\n To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
\n <\/p>\n
Article Insights<\/p>\n
Seyfarth Shaw LLP are most popular: <\/p>\n
\n within Compliance and Consumer Protection topic(s)
<\/p>\n
Seyfarth Synopsis<\/p>\n
On April 3, 2026, President Trump signed \u201cUrgent National Action to Save College Sports,\u201d his most comprehensive executive order on college athletics to date. The Order calls on the NCAA to establish transfer restrictions, eligibility caps, and NIL guardrails by August 1, 2026, backed by the threat of federal funding consequences for noncompliant schools. It is also limited in application to schools with over $20 million in athletics revenue. The NCAA and Power Four commissioners have praised the Order however, there are gaps: it does not address whether college athletes are employees, many of its provisions conflict with existing court rulings, and its long-term viability without Congressional legislation remains doubtful.<\/p>\n
On April 3, 2026, President Trump signed \u201cUrgent National Action to Save College Sports\u201d \u2014 the most comprehensive federal intervention into collegiate athletics to date. The executive order (\u201cthe Order\u201d) calls on the NCAA to overhaul its rules on transfers, eligibility, NIL, and revenue sharing by August 1, 2026. Noncompliant, covered schools face the potential loss of federal grants and contracts.<\/p>\n
The NCAA and Power Four commissioners quickly expressed support. NCAA President Charlie Baker called it \u201ca significant step forward.\u201d1\u00a0SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey, Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti, Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark, and ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips all praised the Trump administration, and urged Congress to pass the SCORE Act or other legislation.2\u00a0The coordinated messaging was clear: major institutional stakeholders want legislation as the next step.<\/p>\n
However, the Order has conspicuous gaps and significant legal vulnerabilities. First, it does not address whether college athletes are employees, even as\u00a0Johnson v. NCAA\u00a0(which held that athletes can be employees under the FLSA) proceeds in district court. Second, its own effectiveness depends on whether the NCAA adopts these rules by August 1 and whether those rules survive judicial challenge. Third, no student-athletes were consulted. Not surprisingly, athletes\u2019 representatives are critical: co-lead plaintiff attorney Steve Berman called the order \u201can affront to the Sherman Act.\u201d3\u00a0The Order will almost certainly generate significant litigation and the Order\u2019s purpose may be less about resolving college sports\u2019 issues than pressuring Congress to act.<\/p>\n
How We Got Here<\/p>\n
This is the second executive order on college sports in less than a year, following the July 2025 \u201cSaving College Sports\u201d order whose practical impact proved limited. It arrives against the backdrop of the June 2025\u00a0House v. NCAA\u00a0settlement (which allowed schools to share up to $20.5 million annually with athletes), two stalled Congressional bills (the SCORE Act and the SAFE Act), and a March 2026 White House roundtable that produced five presidential advisory committees but no legislation.<\/p>\n
For our detailed analysis of the first executive order, the House settlement, and the competing legislative proposals, see our prior coverage:\u00a0After House v. NCAA: Will Congress or the White House Bring Order to College Sports?<\/a>\u00a0(October 2025).<\/p>\n What the Executive Order Provides<\/p>\n The Order applies only to institutions generating at least $20 million in total athletics revenue during the preceding academic year, effectively limiting its coverage to Power Four programs and upper-tier Group of Six schools. For those institutions it operates on two tracks: it calls on the NCAA to update its rules by August 1, 2026, and it directs federal agencies to use grant and contract eligibility as the enforcement mechanism.<\/p>\n The proposed new NCAA rules are as follows:<\/p>\n 1. Eligibility Caps<\/p>\n Participation in college athletics is limited to a five-year window, with limited exceptions for military service, missionary service, and other absences in the public interest. Athletes who have competed at the professional level cannot return to college athletics. This responds to the wave of eligibility lawsuits that have burdened the NCAA.<\/p>\n 2. Transfer Restrictions<\/p>\n Student-athletes are permitted one free transfer with immediate playing eligibility during their five-year participation window. A second transfer with immediate eligibility is available only if the athlete has obtained a four-year degree. Notably, since the Order takes effect August 1, the upcoming men\u2019s basketball transfer portal window (which opens this week) will operate under existing rules.<\/p>\n 3. NIL and Pay-for-Play<\/p>\n The Order prohibits \u201cfraudulent NIL schemes,\u201d which is defined as any arrangement to pay above actual fair market value in connection with an athlete\u2019s participation in college athletics. Two safe harbors are carved out: revenue sharing consistent with NCAA\/House settlement rules, and fair market value compensation by an unaffiliated third party for a valid business purpose, at rates comparable to non-athlete endorsers. The Order also defines and prohibits four categories of \u201cimproper financial activities,\u201d including tortiously interfering with a student-athlete\u2019s contract at another institution \u2014 a provision that targets the widespread issue of poaching in the transfer portal era.<\/p>\n 4. Women\u2019s and Olympic Sports Protections<\/p>\n Revenue sharing cannot be allocated in a way that reduces scholarships and opportunities in women\u2019s and Olympic sports. The Department of Education is directed to require regular reporting on roster spots by team and total spending on athletic aid, broken out by men\u2019s and women\u2019s teams.<\/p>\n 5. Medical Care for Student-Athletes<\/p>\n The Order calls for medical care for student-athletes who sustain athletics-related injuries during enrollment and for a reasonable period thereafter. While it does not define \u201creasonable period,\u201d this provision could expand post-enrollment obligations for athletic departments. This requirement could also impact the ongoing question of employee classification status.<\/p>\n 6. Agent Regulation<\/p>\n The Order calls for the creation of a national student-athlete agent registry, with protections against excessive commissions. The FTC is designated to enforce the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA) against these agents and related entities.<\/p>\n 7. Challenging State NIL Laws<\/p>\n The Attorney General is directed to bring legal actions to invalidate state laws that conflict with NCAA rules, invoking the dormant Commerce Clause, the Contracts Clause, and federal preemption. This is a direct attack on the patchwork of state NIL laws that the NCAA has long argued undermines uniform enforcement.<\/p>\n 8. Enforcement: The Suspension and Debarment Framework<\/p>\n Federal agencies that contract with or provide grants to covered institutions are directed to evaluate whether violations of NCAA rules constitute a cause serious enough to affect the institution\u2019s present responsibility as a federal grant or contract recipient. The Office of Management and Budget is directed to issue guidance reinforcing this suspension and debarment framework, and the General Services Administration is directed to establish regular data collection for compliance monitoring. This is the Order\u2019s most consequential provision: universities that depend on federal research funding will take this threat seriously. Defining and applying enforcement will be a challenge.<\/p>\n Expect Litigation<\/p>\n