Who Should “Save” College Sports? Federal Power, congressional Authority, and the Limits of Executive Action

Introduction: Executive Action Renews the Debate

In July 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (see link below) instructing federal agencies to “stabilize” college athletics, reaffirm the amateur model, limit certain pay-for-play arrangements, and protect non-revenue sports. This move injects federal authority directly into the national debate over college sports governance—reviving the question: who actually has the legal power to shape this American institution—Congress, the President, or the NCAA?

But as this executive action unfolds, it is critical to ask: What can a president really accomplish on his or her own? And how do recent Supreme Court decisions shape the answer?

History Repeated: The NCAA’s Long Struggle with National Rule-Making

Federal attempts at order echo the long-standing NCAA struggle. In 1948, the NCAA imposed the ambitious Sanity Code to regulate athletic scholarships and eligibility. The only real sanction—expulsion—was so harsh that member institutions, including the infamous “Sinful Seven” (University of Maryland, University of Virginia, Virginia Military Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute [now Virginia Tech], The Citadel, Boston College, and Villanova; with the last two Catholic colleges earning an especially ironic label), refused to enforce it. By 1951, the Code collapsed, unraveling for lack of consensus and credible authority—a failure that still resonates in today’s battles over power and enforcement.

The 2025 Executive Order in Legal Perspective

The President’s Order directs agencies like the Department of Education and Department of Labor to regulate athlete compensation, clarify student-athlete employment status, and condition federal funding on compliance. Although bold on its face, the legal effect of these directives is fundamentally limited by Supreme Court decisions and the constitutional separation of powers.

Key legal precedents include:

• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952): The President cannot create new binding rules or impose obligations on private parties or states without clear congressional authorization.

• Biden v. Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355 (2023): Major regulatory changes—like altering athlete compensation or amateur status—require an explicit mandate from Congress.

• Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018): In areas like sports, only Congress—not the president—can preempt or override state law.

What This Means in Practice

The Executive Order can align federal agency policies and encourage Congress to act but cannot create new, binding national standards on its own.

Should agencies move beyond their statutory authority (for example, by withholding funds from noncompliant schools or overriding state NIL laws), they would likely face legal challenges from states, universities, student-athletes, or collectives.

Federal courts, drawing on cases like Youngstown, Biden, and Murphy, are expected to block any regulations that exceed presidential power.

Why Congress Is Still Essential

Only an act of Congress can:

• Preempt state law and establish uniform national standards,

• Define athlete employment status and NIL rights,

• Offer legal protections for the NCAA and universities.

This need for clear, legitimate legislation is what’s driving the ongoing push for bills like the still-pending SCORE Act.

The Ongoing Landscape: Uncertainty Until Congress Acts

In the absence of new federal law, colleges, athletes, and the NCAA face a fragmented landscape of state statutes, NCAA rules, executive agency guidance, and ongoing litigation. This situation is deeply reminiscent of the post-Sanity Code era—regulation remains fragile without consensus and a firm legal foundation.

Conclusion: Law, Not Fiat, Will Decide the Future

President Trump’s Executive Order is a policy signal, not a final word. Courts have repeatedly shown that real, durable solutions demand clear legislative authority. Until Congress builds that foundation, college sports governance will remain a battleground—ambitious but unsettled, historic yet unresolved.

Executive Order on College Sports (2025) - “Saving College Sports”

Official full text (White House): https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/saving-college-sports/

SCORE Act (Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act, H.R.4312, 119th Congress)

Official bill text and status (Congress.gov): https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text