Sec. 1 Purpose and Policy
College football is the primary revenue generator for university athletic departments, including revenue to support women's and Olympic sports, and is used by many universities to attract students, donations, and goodwill as millions of Americans gather with families and friends to watch each Saturday. These factors place enormous pressure on many universities to be competitive in football. The same dynamic exists for basketball to a lesser degree. Amid this pressure, the rules governing pay-for-play, eligibility, and other aspects of college athletics have been substantially loosened through a number of judicial rulings. Additional rules that could institute order and consistency in these systems have been nullified by some State legislatures that are incentivized to advantage their own State's universities in the competitive market for student-athletes by minimizing barriers to recruitment. This chaotic state of affairs has undermined competition, reduced opportunities for student-athletes, and jeopardized support for the current range of college athletics, particularly women's and Olympic sports. Fair competition cannot occur without a consistent set of rules concerning pay-for-play or player eligibility that cannot be endlessly relitigated in court.
The convergence of enormous pressure to win in football and basketball and the loosening, both by litigation and by State legislation, of consistent rules or limits concerning eligibility, transfers, and pay-for-play schemes has created an out-of-control financial arms race in these sports that is driving universities into debt, threatening to siphon resources from other sports, and damaging student-athletes' educational and graduation opportunities. The athletics-related financial threats these crucial universities face are substantial: Already, one major athletic program closed fiscal year 2025 with $535 million in athletics-related debt, and another has $437 million in such debt, while others face enormous annual athletics-related deficits. These financial perils will inevitably siphon funds from universities' educational and research purposes, which could impact their capabilities and responsibilities as Federal contractors and grantees.
Absent a comprehensive national solution, therefore, the escalating financial demands to succeed in football and basketball combined with the significantly loosened rules governing eligibility, transfers, and pay-for-play schemes may force curtailment of women's and Olympics sports, and may even jeopardize the overall financial well-being of universities with which the Federal Government has important financial relationships. Universities are important defense research contractors for the Department of War, important medical research contractors for the Department of Health and Human Services, and important scientific research contractors for the National Science Foundation. The health of the university system is integral to the Federal Government's basic functioning.
Further, without a national solution to protect the future of competition and opportunity in all college sports, it is possible that the largest college football programs will be forced to seek stability through a negotiated solution that may result in the withdrawal of financial and other resources from women's and Olympic sports.
The Congress is strongly encouraged to expeditiously pass legislation that satisfactorily addresses these issues. But further delay is not an option given what is at stake—the 500,000 annual educational, athletic, and leadership-development opportunities that provide almost $4 billion in scholarships. This executive action will preserve college sports for future generations.