Preserving Participation and Equity: What the “Saving College Sports” Executive Order Means for Campus Athletics
On July 24, 2025, the Trump administration issued the “Saving College Sports” Executive Order (EO), a sweeping directive aimed at protecting student-athletes and preserving scholarship participation opportunities in collegiate athletics – particularly for women’s and non-revenue sports. This EO comes in the midst of Division I institutions navigating the House v. NCAA settlement terms, which went into effect on July 1, 2025.
While the EO does not override the terms of the settlement, it sets clear expectations for how institutions should implement those terms in a manner consistent with Title IX and the administration’s broader policy goals.
The most immediate and impactful piece of the EO for campuses is the section titled, “Protecting and Expanding Women’s and Non-Revenue Sports and Prohibiting Third-Party Pay-for-Play Payments.” At its core, this section seeks to mitigate the unintended consequences of the House settlement’s roster limitations, which have already led to reduced participation opportunities across 13 men’s sports and 8 women’s sports. Although the EO does not increase the roster caps, it does push institutions to preserve the maximum number of roster spots allowed under those caps. This is especially critical for walk-ons and non-scholarship athletes who are most vulnerable to being cut, despite that certain student-athletes were “grandfathered in” and are not required to be counted against the cap. [1]
The EO categorizes institutions into three tiers based on athletic department revenue:
- TIER ONE: Institutions with athletics revenues over $125 million (e.g., most Power Four schools) must increase scholarship opportunities in non-revenue sports and utilize the full roster limits set by the House
- TIER TWO: Institutions with athletics revenues between $50 million and $125 million must maintain last year’s scholarship levels in non-revenue sports and maximize roster spots
- TIER THREE: Institutions with athletics revenues under $50 million or those without revenue-generating sports are not held to the same scholarship or roster expectations. However, they are prohibited from disproportionately cutting scholarships or roster spots based on a sport’s revenue generation. The EO emphasizes equitable cost-cutting measures, urging schools to avoid targeting Olympic or women’s sports.
For Tier One and Tier Two schools, the implementation of roster limits under the House settlement directly impacts athletic participation opportunities. Remember that under Title IX, schools are required to provide equitable athletic participation opportunities by meeting one of the following “prongs”: (1) providing participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to male and female enrollment, (2) showing a history of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex, or (3) fully accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.
Similarly, decisions related to increasing or maintaining athletic scholarships implicate Title IX’s financial aid requirements. Recall that under Title IX, schools are required to allocate athletic financial aid proportionally within a 1% margin of athletic participation rates. Therefore, as schools adopt measures outlined in the House settlement and the EO, it is essential that they evaluate their Title IX compliance and consider strategic adjustments to uphold equity in both participation and financial aid.
The EO also addresses revenue-sharing arrangements, stating that such payments must preserve or expand scholarships and athletic opportunities for both men’s and women’s sports. Notably, the EO does not prescribe how the $20.5 million in revenue-sharing payments should be divided, giving institutions flexibility – so long as they do not reduce participation opportunities. This statement appears to be consistent with the current administration’s position on this issue (earlier this year, they rescinded Biden-era guidance that would have required proportional distribution under Title IX).
Another key provision prohibits improper third-party pay-for-play arrangements, essentially codifying the House settlement’s stance against inducements from boosters or collectives. Legitimate NIL deals – or deals that are for “fair market value” – remain permissible. This directive aligns with the new vetting mechanism “NIL Go,” a clearinghouse that will flag deals exceeding “fair market value.” Of note, all NCAA Division I student-athletes must report third-party NIL deals with compensation that equals or exceeds $600. This new system is being facilitated by the College Sports Commission (CSC), and its authority is still evolving, making enforcement uncertain.
As we approach the 2025–2026 athletic season, athletic departments should:
- Engage with legal counsel early and often, as any decision affecting scholarships or participation opportunities must be reviewed for Title IX compliance. The EO has already been cited in litigation, and its directives could shape future enforcement actions from the Department of Education.
- Ensure they have a robust gender equity plan and conduct annual assessments of participation rates, financial aid distribution, and treatment of athletes.
While the EO does not answer every question – such as how to define “fair market value” nor how international students fit into the framework – it provides a roadmap for preserving college sports in a way that is equitable, sustainable, and legally sound. While we wait for federal legislation to be able to formally enforce these directives, the message remains clear: cost-cutting is allowed, but it must be equitable. And, as always, Title IX remains the guiding principle.
[1] “Designated student-athletes” will not count against the roster limits at any school for the remainder of their eligibility. Schools have the ability to “designate” student-athletes who were either removed or would have been removed from the school’s roster due to the implementation of House roster limits.
