“Urgent” Executive Action: President Trump’s Play to Save College Sports

Introduction

On April 3, 2026, United States President Donald Trump issued an executive order and corresponding fact sheet titled “Urgent National Action to Save College Sports,” outlining a plan with the stated intent of “preserv[ing] college sports for future generations” (the “Order”).¹ This Alert summarizes the Order’s key provisions, analyzes its potential impact on universities, student-athletes, NIL collectives, brands, investors, and other stakeholders, and highlights the practical considerations for navigating the rapidly evolving college athletics and federal funding landscapes.

The Order directs federal agencies to immediately begin implementing regulatory measures and policies to ensure that such measures and policies are effective by August 1, 2026. This Order follows President Trump’s July 2025 executive order titled “Saving College Sports,” which urged federal agencies to develop policies to enhance scholarship opportunities for women’s and nonrevenue sports and to clarify the status of student-athletes, as well as a White House roundtable on March 6, 2026, during which college leaders and other stakeholders emphasized the need for federal intervention to stabilize the college sports landscape.² Notably, while the Order’s directives are sweeping in scope, as discussed below, an executive order is not legislation and is not binding on private parties, including the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”), and accordingly leaves many open questions as to how the NCAA and others will respond and how such measures and policies will interact with current legal frameworks.

What an Executive Order Means

An executive order is a published instruction from the president, aimed to direct the activities of the federal government. Although executive orders carry the force of law within the executive branch, they are not laws enacted by Congress and do not create new statutes, override existing federal laws, or bind private parties. The NCAA, as a nonprofit membership association whose authority derives from voluntary agreements with its more than 1,000 member institutions rather than from government mandate, is not directly bound by the Order.

That said, the Order is likely to have a number of practical effects. Universities that receive federal grants and contracts could see such funding threatened if deemed noncompliant with the Order, and stakeholders widely expect the Order to accelerate congressional action on college athletics legislation.

Summary of the Order’s Key Provisions

The Order aims to preserve the American system of college sports by curtailing what the administration characterizes as an “out-of-control financial arms race” that negatively impacts universities and is “damaging” student-athletes’ opportunities. The issues contemplated by the Order include eligibility and transfer restrictions, Name, Image and Likeness (“NIL”) reform including prohibition on pay-for-play, federal enforcement mechanisms, and legal action to invalidate certain state laws that conflict with interstate intercollegiate athletic governing body (e.g., NCAA) rules governing the foregoing issues.

At its core, the Order contends that unsustainable spending compounded by the enormous competitive pressure in football and basketball and the loosening of consistent rules governing eligibility and transfers have driven universities into significant debt. Despite the administration’s enforcement efforts focused on university research funding, the Order reasons that “these financial perils . . . could impact [universities’] capabilities and responsibilities as Federal contractors and grantees,” which in turn could be detrimental to federal agencies (e.g., Department of War, Department of Health and Human Services, National Science Foundation) given that the “university system is integral to the Federal Government’s basic functioning.” Additional objectives include protecting women’s and Olympic sports, which may not benefit from university spending.

The Order directs interstate intercollegiate athletic governing bodies (e.g., NCAA), in consultation with student-athletes, to establish the following by August 1, 2026:

• Eligibility Limits: Age-based eligibility limits; a five-year cap on eligibility (excluding military service, missionary service, and other absences that are in the public interest); and a prohibition on professional athletes returning to college athletics.
• Transfer Restrictions: A maximum of two transfers—a one-time transfer during the foregoing five-year period with immediate playing eligibility, and one additional transfer if the student-athlete obtains a four-year degree. The transfer window should not interfere with the academic year or the athletic season.
• Medical Care: Coverage for college athlete-related injuries for student-athletes during their enrollment and for a reasonable period thereafter.
• Revenue Sharing: Revenue-sharing between universities and student-athletes with an emphasis on preserving opportunities in women’s and Olympic sports, coupled with a prohibition on using federal funds for NIL or revenue-sharing or for coaching or athletic compensation.
• NIL and Financial Activity Restrictions: A prohibition on “improper financial activities,” which includes a federally funded higher education institution (or its representatives, including booster collectives) paying a student-athlete above the fair market value for a good or service in connection with the athlete’s participation in college athletics, i.e., “pay-for-play.” NIL opportunities provided by a third party not affiliated with the athletic department for a valid business purpose at fair market value are expressly permitted.
• Agent Regulation: Creation of a national student-athlete agent registry and protections for student-athletes on agent commissions.

State Action

One key component of the Order is a directive to the United States Attorney General to take action to invalidate state laws that discriminate or impede interstate commerce or federal supremacy, suggesting that states with more permissive laws may face litigation. This signals that, to the extent a federal law is developed, the Trump administration may assert federal preemption—essentially teeing up further litigation on the interplay between state and federal regulation of college athletics.

Congress

The Order “strongly encourage[s]” Congress to “expeditiously pass legislation” to address these issues. While the Order itself does not compel legislative action, it creates significant political pressure and a blueprint for the contours of any future federal statute governing college athletics.

Potential Impact of the Order

Colleges and Universities

The real impact of the Order is a threat to universities’ federal funding, whether universities are acting as contractors or grantees. The Order directs federal agencies—notably the Federal Trade Commission, Office of Management and Budget (the “OMB”), and Department of Education—to establish rules and consider appropriate action for any violations of the foregoing rules to be put in place by August 1, 2026, including suspending or terminating federal grants and contracts from schools. Specifically, the Order directs agency heads that contract with or provide grants to higher education institutions (defined as those generating at least $20 million in athletics revenue) to evaluate violations of applicable interstate intercollegiate athletic governing body rules, specifically those concerning eligibility limits, transfers, revenue-sharing, and improper financial activities—to determine whether such violations are “a cause so serious or compelling in nature to affect the present responsibility of the recipient.” As “improper financial activities” are defined under the Order to include accepting money from anyone that participates in a fraudulent NIL scheme, the foregoing could impact universities’ fundraising efforts more broadly.

In addition, the Order instructs the OMB, in consultation with the Administrator of General Services, to “issue guidance to contracting and grantmaking agencies to ensure compliance with this [O]rder and to reinforce the suspension and debarment policy regarding violations of the rules” described above. These provisions leverage the federal government’s existing debarment authority as a contracting and grantmaking entity. The Order does not create new law, but directs agencies to use existing procurement and grant management tools to pressure federal funding recipients’ compliance, thereby subjecting universities to federal debarment risk for purported violations of NCAA rules. Whether agencies can lawfully utilize these tools to enforce violations of the athletics rules is unclear, and efforts to do so likely will result in litigation.

NIL Collectives

The Order places heightened scrutiny on NIL collectives, the donor- and booster-led groups that emerged after the NCAA allowed student-athletes to profit from endorsement deals. The Order directs prohibitions on universities engaging in “fraudulent NIL scheme[s],” which are defined as any scheme to pay for goods or services, including NIL services, above the actual fair market value of those goods or services in connection with a student-athlete’s participation in intercollegiate athletics, “including through the use of collectives or similar entities.” Universities that knowingly accept contributions from persons who participate in “fraudulent NIL schemes,” or that engage in or facilitate pay-for-play arrangements, risk suspension and debarment from federal contracts and grants.

The Order carves out two narrow exceptions to the definition of a “fraudulent NIL scheme”: (1) revenue sharing between an institution and a student-athlete that is consistent with governing body rules, and (2) fair market value compensation provided by an unaffiliated third party for a valid business purpose related to the promotion or endorsement of goods or services, at rates commensurate with those paid to non-athlete individuals with comparable NIL value. The second exception echoes the language of the House v. NCAA settlement, which stipulated that NIL payments from associated entities and individuals (collectives) must be for a valid business purpose with compensation at rates and terms commensurate with similarly situated individuals.³ Notably, although the House v. NCAA settlement terms permit “associated entities” (including booster collectives) to engage in or facilitate student-athlete NIL deals that meet the above requirements (to be reviewed and confirmed by the CSC (defined below)), the listed exception in the Order only references “a third-party not affiliated with the athletic department of a higher education institution” without further defining what that means. The interpretation of the Order with respect to the role that booster collectives are permitted to play in NIL deals remains to be clarified in any further rulemaking.

Brands

Although the objectives of the Order do not take effect immediately, consumer brands and other companies that engage in endorsement deals with student-athletes should prepare for a new, more stringent framework in which NIL deals with student-athletes must reflect fair market value for student-athletes’ goods and services, with processes in place to document that valuation. As it presently stands, the College Sports Commission (“CSC”), the independent oversight body of the Power 5 Conference established by the House settlement to oversee enforcement of NIL and revenue sharing, does not impose a “reasonable range of compensation” requirement on NIL deals with third-party brands that are not affiliated with universities (although such deals must be reported to the CSC).⁴ The Order purports to bring such third-party brand deals under similar scrutiny as deals with “associated entities” such as booster collectives currently face.

Student-Athletes

The Order aims to significantly curtail transfer and eligibility flexibility that student-athletes have gained through litigation in recent years. Most immediately, the Order directs governing bodies such as the NCAA to roll back current transfer rules, in which student-athletes can transfer as many times as they want provided they are academically eligible (subject to sport-specific transfer windows) and can play immediately after transferring, to a more restrictive regime permitting only (1) one free transfer as an undergraduate, with (2) a second transfer requiring the athlete to forfeit a year of eligibility, unless the athlete has obtained a four-year degree. Hundreds of student-athletes who have already transferred once and intend to re-enter the transfer portal could be directly impacted. The five-year eligibility cap could also eliminate or significantly change the NCAA’s existing waiver process that permits extensions due to injury or other extraordinary circumstances. Student-athletes should note, however, that the Order itself does not impose any transfer restrictions on student-athletes. Rather, it directs governing bodies, such as the NCAA, to adopt rules providing for these transfer limits.

The Order also preserves and encourages certain protections for student-athletes, including guaranteed medical care for athletics-related injuries during enrollment and for a reasonable period thereafter, and the implementation of revenue-sharing in a manner that preserves or expands scholarships and opportunities in women’s and Olympic sports.

Private Equity

The Order may also introduce new dynamics into the landscape of private equity investment in collegiate athletics. In recent years, private equity firms have made significant investments in businesses and organizations associated with college sports. These deals underscore the increasing financial interest in athletic departments, collegiate sports teams, and all the related commercial rights associated with college athletics.

The Order’s emphasis on preserving the traditional values and structure of college sports may result in heightened regulatory oversight and potential restrictions on certain forms of commercialization. Private equity firms may face increased compliance requirements and scrutiny, particularly in transactions that intersect with student-athlete compensation or institutional governance.

Additionally, the Order may mandate enhanced transparency and reporting obligations for financial activities within college sports, which could increase administrative burdens and impact deal structuring. While these measures may temper some investment activity, the Order could also create new opportunities for private equity in areas aligned with federal priorities, such as infrastructure development, athlete welfare, and innovative media partnerships. If the Order ultimately leads to clearer rules and a more stable regulatory environment in college sports, private equity investors stand to benefit from more predictable investment outcomes. Private equity investors will need to carefully assess the evolving regulatory environment, adapt their strategies to ensure compliance, and remain responsive to both risks and opportunities presented by the Order’s implementation.

Conclusion

The Order has already drawn notable reactions from key stakeholders across the college sports ecosystem. These reactions underscore the broad institutional support for federal intervention to streamline the patchwork college athletics system, even as significant questions remain about the Order’s enforceability and the potential for legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker, while attending events surrounding the Final Four men’s basketball tournament, expressed hope that the Order would “create a little less chaos” in the current landscape.⁵ The commissioners of the Power Four conferences—the Big Ten, Southeastern Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference, and Big 12—have also publicly supported federal action in college sports, namely through legislation.⁶ United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee Chief Executive Officer Sarah Hirshland issued a statement supporting the Order’s emphasis on preserving investment in Olympic sports and urged Congress to pass comprehensive legislation.⁷ U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, issued a statement emphasizing the need for continued bipartisan Congressional discussions on addressing the key issues facing college sports.⁸ Responses by universities, as opposed to conferences, have been more muted.

It is important to note that the Order itself is likely to be challenged on several bases, including its proposed tying of federal funds to compliance with unrelated rules related to college sports, possible encroachment of traditional state regulatory functions, and antitrust issues with the rules it directed interstate intercollegiate athletic governing bodies to adopt. Additionally, if governing bodies such as the NCAA do act in establishing new rules, such new rules may also be challenged to the extent they conflict with existing state laws and court decisions.

The biggest impact of the Order is the “urgency” it purports to create. The Order represents a significant escalation in federal engagement with college athletics governance. The Order’s use of existing debarment authority to pressure compliance, its targeting of NIL collectives and state laws, and its directive to interstate intercollegiate athletic governing bodies to adopt specific eligibility and transfer restrictions signal that the administration views the current landscape as untenable. However, as an executive order, its provisions are not self-executing and remain subject to legal challenge. The Order is a call to action to the NCAA and similar athletics governing bodies, universities, and Congress, and attempts to fill the void if action is not taken.

We will keep you apprised of further updates in this new, and ever-shifting, landscape.