Who Better to Save College Sports than the Athletes Themselves?

The recent Executive Order "Urgent National Action to Save College Sports" is now the second Executive Order that has been issued within the first 15 months of the Trump Administration attempting to fix collegiate athletics, which in itself showcases the complex realities and difficulties that face college sports today.

The Executive Order's goal of fairness for all college athletes is laudable, but the persistence of these problems makes clear that solutions are neither simple nor swift. Several competing interests lie at the heart of this debate.

The first being that colleges and universities across the U.S. offer a wide array of options for student athletes who want to continue their athletic successes beyond high school. Small, private universities offer a very different playing experience than that of large, public universities. But both could receive federal funding in some capacity that could now be in jeopardy.

Revenue streams and athlete experience vary greatly between schools due to factors like access to ticket sales for competition, playing venues and training facilities, television rights, donors/boosters, and more.  Student athletes choose a school based on their desired level of commitment to training, competition, and academic interests. Rarely do they even consider whether their school will have the money to keep their sport active for their full playing career, but rather how they will be treated as an athlete. And diverse experiences and opportunities cannot be prescribed to the same, sweeping changes. 

Adding additional context to the discussion, in 2025 the House vs. NCAA settlement established a new rule for college athletics that allows top tier NCAA schools to pay players directly for the right to use their name, image, and likeness (NIL). This ruling was triggered by the 2021 NCAA rule allowing "pay to play" options for athletes. For years, the NCAA and universities profited handsomely from college athletes while those same athletes saw none of that revenue beyond a scholarship. The Supreme Court ultimately changed that, ruling that athletes could be compensated for their work.

Nevertheless, the schools continue to maintain all of the power in distributing money to athletes, with the understanding being that the athletes who generate the greatest revenue for their school will receive the most compensation: namely football and basketball players. Those competing in less popular sports, therefore, do not see more money at times, but less, coming to their sports.

For those athletes who are the most highly sought after, they look to increase their compensation. Players often transfer to multiple schools during their playing career in order to generate better NIL contracts, deeming the NIL process a "wild west" in college sports. 

The Executive Orders argue that "powerhouse" sports like football and basketball are so competitive in their attempts to recruit top athletes and maintain a winning record, that selects sports are now driving athlete compensation. The result?  Top tier schools driven into debt that then harms opportunities for other athletes in non-revenue generating sports.

And that has become a very real issue among many large universities. 

Now the Trump Administration is pushing Congress to take action before the beginning of the 2026-2027 academic year. 

The problem - those at the table now attempting to put in place more regulations governing athletes are doing so without any current collegiate athletes in the conversation. A recent meeting at the White House to discuss reform included former Alabama football coach Nick Saban, NCAA President Charlie Baker, SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, Texas Tech billionaire booster Cody Campbell and the chief executive of the U.S. Olympic Committee, Sarah Hirshland, among others. None of these individuals is a current college athlete who can speak to the perspective of those who are directly affected by these regulations. 

For athletes who choose to play at the Division I level, they want to compete and they want to win. These athletes are spending hours each day training coupled with most evenings and weekends in competition while their sport is in season. In the offseason they continue to train, early in the morning and late at night, with sore muscles and sprained and broken bones. These athletes deserve to be compensated for their dedication and hard work. If it is their future that is currently being considered in these Executive Orders and even congressional actions, then these individuals should have a seat at the table.

The universities that recruit these athletes do so for their prowess on the playing field, with the promise of developing skills that will serve them as accomplished members of society off the field. What better way to prepare these young adults for the realities of signing a contract than to ensure they are equipped with the knowledge and tools to make informed decisions as part of their commitment to a four-year university? 

If these institutions are willing to make money from the work that these athletes put into their sport while they build lucrative TV and broadcasting rights, then they should also share with these athletes a seat at the table to ensure fairness for everyone involved.

A true team effort. 

Blaise Stanicic

Associate Director, Compliance Training, TRACE