The Commander-in-Chief publicly delivered his highly anticipated directive regarding collegiate athletics this past Thursday.
As indicated by the Presidential Office, the decree “forbids remunerative arrangements between collegiate athletes and external entities where compensation is tied to athletic performance.” However, it specifies that it “does not preclude legitimate, market-driven compensation provided by an independent third party to an athlete, such as for endorsing a brand.”
Additionally, the mandate requires the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board to “clarify the standing of student-athletes to safeguard non-revenue generating sports and the vital educational and growth opportunities they afford” and directs Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Federal Trade Commission to “undertake suitable actions to defend the rights of student-athletes and ensure the enduring stability of college athletics against incessant and undermining antitrust and other legal challenges.”
The release of the executive measure held no surprises, though its immediate or extended implications for collegiate athletics remain ambiguous, if any are to materialize. Its proposition has been publicly discussed for several months.
This executive action unfolds against the backdrop of collegiate sports administrators lobbying Congress for federal statutes governing the realm of name, image, and likeness rights, spurred by the NCAA’s loosening of amateurism regulations in the early years of the 2020s.
Here is the NCAA’s position statement pertaining to the President’s executive directive:
“The NCAA is actively pursuing beneficial modifications for student-athletes and addressing manifold challenges within collegiate sports by implementing mandates for health and wellness support and guaranteeing scholarship provisions, yet certain menaces to collegiate sports can be more effectively tackled through federal legislation. The Association is working alongside student-athletes and their institutions to advocate for a bipartisan solution with Congress and the administration,” stated NCAA president Steven LeBlanc following the issuance of the order. “The Association acknowledges the attention given by the Presidential Administration to the transformative prospects afforded to millions of young individuals through college sports, and we are eager to collaborate with student-athletes, a bipartisan collective within Congress, and the Presidential Administration to elevate college sports for future generations.”
Congressional intent to promptly legislate remains uncertain. Yahoo Sports journalist Pete Thamel previously detailed the substance of the executive action, and a leading attorney involved in the House settlement with the NCAA deemed the order “unjustified.”
“To be clear, collegiate athletes have no need for the President’s assistance, and he should not be supporting the NCAA at the expense of these athletes,” stated Jeffrey Kessler, managing partner and co-founder of Winston & Strawn, in a previous statement to Yahoo Sports. “The President should disengage. These extraordinary athletes do not require your involvement. Allow them to independently negotiate their own agreements. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, including Justice Barrett, a presidential appointee, has criticized the NCAA’s compensation policies as infringing upon antitrust laws. Why, Mr. President, grant them immunity in light of that ruling?”
The settlement in question heralds a new epoch of revenue distribution within collegiate sports, wherein institutions directly allocate funds to athletes. Moreover, this settlement has the potential to precipitate shifts in the categorization of athletes. With athletes now receiving remuneration from their respective institutions, a more compelling argument for their classification as university employees may arise.
The issuance of this directive occurs months after the concept of a presidential commission on collegiate sports was brought forth. While figures such as former University of Florida coach Urban Meyer were speculated as potential leaders of this commission, even he contended that such a body was unnecessary. Concurrently, legislative proposals are under review within the House.
Should any legislative measure advance, it would represent the inaugural instance of a bill regulating collegiate sports reaching the House or Senate floor during the NIL era. The NCAA has consistently solicited federal guidance in the wake of numerous states instituting their own statutes governing how collegiate athletes may receive payment. Rather than contending with laws on a state-by-state basis, the NCAA largely repealed its restrictions on athlete compensation, and the resultant absence of oversight has engendered apprehension among politicians and collegiate administrators.
