden-era guidance stating that Title IX applies to revenue sharing and that student-athletes should be classified as employees for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act).¹¹ Additionally, although the EO can direct the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to take positions in litigation that might aid antitrust protection for the NCAA and conferences, it cannot unilaterally provide such protection, which would require an act of Congress (and, as described below, is one key feature of the SCORE Act). Ultimately, given that the EO does not carry the force of law, its actual effect, especially in the immediate term, may be limited. Indeed, NCAA President Charlie Baker recently acknowledged, “You can’t fix this stuff from executive order,” and noted that the NCAA’s focus “really needs to be trying to get stuff dealt with through the legislative process.”¹²

SCORE Act

On July 23, 2025, the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (“SCORE”) Act was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.¹³ Both committees approved the bill with only Republican votes, although the legislation was co-sponsored by two Democrats.¹⁴

Overall, the proposed legislation contains many of the policy items pushed by the NCAA and certain conferences through their lobbying efforts in the post-Alston era. Specifically, the legislation largely codifies the powers extended to the NCAA and College Sports Commission under the House Settlement. The Act permits “Interstate Athletic Associations” (e.g., the NCAA) to establish and enforce rules 1) requiring student-athletes to disclose NIL agreements (i.e., the NIL Go framework); 2) prohibiting certain forms of NIL compensation from associated entities and individuals; 3) setting rules for the recruitment of student-athletes, the eligibility of student-athletes to participate in intercollegiate athletics, and the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions; and 4) providing for a revenue sharing model mirroring the pool limits set forth in House.¹⁵

Additionally, the bill provides broad antitrust protections for the NCAA and its member institutions to enforce and comply with the terms of the Act, provides that student-athletes shall not be considered employees of institutions based on their participation in intercollegiate athletics, and explicitly preempts state laws with respect to the regulation of student-athlete compensation, NIL rights related to broadcasting, employment, and eligibility for participation in intercollegiate athletics.¹⁶

The SCORE Act is the first major piece of college sports legislation to emerge from committee in recent years, reflecting an increased sense of urgency on Capitol Hill to address the uncertainty surrounding intercollegiate athletics. Additionally, the Act’s passage out of committee places a marker down for support among House Republicans for many of the NCAA and conferences’ policy priorities. That said, even if the bill were to pass the Republican-controlled House later this year, it faces challenges in the current Senate, given that it would need 60 votes, including seven Democrats, to overcome a filibuster. Indeed, critics of the legislation, including many Democrats in the House and Senate, as well as state attorneys general and the players’ associations of several professional sports leagues, contend that the Act vests too much power with the NCAA and the power conferences, fails to adequately address concerns over compliance with Title IX, and does not go far enough in addressing the concerns of student-athletes.¹⁷ Ultimately, congressional approval of a comprehensive college athletics bill will likely require a negotiated compromise in the Senate, where Republican Senator Ted Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, has been engaged in negotiations with Democratic Senators Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal.

Takeaways for institutions

While the EO does not carry the force of law, NCAA institutions, particularly those in Division I and that have opted into the House Settlement, should proactively consider how to comply with the terms of the EO pending additional regulatory guidance issued by executive agencies. This is particularly true for the provisions of the EO addressing scholarships and roster spots for non-revenue sports. Additionally, institutions should continue to carefully monitor new administrative guidance issued by agencies to ensure compliance in an evolving regulatory environment. Furthermore, given the policy positions staked out by President Trump and House Republicans, institutions should give thought to their own policy preferences and whether increased advocacy on Capitol Hill makes sense to help advance the best interests of their athletic departments and student-athletes.

Authored by Joel Buckman, Aaron Cutler, and Evan Guimond.