President Donald Trump nominated Nick Saban and a Big 12 oil magnate for a prominent college football commission.

Below is a comprehensive examination of President Donald Trump’s recent nomination of legendary coach Nick Saban and Texas Tech oil magnate Cody Campbell to lead a new presidential commission on college football. This article explores the backgrounds of both appointees, the commission’s intended scope, the broader political and legal context, stakeholder reactions, and the potential implications for the future of college athletics.

Commission Announcement and Purpose

Late last week, multiple outlets reported that President Trump plans to issue an executive order establishing a federal commission on college athletics, co-chaired by former University of Alabama coach Nick Saban and Big 12 oil billionaire Cody Campbell. The administration frames this body as a means to tackle the sport’s most pressing challenges—ranging from the transfer portal’s volatility to unregulated booster payments, Title IX compliance, and the preservation of Olympic‐style programs—amid the seismic shifts unleashed by the NCAA’s evolving Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) regime and recent litigation settlements .

While presidential intervention in college sports is rare, Trump’s engagement follows a wave of lobbying from NCAA leadership and conference commissioners seeking federal clarity on issues like antitrust exemptions and revenue sharing. Proponents argue that only a comprehensive, national approach can prevent a fracturing of the collegiate model into a handful of “super-conferences” at the expense of smaller schools and nonrevenue sports .

Nick Saban: From Dynasty Builder to Commission Co-Chair

Nick Saban, whose six national championships at Alabama have made him arguably the greatest head coach in college football history, brings unrivaled gravitas to the commission. Retired from coaching yet still a prominent voice in the sport, Saban has repeatedly testified before Congress on issues like the transfer portal and athlete compensation. In March 2024, he joined Senator Ted Cruz’s roundtable to discuss a revenue-sharing framework that would allow athletes to share in program income without being classified as employees—a distinction he considers critical to preserving the “student-athlete” model .

Saban’s philosophy centers on balancing athlete welfare with the educational mission of collegiate sports. “I’m for student-athletes being able to share in some of this revenue,” he told reporters. “The No. 1 solution is if we could have some kind of a revenue-sharing proposition that did not make student-athletes employees. That may be the long-term solution. I don’t want them to be employees, but I want them to share in the revenue some kind of way” .

Cody Campbell: Oil Magnate and NIL Pioneer

Co-chairman Cody Campbell is a less familiar name to many football fans, but his influence on the ground is significant. A former offensive lineman for Texas Tech who briefly joined the Indianapolis Colts’ reserve squad, Campbell parlayed his playing days into a successful energy holdings business, becoming a billionaire in Texas’s oil industry .

Beyond oil, Campbell is founder of The Matador Club, a high-profile NIL collective that has compensated Texas Tech athletes since the NCAA legalized name, image, and likeness endorsements in 2021. Yet despite his direct involvement in NIL deals, Campbell has publicly criticized the current trajectory of college sports. In a March 20 Federalist column, he warned that allowing the “Autonomous Four” conferences (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and, to a lesser extent, the Big 12) to consolidate power could decimate Olympic sports programs at smaller schools. “Build a framework that permanently sustains college sports as a nationwide proving ground and talent development tool, not a playground for the greedy,” he wrote .

Commission Scope: Key Issues on the Agenda

According to insiders, the commission is expected to examine:

• Transfer Portal Regulation: Addressing frequent roster turnover and its impact on competitive balance.
• NIL and Booster Payments: Establishing guardrails for fair compensation without creating an unregulated marketplace.
• Athlete Employment Status: Crafting revenue-sharing models that sidestep employee classification while ensuring student-athletes benefit from the billions they generate.
• Title IX Application: Ensuring gender equity in revenue-sharing and program funding.
• Protecting Olympic Sports: Mitigating the risk that lucrative football and basketball revenues siphon resources from other varsity programs .

With the landmark House v. NCAA settlement nearing final approval—allowing schools to allocate up to $20.5 million annually from revenues to athletes—stakeholders fear a regulatory vacuum that could be filled only by federal action or court rulings.

Political and Legal Context

College sports’ recent legal landscape has been dominated by antitrust scrutiny and bipartisan legislative efforts. Five U.S. senators, including Republicans Ted Cruz (TX) and Jerry Moran (KS) and Democrats Cory Booker (NJ), Chris Coons (DE), and Richard Blumenthal (CT), have drafted a bill to clarify the NCAA’s antitrust status and codify elements of the House settlement. Meanwhile, the NCAA and power conferences continue seeking an antitrust exemption to stabilize broadcast contracts and NIL regulations without fear of further litigation .

Trump’s commission could dovetail with these congressional efforts or, alternatively, serve as a prelude to an executive order imposing uniform NIL and transfer rules. According to some reports, Trump is seriously considering such an order, which would be the first instance of a president directly shaping college athletics policy via executive authority .

Stakeholder Reactions

Reactions to the announcement have varied:

• Power Conferences: The SEC and Big Ten, which collectively generate over $3 billion in annual media rights, have signaled cautious support for federal clarity—particularly if it preserves their autonomy and revenue streams .
• Mid-Major and Olympic-Sport Advocates: Leaders at schools outside the “big four” have applauded Campbell’s role, hoping the commission will protect Title IX compliance and maintain competitive equity for sports like swimming, wrestling, and gymnastics .
• Athlete Unions and Advocacy Groups: Organizations such as the National College Players Association have urged inclusion of athlete voices on the commission, arguing that any reform without player representation risks perpetuating exploitation under a new guise .

Potential Outcomes and Executive Actions

Should Trump proceed with an executive order, several scenarios could unfold:

1. Uniform NIL Standards: Mandating revenue-sharing formulas and disclosure requirements for all collegiate programs.
2. Transfer Portal Guidelines: Implementing transfer windows or eligibility restrictions to curb high-frequency moves.
3. Antitrust Exemptions: Carving out protections for conference media deals and collective bargaining for athletes—while retaining NCAA oversight.
4. Title IX Enforcement: Requiring proportional gender equity in NIL payouts and sport sponsorship to avoid future litigation .

Such measures would likely face immediate legal challenges from states and private parties, potentially landing in federal courts. Yet supporters argue that swift executive action is essential to forestall a patchwork of state laws that could cripple smaller athletic programs.

Criticisms and Challenges

Despite broad interest in reform, critics warn of pitfalls:

• Federal Overreach: Opponents contend that Washington is ill-suited to micromanage diverse collegiate landscapes, and that top-down mandates could stifle innovation at individual institutions .
• Conflict of Interest Concerns: Campbell’s direct involvement in an NIL collective raises questions about whether his business interests align with impartial policy-making. Saban’s coaching legacy similarly invites scrutiny over potential bias toward Power 5 schools .
• Legal Viability: Any executive order on NIL or transfer rules would confront separation-of-powers challenges, as Congress holds the authority to legislate antitrust exemptions and Title IX amendments.

Looking Ahead

As the commission’s formal charter and membership details emerge, the sports world will be watching closely. A commission led by two figures as prominent—and as divergent—as Saban and Campbell reflects the uneasy tension between tradition and market forces in modern college athletics. With stakeholders ranging from multi-billion‐dollar conferences to individual student-athletes, the decisions made (or deferred) by this commission could reshape the balance of power in American sports for decades to come.

Given the complexity and immediacy of the issues—compounded by ongoing congressional deliberations and pending litigation—the Trump commission may prove the most consequential federal intervention in college athletics since the NCAA’s founding nearly a century ago. Whether it will unite stakeholders behind a shared vision or deepen existing divides remains the central question as President Trump moves to sign the executive order in the coming weeks.