Watch out for college sports 'reforms' that shortchange student-athletes
The world of college sports is at a crossroads. After years of legal challenges, cultural reckoning and economic change, student athletes finally are being recognized as central economic actors in a multibillion-dollar enterprise. Yet instead of embracing reforms that promote fairness and accountability, recent proposals from Washington D.C. would roll back progress and entrench inequity — at the direct expense of the very athletes who make college sports possible.
At issue are proposals that would sharply limit how much student athletes can earn from the value they help create, while expanding the power of institutions, conferences and regulators that already control nearly every aspect of college athletics. These efforts would shift billions of dollars away from players and back to coaches and administrators, many of whom already earn salaries that would dwarf anything athletes could see under the proposed rules.
One proposal would cap revenue sharing for athletes at roughly 22%, even as top football and basketball coaches continue to earn eight-figure annual salaries. The message is clear: the market should remain free for those at the top, but constrained for those whose labor actually generates the revenue. That is not reform — it is codified inequality.
An accompanying executive action doubles down on this imbalance. It gives a single private governing body sweeping authority to decide what constitutes “fair market value” for name, image, and likeness deals, known as NIL, and restricts athletes’ ability to enter into third-party agreements. The justification offered is that scholarships themselves are adequate compensation. But that logic rings hollow in a system where broadcast contracts, sponsorships and merchandise deals generate billions annually. Even more troubling, the policy threatens federal funding for institutions that fail to comply — jeopardizing vital programs such as Pell Grants that support low-income students across campuses nationwide.
These approaches do not exist in a legal vacuum. In fact, they directly defy a growing body of court decisions rejecting the long-standing treatment of student athletes as exempt from basic economic realities. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on athlete compensation violated federal antitrust law. One justice went further, noting that “price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor,” and warning that the system would be illegal in almost any other industry. He also observed a central truth that reform opponents often ignore: the athletes generating the revenue are disproportionately Black and from lower-income backgrounds, and they have historically received “little or nothing” in return.
Economic exploitation
More recently, a federal appeals court rejected the notion that student athletes are categorically barred from being considered employees under labor law. While that case continues, the court’s reasoning was unmistakable: when individuals provide tangible benefits to identifiable institutions, compensation is usually warranted. These rulings reflect a broader reality — college sports can no longer rely on legal fictions to justify economic exploitation.
Instead of adapting to this reality, current proposals seek to shield the system from accountability by granting an extraordinary antitrust exemption. Such exemptions are rare, and for good reason. Granting one here would allow unprecedented control over athletes’ earnings, mobility, and bargaining power, while sharply limiting their ability to challenge unfair practices in court. It would protect a system with a long history of mistreatment rather than reform it.
Equally alarming is the near-total absence of athlete representation in these plans. There is no meaningful pathway for student athletes to organize, negotiate collectively, or have a sustained voice in decisions that govern their livelihoods. That omission is not accidental. If athletes were allowed to bargain collectively, many of these rigid, top-down rules could instead be negotiated fairly, making sweeping federal intervention unnecessary.
True reform should strengthen college sports without sacrificing equity. That means fair revenue sharing, no special antitrust carve-outs, real representation for athletes and targeted support for smaller programs, women’s sports, and institutions that have historically been left behind, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Incremental tweaks are not enough if they reinforce the same disparities under a different name.
Most importantly, this debate must not move forward without the voices of those most affected. Current and former players, civil rights organizations and broader civil society deserve a meaningful seat at the table. Delaying action to allow for inclusive input is not obstruction — it is responsible governance.
College sports thrive because of student-athletes. Any reform that ignores their rights, their labor, and their humanity is not reform at all.
Marc H. Morial is president and CEO of the National Urban League and was mayor of New Orleans from 1994 to 2002.