New Executive Order - NIL Implications

[meZYNbrink]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/24/trump-signs-executive-order-on-college-sports-00475765

[meZYNbrink]

Trump is attempting to limit “pay for play.” Curious for constitutional/legal experts opinions on the implications for NIL deals for wrestlers going forward. 

[bnwtwg]

I would be very curious to hear official positions on a podcast.

[1032004]

Requires preservation/expansion of scholarships for non-revenue sports?  I like it for wrestling obviously, but that certainly doesn’t sound like a “meritocracy”

Edited Friday at 11:11 AM by 1032004

[Fletcher]

It's supposed to help preserve non-revenue sports, but it wasn't clear to me how. Unless that NIL limitation is intended to help non-revenue sports somehow by limiting NIL revenue that presumably otherwise would go to men's football and basketball?

For example, how would this EO have helped Cleveland State if it was issued a year ago?

[ionel]

I predict lawsuits. 

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Fletcher said:

It's supposed to help preserve non-revenue sports, but it wasn't clear to me how. Unless that NIL limitation is intended to help non-revenue sports somehow by limiting NIL revenue that presumably otherwise would go to men's football and basketball?

For example, how would this EO have helped Cleveland State if it was issued a year ago?

It seems to focus on scholarship counts.  Not sure if that would apply to cutting teams completely 

[CHROMEBIRD]

I really like the idea of giving non-revenue sports better funding, but does the EO have any teeth? Congress needs to pass legislation and codify a national NIL/revenue sharing framework.

Getting a definitive answer from the NLRB on whether student athletes should be classified by employees, regardless on where you stand on the issue, is also a pretty good way to light a fire under Congress and get something passed.

[Wrestleknownothing]

51 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

I really like the idea of giving non-revenue sports better funding, but does the EO have any teeth? Congress needs to pass legislation and codify a national NIL/revenue sharing framework.

Getting a definitive answer from the NLRB on whether student athletes should be classified by employees, regardless on where you stand on the issue, is also a pretty good way to light a fire under Congress and get something passed.

darn good question

[ionel]

5 hours ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

I really like the idea of giving non-revenue sports better funding, but does the EO have any teeth? Congress needs to pass legislation and codify a national NIL/revenue sharing framework.

Getting a definitive answer from the NLRB on whether student athletes should be classified by employees, regardless on where you stand on the issue, is also a pretty good way to light a fire under Congress and get something passed.

Any idea which congress persons campaigned on the promise that college athletes won't need to attend classes but will be paid 6 to 7 figures to play games?  

[AtownPoke]

This thing is all about propping up non revenue sports and women’s sports. 
 

if you look at (iii) part D they gloss over the options for enforcement. It all comes down to federal imo

Sec. 2.  Protecting and Expanding Women’s and Non-Revenue Sports and Prohibiting Third-Party Pay-for-Play Payments.  (a)  It is the policy of the executive branch that opportunities for scholarships and collegiate athletic competition in women’s and non-revenue sports must be preserved and, where possible, expanded, including specifically as follows with respect to the 2025-2026 athletic season and future athletic seasons:

(i)    collegiate athletic departments with greater than $125,000,000 in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season should provide more scholarship opportunities in non-revenue sports than during the 2024-2025 athletic season and should provide the maximum number of roster spots for non-revenue sports permitted under the applicable collegiate athletic rules;

(ii)   college athletic departments with greater than $50,000,000 in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season should provide at least as many scholarship opportunities in non-revenue sports as provided during the 2024-2025 athletic season and should provide the maximum number of roster spots for non-revenue sports permitted under the applicable collegiate athletic rules; and

(iii)  college athletic departments with $50,000,000 or less in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season or that do not have any revenue-generating sports should not disproportionately reduce scholarship opportunities or roster spots for sports based on the revenue that the sport generates.

     (b)  It is the policy of the executive branch that any revenue-sharing permitted between universities and collegiate athletes should be designed and implemented in a manner that preserves or expands scholarships and collegiate athletic opportunities in women’s and non-revenue sports.

(c)  To preserve the critical educational and developmental benefits of collegiate athletics for our Nation, it is the policy of the executive branch that third-party, pay-for-play payments to collegiate athletes are improper and should not be permitted by universities.  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 for a brand endorsement. 

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, shall develop a plan to advance the policies set forth in subsections (a)-(c) of this section through all available and appropriate regulatory, enforcement, and litigation mechanisms, including Federal funding decisions, enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, prohibiting unconstitutional actions by States to regulate interstate commerce, and enforcement of other constitutional and statutory protections, and by working with the Congress and State governments, as appropriate.

Edited 19 hours ago by AtownPoke

[BAC]

The executive order is plainly unenforceable as impermissible executive legislation.  Though directionally appropriate it's also ill considered and will serve only to inject added chaos to an already messy environment.

[meZYNbrink]

12 hours ago, BAC said:

The executive order is plainly unenforceable as impermissible executive legislation.  Though directionally appropriate it's also ill considered and will serve only to inject added chaos to an already messy environment.

This was my reaction. I don't know how it is enforceable, outside of withholding federal money and attacking accreditation. My presumption was that this was a virtue signal.