https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/president-donald-trump-to-sign-executive-order-establishing-national-nil-standards-amid-evolving-legislation/

I'm sure this will improve things (/s)

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

bencgilmore said:

---

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

you appear to suffer from lack of imagination, atypical of cal football fans. it can always get worse

---

I'm trying to be optimistic. Plus the situation is REALLY a mess right now.

Is this even a thing a Presidential order can do? Pretty sure it has to be a law passed in Congress to have any real weight.

sycasey said:

---

Is this even a thing a Presidential order can do? Pretty sure it has to be a law passed in Congress to have any real weight.

---

This is a good question. I believe EOs have some legal standing, BUT very little in terms of enforcement capability. Having spent a sizable chunk of my career in the Federal government the EOs were dispised by career civil service because they often directed the Executive Branch to do something, but never comes with appropriated funding from Congress. Interestingly most EOs have been paper tiger types of directives that most Agencies just ignore if they don't have funding to implement them. What is more interesting is how the private sector views them. There has been more rolling over going on during this Administration that I have seen in the past. But to the extent that a private entity is exposed to federal funding, they may have to adapt. For example, a lot of NGOs that have societal missions to alleviate inequalities particular related to race have had to reassess their DEI initiatives due to their need for federal funding. My personal take: they are not the same a law passed by Congress, but they do carry weight to the extent that a President want's to play hardball with those who resist the directives.

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

Also hard to see how a presidential executive order can override Congressional legislation (the House Settlement Agreement) that has been upheld by a federal judge unless it goes unchallenged.

The county hasn't had a king for centuries. Things are different now. The clowns in black robes will do what they are told.

lol, and what were you saying 3-4 months ago? We have a crazy guy in office that says anything he wants and the stock market knows this. It's not good.

calpoly said:

---

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

It always gets worse when the orange one chimes in.

---

The orange one makes bearinsiders moist.

Pittstop said:

---

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

Also hard to see how a presidential executive order can override Congressional legislation (the House Settlement Agreement) that has been upheld by a federal judge unless it goes unchallenged.

---

Despite the name, the House settlement agreement does not involve Congress. House v NCAA was a civil antitrust suit brought by former student athletes Grant House and Sedona Price against the NCAA that was certified as a class action. It is only binding on the parties to the suit

Here is an excellent article on the House Settlement:

https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/06/house-v-ncaa-settlement-approved-era-of-direct-payments-to-college-athletes-begins

The way an executive order could work is to direct the DOJ and FTC not to enforce the antitrust laws against the NCAA, Conferences or schools. Another way Trump has used executive orders is to deny Federal funding to any school that does not do what he wants, in this case it would be following whatever rules he proclaims. The problem is that the DOJ and FCC rarely enforce antitrust laws anyway and it could not stop further civil antitrust suits like the House case.

Pittstop said:

---

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

Also hard to see how a presidential executive order can override Congressional legislation (the House Settlement Agreement) that has been upheld by a federal judge unless it goes unchallenged.

---

The House Settlement has been challenged through appeals by nine different groups when last I looked, including the likely Miami starting quarterback, and may very well go down in flames as the lawyers on BI are predicting. Congress has not weighed in on the settlement, but the House of Representatives is moving forward very general legislation which federalizes NIL rules and allow payments, basically takes the NCAA out of the equation and places power in conferences, authorizes use of player agents, and provides some protections for players, etc.. I have no idea how this legislation, which may not pass, matches-up with any purported EO. That said, NASDAQ is enjoying record highs.

calumnus said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

calpoly said:

---

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

It always gets worse when the orange one chimes in.

---

Huh. The stock market seems to be doing quite well.

---

Great opportunity to sell my remaining stock and short the market before the impact of the tariffs hits.

---

Any day now. You'll be rich, you'll be a king.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Is this even a thing a Presidential order can do? Pretty sure it has to be a law passed in Congress to have any real weight.

---

This is a good question. I believe EOs have some legal standing, BUT very little in terms of enforcement capability. Having spent a sizable chunk of my career in the Federal government the EOs were dispised by career civil service because they often directed the Executive Branch to do something, but never comes with appropriated funding from Congress. Interestingly most EOs have been paper tiger types of directives that most Agencies just ignore if they don't have funding to implement them. What is more interesting is how the private sector views them. There has been more rolling over going on during this Administration that I have seen in the past. But to the extent that a private entity is exposed to federal funding, they may have to adapt. For example, a lot of NGOs that have societal missions to alleviate inequalities particular related to race have had to reassess their DEI initiatives due to their need for federal funding. My personal take: they are not the same a law passed by Congress, but they do carry weight to the extent that a President want's to play hardball with those who resist the directives.

---

The discussion on this thread is proof enough how an executive order can make things even worse.
Add to all the chaos that already exists an EO with questionable validity as to its effectiveness and interpretation and whether it supersedes a court ordered settlement.

Maybe some well-heeled Stanfurd fan can get an EO to clarify whether Garner's ""knee was down"

wifeisafurd said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

Also hard to see how a presidential executive order can override Congressional legislation (the House Settlement Agreement) that has been upheld by a federal judge unless it goes unchallenged.

---

The House Settlement has been challenged through appeals by nine different groups when last I looked, including the likely Miami starting quarterback, and may very well go down in flames as the lawyers on BI are predicting. Congress has not weighed in on the settlement, but the House of Representatives is moving forward very general legislation which federalizes NIL rules and allow payments, basically takes the NCAA out of the equation and places power in conferences, authorizes use of player agents, and provides some protections for players, etc.. I have no idea how this legislation, which may not pass, matches-up with any purported EO. That said, NASDAQ is enjoying record highs.

---

It is being reported by a couple of prominent college football insiders (Ross Dellenger and Dan Wolken) that the original laywers in the House settlement are threatening to head back to court.Over you guessed it, outside NIL. The collectives want essentially it to be anything goes. The lawyers and the NCAA are in negotiations.

The negotiations are an effort to find some sweet spot. Redfining what is "a legitimate business opportunity". Greg Sankey the SEC commissioner called it a "soft cap'. This is being driven primarily by some collectiives in the SEC and B1G that want to keep things business as usual. Some other collectives are involved as well as agents and lawyers representing the players.

I think congress is the only hope. The EO that Trump apparently is considering places considerable limits on outisde NIL (collectives) and agents. I doubt it will hold up legally but may provide pressure on congress. If congress does not act the fallout could be significant.

Many schools are not following the settlement as written. Big surprise. The schools started this mess many years ago when they did not share with the players. The pendulum has swung in the players direction. In a very big way. These things always seem to over correct. Now it is in the hands of lawyers and congress. Congress needs to act.

6956bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

Also hard to see how a presidential executive order can override Congressional legislation (the House Settlement Agreement) that has been upheld by a federal judge unless it goes unchallenged.

---

The House Settlement has been challenged through appeals by nine different groups when last I looked, including the likely Miami starting quarterback, and may very well go down in flames as the lawyers on BI are predicting. Congress has not weighed in on the settlement, but the House of Representatives is moving forward very general legislation which federalizes NIL rules and allow payments, basically takes the NCAA out of the equation and places power in conferences, authorizes use of player agents, and provides some protections for players, etc.. I have no idea how this legislation, which may not pass, matches-up with any purported EO. That said, NASDAQ is enjoying record highs.

---

It is being reported by a couple of prominent college football insiders (Ross Dellenger and Dan Wolken) that the original laywers in the House settlement are threatening to head back to court.Over you guessed it, outside NIL. The collectives want essentially it to be anything goes. The lawyers and the NCAA are in negotiations.

The negotiations are an effort to find some sweet spot. Redfining what is "a legitimate business opportunity". Greg Sankey the SEC commissioner called it a "soft cap'. This is being driven primarily by some collectiives in the SEC and B1G that want to keep things business as usual. Some other collectives are involved as well as agents and lawyers representing the players.

I think congress is the only hope. The EO that Trump apparently is considering places considerable limits on outisde NIL (collectives) and agents. I doubt it will hold up legally but may provide pressure on congress. If congress does not act the fallout could be significant.

Many schools are not following the settlement as written. Big surprise. The schools started this mess many years ago when they did not share with the players. The pendulum has swung in the players direction. In a very big way. These things always seem to over correct. Now it is in the hands of lawyers and congress. Congress needs to act.

---

From 50,000 feet up this almost sounds like a power fight about wrestling control from outside donors back to the conferences and schools in order to control payments to players, and still avoid Title 9 restraints. Trying to effectively get an exemption from anti-trust laws and Title 9 through a settlement of a lawsuit where the donor collectives are not even a party to the lawsuit appears, at least from an optics standpoint, to look like a really dumb idea to this retired attorney. What is plan B?

wifeisafurd said:

---

6956bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

Also hard to see how a presidential executive order can override Congressional legislation (the House Settlement Agreement) that has been upheld by a federal judge unless it goes unchallenged.

---

The House Settlement has been challenged through appeals by nine different groups when last I looked, including the likely Miami starting quarterback, and may very well go down in flames as the lawyers on BI are predicting. Congress has not weighed in on the settlement, but the House of Representatives is moving forward very general legislation which federalizes NIL rules and allow payments, basically takes the NCAA out of the equation and places power in conferences, authorizes use of player agents, and provides some protections for players, etc.. I have no idea how this legislation, which may not pass, matches-up with any purported EO. That said, NASDAQ is enjoying record highs.

---

It is being reported by a couple of prominent college football insiders (Ross Dellenger and Dan Wolken) that the original laywers in the House settlement are threatening to head back to court.Over you guessed it, outside NIL. The collectives want essentially it to be anything goes. The lawyers and the NCAA are in negotiations.

The negotiations are an effort to find some sweet spot. Redfining what is "a legitimate business opportunity". Greg Sankey the SEC commissioner called it a "soft cap'. This is being driven primarily by some collectiives in the SEC and B1G that want to keep things business as usual. Some other collectives are involved as well as agents and lawyers representing the players.

I think congress is the only hope. The EO that Trump apparently is considering places considerable limits on outisde NIL (collectives) and agents. I doubt it will hold up legally but may provide pressure on congress. If congress does not act the fallout could be significant.

Many schools are not following the settlement as written. Big surprise. The schools started this mess many years ago when they did not share with the players. The pendulum has swung in the players direction. In a very big way. These things always seem to over correct. Now it is in the hands of lawyers and congress. Congress needs to act.

---

From 50,000 feet up this almost sounds like a power fight about wrestling control from outside donors back to the conferences and schools in order to control payments to players, and still avoid Title 9 restraints. Trying to effectively get an exemption from anti-trust laws and Title 9 through a settlement of a lawsuit where the donor collectives are not even a party to the lawsuit appears, at least from an optics standpoint, to look like a really dumb idea to this retired attorney. What is plan B?

---

This is what I was trying to get at with my rather poorly formulated post several weeks ago. I don't see how the House Settlement applies to outside donors and powers that be were overplaying their hand thinking that they had that control.

They are trying to take short cuts here. They essentially don't want to call the players employees and allow them to unionize, but some of these things will not get fixed without a collective bargaining agreement. And some things are probably pretty hard to fix at all.

Welcome to capitalism. The NCAA had a good, century long run trying to pretend like they were just allowing students to engage in extracurricular activities while selling tickets to interested parties to watch. Then TV, advertising, merchandise, etc. The genie is out of that bottle and that means players are going to be treated like everyone else in the marketplace, meaning for the most part being able to sell their skills to the highest bidder at will.

If you want to get outside donors out of the equation, schools are going to have to get comfortable signing multi-year employment contracts like the pros do. That won't stop outside donors, but it will end the incentive for outside donors to try to poach players on an annual basis.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

6956bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

Also hard to see how a presidential executive order can override Congressional legislation (the House Settlement Agreement) that has been upheld by a federal judge unless it goes unchallenged.

---

The House Settlement has been challenged through appeals by nine different groups when last I looked, including the likely Miami starting quarterback, and may very well go down in flames as the lawyers on BI are predicting. Congress has not weighed in on the settlement, but the House of Representatives is moving forward very general legislation which federalizes NIL rules and allow payments, basically takes the NCAA out of the equation and places power in conferences, authorizes use of player agents, and provides some protections for players, etc.. I have no idea how this legislation, which may not pass, matches-up with any purported EO. That said, NASDAQ is enjoying record highs.

---

It is being reported by a couple of prominent college football insiders (Ross Dellenger and Dan Wolken) that the original laywers in the House settlement are threatening to head back to court.Over you guessed it, outside NIL. The collectives want essentially it to be anything goes. The lawyers and the NCAA are in negotiations.

The negotiations are an effort to find some sweet spot. Redfining what is "a legitimate business opportunity". Greg Sankey the SEC commissioner called it a "soft cap'. This is being driven primarily by some collectiives in the SEC and B1G that want to keep things business as usual. Some other collectives are involved as well as agents and lawyers representing the players.

I think congress is the only hope. The EO that Trump apparently is considering places considerable limits on outisde NIL (collectives) and agents. I doubt it will hold up legally but may provide pressure on congress. If congress does not act the fallout could be significant.

Many schools are not following the settlement as written. Big surprise. The schools started this mess many years ago when they did not share with the players. The pendulum has swung in the players direction. In a very big way. These things always seem to over correct. Now it is in the hands of lawyers and congress. Congress needs to act.

---

From 50,000 feet up this almost sounds like a power fight about wrestling control from outside donors back to the conferences and schools in order to control payments to players, and still avoid Title 9 restraints. Trying to effectively get an exemption from anti-trust laws and Title 9 through a settlement of a lawsuit where the donor collectives are not even a party to the lawsuit appears, at least from an optics standpoint, to look like a really dumb idea to this retired attorney. What is plan B?

---

This is what I was trying to get at with my rather poorly formulated post several weeks ago. I don't see how the House Settlement applies to outside donors and powers that be were overplaying their hand thinking that they had that control.

They are trying to take short cuts here. They essentially don't want to call the players employees and allow them to unionize, but some of these things will not get fixed without a collective bargaining agreement. And some things are probably pretty hard to fix at all.

Welcome to capitalism. The NCAA had a good, century long run trying to pretend like they were just allowing students to engage in extracurricular activities while selling tickets to interested parties to watch. Then TV, advertising, merchandise, etc. The genie is out of that bottle and that means players are going to be treated like everyone else in the marketplace, meaning for the most part being able to sell their skills to the highest bidder at will.

If you want to get outside donors out of the equation, schools are going to have to get comfortable signing multi-year employment contracts like the pros do. That won't stop outside donors, but it will end the incentive for outside donors to try to poach players on an annual basis.

---

So, the English Football system, lite.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

6956bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

Also hard to see how a presidential executive order can override Congressional legislation (the House Settlement Agreement) that has been upheld by a federal judge unless it goes unchallenged.

---

The House Settlement has been challenged through appeals by nine different groups when last I looked, including the likely Miami starting quarterback, and may very well go down in flames as the lawyers on BI are predicting. Congress has not weighed in on the settlement, but the House of Representatives is moving forward very general legislation which federalizes NIL rules and allow payments, basically takes the NCAA out of the equation and places power in conferences, authorizes use of player agents, and provides some protections for players, etc.. I have no idea how this legislation, which may not pass, matches-up with any purported EO. That said, NASDAQ is enjoying record highs.

---

It is being reported by a couple of prominent college football insiders (Ross Dellenger and Dan Wolken) that the original laywers in the House settlement are threatening to head back to court.Over you guessed it, outside NIL. The collectives want essentially it to be anything goes. The lawyers and the NCAA are in negotiations.

The negotiations are an effort to find some sweet spot. Redfining what is "a legitimate business opportunity". Greg Sankey the SEC commissioner called it a "soft cap'. This is being driven primarily by some collectiives in the SEC and B1G that want to keep things business as usual. Some other collectives are involved as well as agents and lawyers representing the players.

I think congress is the only hope. The EO that Trump apparently is considering places considerable limits on outisde NIL (collectives) and agents. I doubt it will hold up legally but may provide pressure on congress. If congress does not act the fallout could be significant.

Many schools are not following the settlement as written. Big surprise. The schools started this mess many years ago when they did not share with the players. The pendulum has swung in the players direction. In a very big way. These things always seem to over correct. Now it is in the hands of lawyers and congress. Congress needs to act.

---

From 50,000 feet up this almost sounds like a power fight about wrestling control from outside donors back to the conferences and schools in order to control payments to players, and still avoid Title 9 restraints. Trying to effectively get an exemption from anti-trust laws and Title 9 through a settlement of a lawsuit where the donor collectives are not even a party to the lawsuit appears, at least from an optics standpoint, to look like a really dumb idea to this retired attorney. What is plan B?

---

This is what I was trying to get at with my rather poorly formulated post several weeks ago. I don't see how the House Settlement applies to outside donors and powers that be were overplaying their hand thinking that they had that control.

They are trying to take short cuts here. They essentially don't want to call the players employees and allow them to unionize, but some of these things will not get fixed without a collective bargaining agreement. And some things are probably pretty hard to fix at all.

Welcome to capitalism. The NCAA had a good, century long run trying to pretend like they were just allowing students to engage in extracurricular activities while selling tickets to interested parties to watch. Then TV, advertising, merchandise, etc. The genie is out of that bottle and that means players are going to be treated like everyone else in the marketplace, meaning for the most part being able to sell their skills to the highest bidder at will.

If you want to get outside donors out of the equation, schools are going to have to get comfortable signing multi-year employment contracts like the pros do. That won't stop outside donors, but it will end the incentive for outside donors to try to poach players on an annual basis.

---

For many state schools unionization presently is not possible. If the players are deemed to be State or governmental employees, they can't unionize. That is why the proposed legislation "federalizes" college sports, and also provides the players are not employees (there also are tax problems regarding employee status). That does not mean players can't unionize. My read is that colleges want a collective bargaining agreement, and agents and many players, at least football and basketball players would not, or would desire to be in a separate union from athletes in other sports.

ferCALgm2 said:

---

lol, and what were you saying 3-4 months ago? We have a crazy guy in office that says anything he wants and the stock market knows this. It's not good.

---

I do not understand what you are trying to say.

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

Golden One said:

---

It's hard to see how it can get any worse than it is now.

---

Also hard to see how a presidential executive order can override Congressional legislation (the House Settlement Agreement) that has been upheld by a federal judge unless it goes unchallenged.

---

Despite the name, the House settlement agreement does not involve Congress. House v NCAA was a civil antitrust suit brought by former student athletes Grant House and Sedona Price against the NCAA that was certified as a class action. It is only binding on the parties to the suit

Here is an excellent article on the House Settlement:

https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/06/house-v-ncaa-settlement-approved-era-of-direct-payments-to-college-athletes-begins

The way an executive order could work is to direct the DOJ and FTC not to enforce the antitrust laws against the NCAA, Conferences or schools. Another way Trump has used executive orders is to deny Federal funding to any school that does not do what he wants, in this case it would be following whatever rules he proclaims. The problem is that the DOJ and FCC rarely enforce antitrust laws anyway and it could not stop further civil antitrust suits like the House case.

---

Ah, I see. Thanks, Calumnus.