Make Amateurism Great Again? An Attack on U.S. Capitalism by a Republican Administration
As a former Division I basketball player, a practicing attorney, and an unapologetic believer in American capitalism, I bring a uniquely principled perspective to this issue. I’ve lived both the physical grind and the regulatory complexity of college athletics. I know what it means to stretch a scholarship into opportunity—to rise before dawn for workouts, sit through hours of law school lectures, and navigate a system that extracted elite-level performance while denying me the right to earn from my own name or have an agent. I am a product of that paradox. I’ve lived its costs and now work on the legal frontlines of its reform.
On July 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Saving College Sports,” casting it as a federal response to the disruption wrought by athlete compensation litigation, the proliferation of NIL (name, image, and likeness) deals, and what he calls the growing professionalization of amateur sports. The Order activates a broad coalition of federal agencies—from the DOJ to the Department of Education—to “restore guardrails” in the name of fairness and educational integrity.
But behind the carefully crafted rhetoric lies something far more troubling: a reactionary effort to reinstate centralized control, cap market forces, and entrench the institutional advantages of college sports’ old guard. This Executive Order, far from advancing American values, runs directly counter to them. It betrays the entrepreneurial spirit, market freedom, and individual rights that conservative leadership claims to uphold.
This isn’t coming from an administration hostile to capitalism. This is coming from the party that preaches limited government and free enterprise. Yet here it is: dictating how much athletes can earn, denying them employee status, and enshrining federal involvement in what should be a free and open market.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t cheer deregulation for industries that already dominate the economy, then cry “protection” when a new class of earners begins to claim their share. This Executive Order is about preserving control. It is protectionism, not principled policy. It is anti-market, anti-athlete, and ultimately, anti-American.
In the sections that follow, I break down the six core pillars of the Executive Order, pairing each with the critique it deserves. Because if we’re going to talk about saving college sports, we better make damn sure we’re not sacrificing capitalism (what “Makes America Great”) in the process.
Executive Summary and Integrated Critical Analysis
Below, each directive of the Executive Order is examined in turn, with legal, economic, and philosophical critiques integrated directly into the policy summary.
1. Preservation and Expansion of Women’s and Non-Revenue Sports
The Order requires athletic departments to maintain or expand opportunities for non-revenue and Olympic sports, with thresholds based on department revenue. For example, schools earning over $125 million must increase scholarships and maximize roster spots for non-revenue programs.
REALITY: This directive implies that NIL compensation threatens non-revenue sports. That implication is not only unsubstantiated but insulting to the intelligence of those who understand how athletic budgets work. The reality is that bloated coaching contracts, luxury facilities, and administrative waste—not athlete compensation—have drained athletic department budgets. If Trump were serious about protecting women’s and Olympic sports, he’d call for fiscal restraint at the top, not income restrictions at the bottom. And that’s if you actually believe there’s a budget problem in the first place. This policy reflects a myopic nostalgia for a college sports model that was always anti-American.
2. Ban on Third-Party Pay-for-Play Transactions
The Order prohibits NIL payments not based on "fair-market value" and explicitly targets booster collectives and inducements tied to athlete recruitment or transfers.
REALITY: What is fair-market value if not what someone is willing to pay? This is economic freedom 101. To restrict what an athlete can earn from a third party—while imposing no similar restrictions on coaches or athletic directors—is a brazen rejection of free market capitalism. This is not about fairness; it is about control. It is about preserving an old boys’ network that once benefited from the unpaid labor of athletes under the pretense of amateurism. Any self-respecting conservative who believes in the dignity of work and the right to earn a living should reject this intrusion.
3. Revenue Sharing With Guardrails
The Order calls for limitations on revenue sharing to ensure that it does not negatively impact non-revenue sports.
REALITY: The logic is twisted: athletes may share in the value they help generate, but only under suffocating conditions and only after everyone else has been paid. It is as though the market is good until it threatens a legacy institution’s bottom line. Athletes are not the cause of financial strain—they are the product. The idea that their modest compensation must be throttled to keep the rest of the system afloat is an absurd reversal of cause and effect. If anything, this should be the wake-up call to restructure collegiate budgets around those who actually create the value.
4. Clarification of Student-Athlete Employment Status
The Order instructs federal agencies to review and clarify that student-athletes are not employees of their universities.
REALITY: This provision is the crown jewel of anti-worker protectionism. What else do you call someone who trains 70+ hours per week, generates millions in revenue, and is bound by institutional policies and performance expectations? An intern? A volunteer? This is a denial of reality. Trump’s directive to lock athletes into a non-employee classification while administrators and coaches rake in multimillion-dollar contracts betrays the very pro-worker rhetoric he often espouses. It is a betrayal of conservative values masquerading as tradition.
5. Legal Protections Against Excessive Litigation
The Order calls on the DOJ and FTC to craft policies to shield institutions from what it describes as “excessive” litigation.
REALITY: This section reeks of special interest favoritism. Framing litigation as “excessive” simply because it’s inconvenient is an authoritarian sleight-of-hand. Lawsuits are how the Constitution breathes—how rights are claimed, wrongs are redressed, and the balance of power is checked. The notion that institutions need federal protection from the judicial process because they might be found liable is not conservative—it’s statist. Conservatives once fought to empower individuals against institutions. This Order reverses that polarity.
6. Safeguarding the U.S. Olympic Pipeline
The Order tasks federal officials with working alongside Olympic stakeholders to ensure continued development of elite athletes through collegiate programs.
REALITY: This directive is more ornamental than operational. NIL has not undermined Olympic development, it has enhanced it. High value athletes can now afford to train, travel, and recover without being shackled to poverty. Empowerment is the engine of American capitalism. The idea that federal policymakers must step in to micromanage is unsubstantiated. It’s an attempt to justify government interference under the guise of patriotic duty.
Where Things Stand: A Legal Refresher on College Athlete Compensation
To properly evaluate the Trump Administration’s Executive Order, readers need to understand the legal landscape that gave rise to it. Over the past five years, college athletics has undergone a dramatic transformation, largely driven by court rulings, labor advocacy, and state legislation that have steadily chipped away at the NCAA’s stranglehold on amateurism.
1. NCAA v. Alston (2021):
This landmark Supreme Court decision unanimously struck down the NCAA’s limits on education-related benefits for athletes, holding that such restrictions violated antitrust law. While the ruling did not address direct pay-for-play, it sent a clear message: the NCAA is not immune from the same market principles that govern every other industry in America. Justice Kavanaugh went even further in a concurring opinion, suggesting that the entire NCAA model may be ripe for broader legal scrutiny.
2. The NIL Era Begins (2021–present):
In response to Alston and rising political pressure, the NCAA suspended its ban on athletes profiting from their name, image, and likeness. Almost immediately, dozens of states enacted NIL laws—many allowing athletes to sign endorsement deals, appear in advertisements, and work with agents. However, with no federal standard, a patchwork system emerged, producing regulatory chaos and enabling wide disparities between schools and states.
3. House v. NCAA Settlement (2025):
Earlier this year, the NCAA agreed to a massive class-action settlement in House v. NCAA, which for the first time allows direct revenue-sharing between universities and athletes. The agreement—while still subject to final approval—marks a seismic shift in collegiate sports economics. It effectively acknowledges what critics have long argued: that athletes are not just students, but essential contributors to a multibillion-dollar industry.
4. NLRB and Employee Status:
In 2021, the National Labor Relations Board issued a memo suggesting that some college athletes should be classified as employees with the right to unionize. Although the memo was later rescinded, it signaled a growing willingness to challenge the long-held fiction that student-athletes are “amateurs.” Legal scholars and labor advocates continue to push for clearer recognition of athlete employment rights.
5. Ongoing State Action:
As of mid-2025, more than 30 states have enacted NIL laws or broader athlete rights legislation. Some explicitly allow pay-for-play models, while others restrict university involvement in NIL deals. This divergence has created competitive imbalances and fueled the need for consistent national standards—whether through federal legislation or collective bargaining.
Bottom Line:
College athletes today occupy a legal gray zone. They are not fully professionalized, but they are no longer bound by the NCAA’s old amateurism dogma. The marketplace is moving—slowly but definitively—toward a model of athlete empowerment, revenue sharing, and economic recognition. This Executive Order attempts to reverse that tide.
Final Reflection
The “Saving College Sports” Executive Order is not about saving anything good. It is a last-ditch effort to preserve a failed status quo, one that functioned through the unpaid labor of mostly impoverished athletes, who were told their education was sufficient compensation while everyone else got rich. This Order calls itself conservative but is antithetical to its foundational values: (1) individual liberty, (2) free enterprise, and (3) limited government.
The NCAA has not been collapsing, its been evolving. Toward freedom. Toward fairness. Toward capitalism. If Trump believes in the principles he campaigned on (economic self-determination, anti-elitism, and opportunity for all) he should welcome this change. Instead (and I’ll word this with the strength it deserves)… his Order stands as a monument to hypocrisy.
Anderson P.C. continues to monitor NIL-related litigation, regulatory developments, and federal policy proposals. For counsel tailored to universities, athletic departments, or student-athletes navigating this evolving legal terrain, please contact Braeden Anderson.
* * *
Attorney Advertising—Anderson P.C. is a U.S. law firm and provides this information as a service to clients, prospective clients, and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.
Anderson P.C. is a boutique law firm dedicated to defending clients in government investigations and securities enforcement actions initiated by the SEC, FINRA, DOJ, and other regulatory bodies. We provide focused, strategic counsel and regulatory guidance across the full spectrum of federal laws and regulations affecting broker-dealers, investment advisers, banks, asset managers, private funds, public companies, senior executives, and digital assets. Our deep expertise allows us to navigate complex legal challenges and deliver results-driven solutions tailored to our clients' unique needs.
If you have any questions or need legal assistance related to government investigations, securities enforcement actions, or regulatory compliance, please don't hesitate to contact us. Our team at Anderson P.C. is here to provide the expert guidance and support you need to navigate these complex challenges.
