Trump’s Shocking Move: Will New NIL Rules Destroy College Sports Earnings for Athletes? Find Out Now!

CHICAGO - Do you like money? If you say no, great; I hope your monastery feeds you well and your sack shirt holds up. But if you find money to be valuable, then you should understand what’s happening in elite college sports today. Simply put, young athletes are increasingly demanding compensation for their performances in front of massive university crowds. After over a century of competing for free, they are finally getting paid.

What those athletes do on the field or court might look like pure fun, but it’s undeniably hard work. In the U.S., we get paid for work—it’s fundamental to our capitalist system, which is driven by market forces. While free college classes and housing may be nice perks, they can ultimately be purchased with money. So when Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood earned about $3 million last year for leading the Wolverines, it wasn't just about football; it was a reflection of how the landscape is changing. Underwood has the financial means to obtain an education whenever he chooses.

Despite struggling in 2025, the financial arrangement seems fair within our capitalist framework. Underwood's defection from LSU to Michigan was primarily motivated by money. For decades, colleges upheld the notion that athletes aged 18 to 23 were too young to be compensated. Ironically, these same young adults can vote, serve in the military, and even purchase handguns, while being deemed unfit to handle monetary rewards for their athletic abilities.

Historically, coaches have made substantial incomes, simply because they are adults. The market and legal system permit this. But now, older administrators and members of Congress are expressing outrage over what they perceive as chaos in college sports. They're concerned about athletes becoming employees of their schools, the soaring name, image, and likeness (NIL) revenues, and the seemingly rampant transfer of male college football and basketball players between schools. While it’s true that other sports and female athletes are involved, men’s football and basketball are at the forefront of this shift.

Even Former President Donald Trump has weighed in, asserting that he must "fix" the "mess" of college sports via an executive order, lest women's sports be destroyed—a claim that lacks substantiation. Despite the upheaval, college football experienced unmatched popularity last year. Yes, regulations are necessary, but reasonable oversight that includes contracts, IRS support, potential player unions, and salary caps could address many of the current issues.

If there’s chaos now, it’s largely due to the NCAA itself. Comprised of over 1,000 member schools, the NCAA has for years maintained a system that favored institutional profits over athlete compensation. This model has resulted in a consistent imbalance, where the athletes—many of whom are the main attraction—remain unpaid.

During a recent meeting at the White House attended by Trump, NCAA President Charlie Baker and former college coaches like Nick Saban and Urban Meyer, there was no representation from current athletes. This absence is telling; it reflects a broader disconnect regarding who truly benefits from the system. Trump's nostalgic longing for the "old system" echoes sentiments from those who benefited from it, not those who labored under it.

The argument that we should return to an outdated system ignores the fundamental changes brought about by a 2021 Supreme Court ruling, which mandated that enforcing "amateurism" in elite sports was illegal. Justice Brett Kavanaugh articulated this in no uncertain terms, stating, "Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate."

While Trump and others may seek to impose strict limitations on what athletes can earn, this perspective fails to consider the evolving landscape of college sports. Coaches like Saban and Meyer may yearn for the bygone days when they wielded significant power over athletes, but this nostalgia overlooks the ethical concerns tied to the previous system—one that too often prioritized winning over the welfare of young men and women.

Trump remarked, "It’s crazy," referring to 17-year-old quarterbacks commanding contracts of $12 million to $14 million. Yet, isn’t it equally “crazy” for a former president to accumulate wealth in the hundreds of millions while in office? Fairness should apply universally. The previous system was not just orderly; it was also exploitative and fundamentally flawed.

In summary, the current landscape of college sports is one of opportunity and instability, driven largely by financial incentives. The shift toward athlete compensation is here to stay, and the structures around it will need to adapt. What remains to be seen is how stakeholders will navigate this new reality, balancing the needs of athletes with the traditional power structures that have long dominated college sports.