A New Presidential Executive Order to “Save College Sports”: Why It Matters for Campus Decision‑Makers Now

On April 3, 2026, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Urgent National Action to Save College Sports,” (Order), marking the most significant federal intervention in collegiate athletics to date. The Order builds on the administration’s earlier  “Save College Sports” Executive Order issued less than a year earlier, on July 24, 2025, and signals a continued escalation of federal involvement in the college sports landscape.

At a high level, the Order seeks to impose nationwide uniformity across NIL rules, athlete eligibility, transfers, and revenue‑sharing. It does so by leveraging the federal government’s spending, contracting, and enforcement authority, while expressly calling on Congress to enact permanent legislative solutions.

Why Now?

The Order first identifies and acknowledges that judicial decisions and state NIL statutes have destabilized college athletics, creating a financial “arms race” that threatens campus financial well-being, women’s and Olympic sports, and student‑athletes’ educational outcomes. It acknowledges that the “health of the university system is integral to the Federal Government’s basic functioning,” which justifies the government’s involvement in the issue.

Does this Impact My Campus?

The Order applies only to federally funded institutions generating at least $20 million annually in athletics revenue as reported in EADA, effectively targeting FBS and FCS and similarly situated programs. The substantive provisions take effect August 1, 2026, with agencies instructed to prepare immediately for enforcement.

Key Components of the Order

1. Possible Loss of Federal Funding

Federal agencies will now be expected to take a closer look at whether a college or university has violated NCAA rules (or the rules of any successor governing body, such as the College Sports Commission) when deciding whether that institution is a responsible recipient of federal grants or contracts. This review will focus on compliance with eligibility limits, transfer rules, revenue‑sharing restrictions, and what the Order defines as “improper financial activities.”

The Order gives “improper financial activities” a specific and fairly expansive meaning. It includes situations where a school knowingly participates and/or accepts money or other contributions (including from collectives) to participate in so‑called “fraudulent NIL schemes,” which is also defined as paying student‑athletes for name, image, and likeness rights at amounts above fair market value in connection with their participation in college athletics. The “improper financial activities” definition also sweeps in the use of federal funds for NIL or revenue‑sharing payments, as well as providing compensation or benefits to coaches, recruiters, or others involved in managing athletic teams. In addition, unlawfully interfering with a student‑athlete’s contract (such as a scholarship agreement) with another federally funded institution can also qualify as an improper financial activity.

To operationalize these standards, federal agencies that oversee grants and contracts with higher education institutions will receive guidance directing them to incorporate these criteria into their decision‑making processes.

Put simply, compliance with college athletics rules may now have real financial consequences beyond the playing field. For example, if a university is found to be using federal funds to make revenue‑sharing payments to athletes, an agency like the Department of Health and Human Services could reasonably decide not to award that institution a federal grant or enter into a federal contract.

2. Mandatory Rulemaking Expectations

Although the Order stops short of imposing direct federal regulation, it sends a clear signal to the NCAA (and similar governing bodies): adopt uniform, nationwide standards by August 1, 2026 or risk eventual federal enforcement. To the extent permitted by existing law and court rulings (which remain fragmented at best), the Order outlines a set of expectations it wants governing bodies to address:

• Eligibility. A single five‑year eligibility window, limited public‑interest exceptions, and a prohibition on professional athletes returning to college sports.
• Transfers. A return to a more structured transfer model – one transfer with immediate eligibility, a second permitted after degree completion, and clearer, more rational transfer windows.
• Medical Care. Defined post‑enrollment medical care obligations for student‑athletes.
• Women’s and Olympic Sports. Revenue‑sharing frameworks that preserve or grow scholarship opportunities for women’s sports and Olympic programs.
• Use of Federal Funds. A ban on using federal funding for NIL deals, revenue‑sharing payments, or compensation for coaches and athletic administrators.
• Pay‑for‑Play Restrictions. A prohibition on pay‑for‑play arrangements through collectives.
• Agent Registry. Creation of a national agent registry, including guardrails on commissions.

3. Federal Reporting and Data Collection

The Department of Education is directed to require regular institutional reporting on varsity roster sizes by team and the total amount of money spent on athletically related student aid or other payments, disaggregated by gender.

This appears to be very similar to EADA reporting requirements. However, this piece of the new revenue sharing model has caused conversation around if and when revenue sharing payments would be considered athletic financial aid for Title IX purposes.

4. Enforcement of Agents

The Order directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce unfair or deceptive practices laws against agents and affiliates representing student-athletes.

5. Pursue Litigation of State Laws

The Order also directs the Attorney General to pursue litigation invalidating state laws that burden interstate commerce and violate the Contracts Clause, which restricts states from passing laws that substantially impair existing contractual relationships.

In short, the focus is on states that have enacted laws preventing the NCAA from enforcing its rules. States such as Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Colorado, and Tennessee have led the way, passing legislation that shields schools from NCAA sanctions and limits NIL‑related investigations.

So, What Does this Mean for Your Campus?

From a legal perspective, the Order is just as notable for what it doesn’t do as for what it does. It stops well short of classifying student‑athletes as employees, offers no definition of “fair market value” or guidance on how that would be calculated, and does not directly preempt state law through federal statute. Instead, the Order leans heavily on Spending Clause pressure, which is a choice that may invite constitutional challenges. In the end, its durability likely turns on whether new NCAA or CSC rules can withstand antitrust scrutiny, or whether Congress ultimately steps in with legislation – an uncertainty the Order itself quietly acknowledges.

Higher education institutions, athletic conferences, NIL collectives, and athlete representatives should prepare for rapid compliance assessments ahead of August 2026 and anticipate heightened federal scrutiny tied directly to funding and contracts.

Please contact our higher education sports law team if you have any further questions or need assistance.