Weekly Column: Executive Power and the Future of College Sports

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines executive power and the future of college sports in light of a recent executive order.

The executive order reflects both the urgency of the moment and the absence of a legislative solution.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

The fight to save college sports is a battle between what was and what it has become. This battle is not between defined titles like coaches versus the student-athletes. The battle is for the future of college sports. In other words, the rules of the game are at stake.

The transfer portal and name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) payments have changed college sports forever. The transfer portal and NIL were driven out of frustration with student-athletes not getting paid despite seeing merchandise sales, television contracts, and apparel deals for universities, conferences, and the NCAA in the millions of dollars. Social media platforms helped to expedite not only the message for change, but literally provided the distribution channel to allow athletes to promote their message and themselves for financial gain.

The problem created by the transfer portal and NIL is that athletes are staying longer in school for the money (not the education) and often transferring between institutions for more money and playing time. Student-athletes are also not being paid for their performance, promoting a product, or some other fair market value valuation, but simply because they play at a certain university and have talent, which is the definition of pay-to-play. Pay-to-play is precisely the model that the sports-education system was meant to avoid, but the transfer portal and NIL have created regardless.

Having older athletes in their mid-20s playing against 18–20 year olds is not only unfair, it is unsafe. Having 50% transfer rates is not only unsustainable, it is unwise, and unfair. Change is needed. The players, coaches, and athletic department leadership agree—the people involved are only trying to succeed to the best of their ability in a system that has been created and will continue to do so until it is changed.

The White House through President Donald J. Trump has issued an executive order (“EO”) for college sports framed as “Urgent National Action to Save College Sports”. The EO directs federal agencies to reshape college athletics through several specific measures: (1) limits athlete eligibility to five years to complete four seasons; (2) a one-time transfer rule; (3) pushes NIL compensation toward “fair market value,” discouraging pay-for-play arrangements; (4) calls for national NIL standards to replace the current patchwork of state laws; and (5) signals potential use of federal funding and agency enforcement to drive compliance.

The executive order reflects both the urgency of the moment and the absence of a legislative solution.

In March 2026, many of the top leaders in college sports met at the White House to discuss these same issues, many of which are reflected in the EO. The question is whether the EO will last past the current presidency (e.g., it is common for future U.S. presidents to issue new EO’s overturning previous ones), whether Congress legislates the EO, or whether states, conferences, or the NCAA make changes. Executive orders allow the President to direct federal agencies, set policy priorities, and take immediate administrative action within existing law, but they do not create new law or override Congress or the courts.

The concern is that Congress has been unwilling to pass federal legislation on what has traditionally been viewed as a state issue or private contractual matter, leaving a regulatory vacuum. The NCAA has shown itself to act with weakened authority with its series of losses in court, while the courts and NCAA rules continue to allow more compensation and eligibility. Compensation and eligibility are one thing, but money without rules and guidelines for teams to compete fairly are a problem and it lacks parity in application.

Imagine professional sports without limitations on draft picks, seemingly unlimited money being spent (absent a salary cap or luxury tax), or contracts to keep players on a team. The benefit of the bargain in sports contracts is that the player gets paid to play and perform, the team and fans receive that benefit, but the contracted athlete does not get to leave every year. That is what college sports have become. It is not great for the players and definitely not good for the universities and fans.

From a legal standpoint, the challenge becomes more complex.

Legally speaking, antitrust law in the courts has favored athlete compensation and mobility. However, rule changes to college sports must define what fair market value is, how that money is earned beyond just playing to avoid the employment law issues, when a student-athlete can transfer (as a foundation it should not be more than a non-student-athlete to be fair), and how to keep fairness and parity among the conferences and universities. The risk in not resolving these issues is a widening gap in competition and a product that becomes increasingly indistinguishable from professional sports.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the Chief Entrepreneur Officer, Founder & Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing entertainment, media, and sports clients in contractual, intellectual property, and dealmaking matters. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.