According to reports, President Donald Trump is considering issuing an executive order for NIL following a meeting with Nick Saban.

President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing an executive order aimed at regulating Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation in college athletics after a May 1 meeting with former Alabama head coach Nick Saban. According to The Wall Street Journal, Saban warned that the unchecked influx of NIL money has created a competitive “arms race” among powerhouse programs, undermining parity and exposing the NCAA to a flurry of litigation due to conflicting state laws . This article explores the evolution of the NIL landscape, the particulars of the Saban–Trump discussion, the possible scope and limitations of an executive order, the fragmented state-by-state regulatory environment, stakeholder reactions, and the broader implications for the future of college sports.

Background: The Rise of NIL in College Athletics

Evolution of the NIL Landscape

Since July 2021, collegiate athletes in the United States have been allowed to monetize their Name, Image, and Likeness, marking a fundamental shift from decades of NCAA amateurism rules . Within four years, platforms like Opendorse estimate that more than $1.67 billion flowed into NIL deals across Division I programs in the 2024–25 academic year alone . This surge has fueled an arms race in recruiting, with programs leveraging wealthy boosters, tax incentives, and state‐level protections to outbid competitors .

Nick Saban’s Stance on NIL Reform

Nick Saban, who retired from coaching after the 2023 season, has become one of NIL’s most vocal critics. While he supports athletes’ right to earn compensation, Saban argues that the current system disproportionately benefits programs in states with favorable legislation and wealthy donor bases . He has publicly urged Congress to enact “national legislation” that would set uniform standards—citing the need to “protect the NCAA from litigation” and ensure “an equal opportunity to be successful” for all schools and athletes .

The Saban–Trump Meeting in Tuscaloosa

Commencement Address and Private Discussion

On May 1, 2025, President Trump delivered the University of Alabama’s commencement address at Coleman Coliseum, lauding the school as “a place where legends are made” . Before the speech, he met privately with Saban, during which the coach detailed how the current NIL climate had spiraled into chaos, harming competitive balance .

Reported Conversation Highlights

According to people familiar with the meeting, Trump “agreed” with Saban’s assessment and instructed White House aides to begin studying what an executive order regulating NIL might contain . Neither Trump nor Saban proposed eliminating NIL, but rather “reforming” it to prevent a pay-for-play scenario driven by the highest bidder .

Potential Executive Order: Scope and Limitations

Possible Provisions

An executive order could establish federal guidelines on contract transparency, disclosure requirements, and oversight mechanisms for NIL deals. Such standards might include mandatory reporting of deal terms, caps on aggregate athlete compensation, or uniform tax treatment of NIL earnings .

Legal Authority and Constraints

Executive orders cannot override state statutes or judicial rulings and are subject to reversal by future administrations. Federal directives could, however, direct agencies (e.g., the Department of Education or Federal Trade Commission) to craft regulations or investigate anticompetitive incentives in recruitment . Still, without congressional backing, an order’s enforcement mechanisms would be limited to federal properties and programs, leaving private institutions largely beyond its direct reach.

Congressional Role and Antitrust Considerations

Former NCAA President Charlie Baker noted that any executive action would likely require congressional legislation to grant lasting authority and to address antitrust concerns highlighted in the landmark House v. NCAA litigation . Judge Claudia Wilken recently delayed final approval of a $2.8 billion settlement in that case, citing roster‐limit provisions that could harm existing scholarship athletes .

The Patchwork of State NIL Regulations

Divergent State Laws

To date, more than 25 states have enacted NIL statutes, but provisions vary widely—ranging from full exemptions on NIL income to stringent caps and tax treatments. Arkansas, for example, exempts NIL earnings from state income tax, while other states impose complex reporting requirements .

Recruitment and Competitive Disparities

These disparities have intensified recruiting battles. Programs in tax‐friendly or well-funded states can promise recruits both lucrative deals and financial protections, creating an uneven playing field that Saban described as “not level” .

Stakeholder Reactions

NCAA Leadership

The NCAA has long advocated for a unified federal framework, warning that the current fragmentation undermines governance and increases legal exposure. NCAA spokesperson Tim Buckley commented that “federal legislation can effectively address” threats to college sports by establishing consistent rules nationwide .

Congressional Voices

Senator Tommy Tuberville (R‐Ala.) publicly endorsed Trump’s potential involvement, tweeting that “if anyone” can help regulate NIL, “it’s President Trump” . Other members of Congress have expressed interest in NIL reform, but partisan divides have stalled comprehensive legislation.

Coaches, Athletic Directors, and Players

Beyond Saban, several coaches and athletic directors have voiced support for federal guidelines to curb “recruiting distortions.” Conversely, some athlete‐advocacy groups warn that restrictions could undermine players’ bargaining power, calling instead for enhanced collective‐bargaining rights or revenue‐sharing models .

Implications and Future Outlook

Preserving Competitive Balance

A well‐crafted executive order or federal law could help restore parity by limiting the arms race among top programs. Uniform disclosures and contract standards would make it harder for schools to exploit loopholes and for boosters to exert undue influence.

Legal and Administrative Hurdles

Any executive action will face legal challenges over separation of powers and interstate commerce. The NCAA’s ongoing House v. NCAA settlement also looms large, with Judge Wilken’s rulings shaping what reforms are feasible .

Long‑Term Scenarios

In the absence of federal intervention, the patchwork of state laws will likely deepen, with some states doubling down on tax incentives and others moving to restrict NIL. Alternatively, Congress could pass comprehensive legislation—though prospects for bipartisan agreement remain uncertain. Should an executive order materialize, it would represent a novel use of presidential authority in sports governance, setting the stage for future administrations to either build upon or dismantle federal NIL standards.

As the debate over NIL intensifies, the interplay between the executive branch, Congress, the courts, and collegiate stakeholders will determine whether college athletics can transition from a decentralized free‐for‐all to a more equitable and transparent marketplace for student‐athlete compensation.