The growing financial chaos surrounding college sports has reached the highest levels of government.
Last week, President Donald Trump hosted a roundtable at the White House with more than 50 leaders from politics, business and college athletics to discuss the rapidly evolving system of athlete compensation known as Name, Image and Likeness, or NIL.
The meeting included NCAA president Charlie Baker, major conference commissioners, university leaders, and a couple of former coaches. Participants discussed concerns that the current system — which allows athletes to earn money through endorsements and booster-funded collectives — is becoming financially unsustainable.
After nearly two hours of discussion, few concrete solutions emerged.
Still, the gathering itself signaled how serious the issue has become. College sports — once governed largely by the NCAA — is now facing legal, financial and political questions that may ultimately require action from Congress.
At the center of that debate is a complicated but crucial issue: antitrust law and the fact that many of the proposed fixes for NIL, including limits on athlete compensation, may be illegal unless lawmakers intervene.
A System That Changed Almost Overnight
Money has long been a major part of college sports. Television contracts, sponsorships and ticket sales generate billions of dollars annually, particularly in football and men’s basketball.
For decades, however, athletes themselves were largely barred from sharing in those revenues.
The NCAA defended that system under the concept of amateurism, arguing that athletes were students first and should not receive direct compensation beyond scholarships and limited benefits.
That model began to collapse under a series of lawsuits challenging NCAA restrictions.
The turning point came in 2021 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the NCAA in NCAA v. Alston, a case involving limits on education-related benefits for athletes.
The decision did not directly create NIL rights, but it made clear that NCAA restrictions on athlete compensation could violate federal antitrust laws.
In a concurring opinion that sent shockwaves through college sports, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the NCAA’s business model “would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.”
Soon after the ruling, the NCAA allowed athletes to begin profiting from their name, image and likeness, opening the door to endorsement deals, social media partnerships and other opportunities.
What followed was a dramatic transformation.
NIL Becomes a Recruiting Marketplace
When NIL rules first took effect in 2021, many expected athletes to sign marketing deals with businesses much like professional athletes do.
Instead, much of the money began flowing through booster-backed NIL collectives — groups formed to raise money specifically for athletes.
In many cases, those payments became closely tied to recruiting and roster decisions.
Players began transferring schools in search of better financial opportunities, turning the offseason into something resembling professional free agency.
Since NIL began, analysts estimate roughly $1 billion has been paid to college athletes, with a large share coming from donors rather than corporate sponsorships.
Athletic departments say the financial pressure is growing quickly.
At the University of Kansas, for example, officials project a nearly $15 million athletic deficit, and the school plans to use money from its general fund — including tuition and tax dollars — to help cover athlete payments.
That decision has sparked tension with faculty members seeking pay raises, highlighting how NIL costs can ripple beyond athletics.
Why Antitrust Law Matters
As administrators search for ways to control spending, they keep running into the same legal obstacle: antitrust law.
Antitrust laws are designed to prevent organizations from working together to limit competition in the marketplace. Businesses generally cannot agree to fix prices or cap wages.
In the context of college sports, that means universities cannot simply band together and limit what athletes are allowed to earn.
Doing so could be interpreted as collusion — exactly the type of conduct antitrust laws are meant to prevent.
This legal reality is why many of the solutions being discussed, such as caps on NIL payments or limits on athlete compensation, are difficult to implement.
Schools fear that any collective effort to restrict earnings could trigger lawsuits from athletes.
Recent court decisions suggest those lawsuits would likely succeed.
Why Professional Leagues Can Have Salary Caps
Professional sports leagues operate under a different legal framework.
Leagues like the NFL and NBA negotiate salary caps and compensation rules through collective bargaining agreements with players’ unions.
Because those agreements are negotiated between employers and organized labor, they are exempt from many antitrust restrictions.
College athletes, however, are not unionized in most cases and are not recognized as employees.
Without collective bargaining, universities imposing compensation limits could be seen as competing employers colluding to suppress wages.
That distinction has become one of the central challenges facing college sports.
Congress May Be the Only Path Forward
Because of those legal barriers, many leaders in college athletics say only Congress can create a workable regulatory system.
Federal legislation could provide the NCAA with a limited antitrust exemption, allowing it to set rules governing athlete compensation without violating competition laws.
One proposal being discussed in Washington, known as the SCORE Act (Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements), would establish a national NIL framework and replace the patchwork of state laws currently governing athlete compensation.
The bill could also allow schools to share revenue directly with athletes — potentially around $20 million per year per school — while giving the NCAA some authority to regulate the marketplace.
Supporters argue such legislation could stabilize the system before costs spiral further.
Executive Orders and Legal Limits
At the White House roundtable, Trump said he plans to draft an executive order aimed at addressing the NIL issue.
However, legal experts note that executive orders cannot change federal law or grant antitrust exemptions.
Only Congress has the authority to do that.
That means any lasting solution — particularly one involving caps on athlete compensation or limits on NIL deals — would likely require legislation.
Without it, universities may have little ability to control the rapidly expanding marketplace.
A System Searching for Balance
For athletes, NIL has created opportunities that were unimaginable just a few years ago.
Many players now have the chance to earn money during their college careers, something advocates say is long overdue given the billions of dollars generated by college sports.
At the same time, administrators warn that the current system could produce unintended consequences.
Athletic departments face growing financial pressures, donor fatigue is increasing, and some schools worry they may have to cut non-revenue sports to keep up.
For now, the future of college athletics remains uncertain.
But one thing has become clear: solving the NIL problem will likely require more than new rules from the NCAA.
It may ultimately depend on whether Congress is willing to step in and resolve the legal question that sits at the center of the debate — how antitrust law should apply to college sports in the new era of athlete compensation.
