Trump and Saban are advised by the House settlement leader to avoid becoming involved in the NIL dispute.

Introduction

Steve Berman, the lead plaintiffs’ attorney in the landmark House settlement case reshaping college sports compensation, has publicly urged former President Donald Trump and retired Alabama head coach Nick Saban to steer clear of the ongoing Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) dispute. In a blistering statement issued on May 5, 2025, Berman warned that their eleventh-hour involvement—particularly talk of executive orders and federal intervention—risked undermining the painstaking work already underway to secure equitable compensation for student-athletes through a court-approved settlement framework .

The Evolution of NIL in College Sports

The NIL era was ushered in by the NCAA in July 2021, allowing student-athletes to monetize their personal brands in ways previously prohibited. Since then, universities and boosters have crafted endorsement deals, while professional marketing agencies have entered the fray. This dramatic shift aimed to correct historical inequities, recognizing that universities and coaches had long profited from athletes’ performances without offering them a share of endorsement revenues. As of early May 2025, athlete compensation deals have ranged from small local sponsorships to national multimedia agreements worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, illustrating both the transformative potential and the challenges of regulating this burgeoning market .

The House Settlement Case: Scope and Stakes

The House settlement, born out of a $2.8 billion antitrust class-action lawsuit against the NCAA, seeks to address long-standing restrictions on athlete compensation. Under its terms, each participating institution would receive up to $20.5 million to distribute among athletes, alongside nearly $2.8 billion in retrospective payments for those who competed under NIL-restrictive rules. However, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken flagged a major concern: replacing scholarship caps with roster limits could threaten current scholarship holders if schools reduced team sizes. Berman’s team has since proposed adjustments to ensure virtually all affected athletes could retain or regain roster spots, with final paperwork due by May 7, 2025 .

Settlement Provisions and Judicial Review

Among the settlement’s key features are standardized reporting requirements for NIL deals, revenue-sharing safeguards to prevent pay-for-play abuses, and a mechanism for back-dating compensation for athletes who lost earning opportunities under former NCAA rules. Judge Wilken’s injunction over roster limits prompted Berman to negotiate carve-outs and reinstatement protocols for displaced athletes, ensuring that educational and athletic opportunities remain intact while the broader payment regime takes effect. Berman expressed confidence that the revised language would satisfy the judge’s concerns and pave the way for final approval by the Wednesday deadline .

The Saban-Trump Nexus

On April 30, 2025, Nick Saban introduced Donald Trump at the University of Alabama’s commencement ceremony, a high-profile reunion that quickly fueled speculation about federal involvement in NIL regulation. Reports emerged that, following private discussions, Trump was weighing an executive order aimed at curbing perceived excesses in the new athlete-compensation landscape. While detailed plans remained under wraps, sources indicated the order would seek to impose uniform national standards for NIL deals to prevent disparate state-level regulations and potential competitive imbalances among programs .

Saban’s Position on Regulation

Despite his public support for NIL compensation, Saban has voiced concerns that unfettered endorsements risk morphing into a “pay-for-play” system—one in which financial incentives, rather than coaching decisions or academic performance, dictate player movement and opportunity. He has proposed legislative reforms to introduce caps, reporting protocols, and penalties for tampering, arguing that federal action, rather than a patchwork of state laws, would yield greater consistency and fairness across collegiate athletics. Nonetheless, his push for structured oversight has drawn criticism given his own financial gains during his tenure as the highest-paid coach in college football .

The Executive Order Debate

According to reporting from The Wall Street Journal, Trump’s potential executive order would instruct federal agencies to explore mechanisms to standardize NIL oversight, possibly invoking antitrust or tax-related statutes to influence collegiate policies. Proponents argue that such an order could preempt a regulatory vacuum and limit legal challenges by creating a federal floor for athlete compensation. Skeptics, however, warn that executive-branch intervention in collegiate athletics may exceed constitutional authority and invite fresh rounds of litigation—ironically mirroring the very lawsuits the House settlement aims to resolve .

Berman’s Rebuke: “Unmerited and Unhelpful”

In his May 5 statement, Berman denounced the Saban-Trump discussions as “unneeded self-involvement” that distracted from the settlement’s collaborative, athlete-centered approach. He argued that the student-athletes themselves were “spearheading historic changes and benefitting massively from NIL deals,” rendering external meddling not only superfluous but potentially counterproductive. “Coach Saban and Trump’s eleventh-hour talks of executive orders and other meddling are just more unneeded self-involvement,” he asserted, emphasizing that the settlement framework already addresses most regulatory concerns through its negotiated terms .

Questioning the Messengers

Berman further highlighted an inherent contradiction: “While he was a coach, Saban initially opposed NIL payments to athletes, pushing to add restrictions and red-tape through national legislation to add ‘some sort of control.’ During his time scrutinizing the athlete pay structure, he made tens of millions of dollars and was previously the highest-paid coach in college football.” By spotlighting this history, Berman challenged both Saban’s and Trump’s authority to dictate terms for a system from which they have already profited handsomely .

NCAA’s Silent Stance

As the settlement deadline looms, the NCAA has maintained a conspicuous silence on both the court-approved framework and the parallel political maneuvers. Representatives declined to comment on ongoing litigation or executive-branch discussions, adhering instead to a policy of public neutrality. This reticence contrasts sharply with the vociferous statements from Berman’s camp and underscores the complexity of navigating court orders, federal interests, and institutional prerogatives in the evolving NIL ecosystem .

Potential Legal and Practical Implications

Should Trump proceed with an executive order, it could trigger a cascade of legal challenges from universities, state legislatures, and private parties—each asserting that such an order exceeds executive authority or conflicts with existing state NIL statutes. Moreover, attempts to standardize compensation caps or reporting structures at the federal level may collide with the settlement’s negotiated terms, risking delays in athlete payments and disrupting the reinstatement protocols Berman’s team has painstakingly crafted. These scenarios underscore Berman’s contention that voluntary, court-supervised resolution offers a more stable path forward .

Athletes at the Forefront

Inside the settlement discussions, student-athletes and their advocates remain the primary stakeholders, having testified to the economic hardships imposed by previous NCAA restrictions. Many voiced concerns about being left behind in the rush to regulation—unwilling to see their newfound earning power diminished by last-minute political interventions. Berman’s statement aligns with this perspective, arguing that the settlement’s athlete-centric approach, rather than top-down mandates, best preserves the gains won through years of litigation and advocacy .

The Deadline and Next Steps

With the settlement approval deadline set for May 7, 2025, all parties are racing to finalize paperwork, address judicial queries, and secure formal sign-offs. If Judge Wilken grants final approval, schools will begin distributing NIL payments and retrospective compensation under the settlement’s terms, rendering external executive orders largely redundant. Conversely, any delay or injunction could reopen the door to federal regulatory proposals, setting the stage for renewed conflict between the courts, Congress, and the White House .

Conclusion

As the NIL era continues to redefine college athletics, the clash between court-driven settlements and political interventions highlights the delicate balance between athlete empowerment, institutional governance, and federal oversight. Steve Berman’s admonition for Donald Trump and Nick Saban to “butt out” underscores a broader plea for stakeholder-led solutions over last-minute political grandstanding. Whether the House settlement secures timely approval or becomes ensnared in further controversy, the unfolding saga will shape the future of college sports compensation for years to come.