Trump pushes SCORE Act to rein in NIL 'chaos'

The US president is threatening to withhold federal funding from universities that refuse new eligibility rules, in a bid to rein in spending on football and basketball and preserve support for Olympic sports.

Donald Trump has once again accelerated a debate that has spilled far beyond university campuses, now echoing through courtrooms, state legislatures, and the corridors of Washington: who truly governs collegiate sport, and by what rules.

On Wednesday, he renewed his call for Congress to intervene and pass federal legislation capable of 'bringing order' to the system, convinced that the current model has degenerated into an unregulated expanse. At the heart of his concern lie the loosely governed payments tied to Name, Image and Likeness, alongside the increasingly fluid transfer freedoms afforded to student-athletes.

His warning, framed in near-patriotic terms, was that the US "will no longer have a decent Olympic team" unless new regulations are imposed on university sport. The 79-year-old Republican pointed to both figures and a broader premise: by his estimate, three out of every four Team USA Olympians have passed through the collegiate system. In his view, the machinery of the NCAA is not merely an accessory to American Olympism but its primary pipeline. If that pipeline is weakened by a lack of resources, he argued, the nation's global performance will inevitably decline.

Trump made his remarks while honouring NCAA champions in disciplines that rarely command the limelight of lucrative broadcast deals: Youngstown State bowling, Oklahoma State men's golf, Texas A&M women's volleyball, among others. These are sports that confer prestige and institutional visibility, yet seldom generate the vast television revenues associated with American football or basketball. Beneath the surface, his message amounted to a defence of the entire ecosystem, not merely its most profitable pillars.

In the president's view, the system is in 'chaos' because there is no unified framework. As a result, he argues, universities are directing most of their resources toward revenue-generating sports to compete for talent in the NIL marketplace. Meanwhile, so-called Olympic disciplines, such as swimming, athletics and gymnastics, are steadily losing funding and support. "Without college sports, without the opportunity to take part, to compete, to learn and to improve, we will no longer have a top-tier Olympic team", he said drawing a direct line between the health of the NCAA and the Olympic medal tally.

Yet this shift cannot be understood without acknowledging the judicial shock that has reshaped the landscape. At its centre is Claudia Wilken, viewed by critics as the figure who fractured the NCAA's long-standing amateurism model. Wilken granted final approval to a $2.8 billion (€2.57bn) settlement compensating athletes for their inability to monetise their image between 2016 and 2025, effective from 1 July 2025.

The ruling fundamentally alters the meaning of 'amateur' within a system historically framed as educational rather than professional. Trump has repeatedly singled out Wilken, calling her decision a 'disgrace'. His objection is not merely personal but political: in his view, the structure of collegiate sport should be set by federal legislation, not the courts. Data from the Paris 2024 Olympics reinforce the argument he seeks to advance.

A total of 65% of the US delegation were current or former NCAA athletes. In some disciplines, the collegiate link was even stronger, 96% in swimming and 95% in rowing, underlining the system's role as a pipeline to elite performance. The tension, however, lies in attempts to impose order in a system already fragmented by court decisions and state laws.

On 3 April, Trump signed an executive order titled 'Saving College Sports', proposing to cap eligibility at five years and allow only one penalty-free transfer. It also requires revenue-sharing models to preserve, or expand, scholarships for women’s and Olympic sports. The result leaves universities facing a stark trade-off: prioritise television-driven income from football and basketball, or safeguard federal funding that underpins the broader academic system. In effect, it is an effort to govern collegiate sport through financial leverage rather than direct regulation.

Several elements of the executive order may struggle to withstand legal scrutiny. For that reason, Trump and key figures in collegiate athletics are pushing for federal legislation that would codify restrictions and grant the NCAA an antitrust exemption, allowing it to enforce rules without constant exposure to litigation.

This is where the proposed SCORE Act enters the frame, the legislative vehicle Trump supports to impose federal order on the NIL landscape. The bill aims to harmonise rules governing image rights and sponsorship deals, replacing the current patchwork of state-level regulations that has made recruitment and competition increasingly uneven.

Charlie Baker has emerged as a leading advocate of this approach. Speaking at the 2026 NCAA Convention, he said 'common sense won a round with the executive order, but we need Congress to stop watching from the sidelines and provide real stability'. He framed the issue in broader terms, "It is our best opportunity to ensure that college athletes remain students, not employees".

Trump reduces the debate to a single proposition: without federal rules, the NCAA risks becoming a market without a referee, one in which revenue sports absorb the lion's share of resources while those underpinning Olympic success are left exposed. To critics, this amounts to political overreach; to supporters, it is a necessary intervention in an increasingly fragmented system.