Next week, President Donald Trump is set to host a roundtable to discuss the future of college sports. But no current college athletes (or active coaches) were invited to participate, according to a list of invitees obtained by Front Office Sports. The list is subject to change. But it offers a window into the type of group Trump hoped to assemble to discuss issues plaguing college sports.
The NCAA on Thursday announced it finalized a payment structure for a $303 million settlement that resolves a class action brought on behalf of individuals who worked as “volunteer” coaches for schools’ Division I teams, except baseball, sometime between March 17, 2019, and June 30, 2023—the date when the NCAA lifted a bylaw that capped the number of coaches.
Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, chief of the DOJ’s antitrust division, announced on Thursday she is stepping down—a move that could increase the odds of a settlement between the government and Live Nation and invite new thinking on antitrust enforcement and athletes’ rights in college sports at a pivotal time.
If you watched a minute of college football this fall, you saw the ads. A voice-over darkly warns that, without congressional action, college sports face an existential crisis. NIL is forcing schools to cut women’s sports and Olympic programs. The very fabric of amateur athletics is unraveling. The solution, viewers are told, is the SCORE Act. It would solve the crisis, though it’s not really explained how.
The landscape of college athletics is entering uncharted territory. On June 6, 2025, final approval of the $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement resolved three major antitrust lawsuits and authorized direct revenue sharing between Division 1 schools and their athletes. This development represents a major departure from the NCAA’s longstanding model of amateurism and carries significant implications for the legal status of student-athletes.
The Federal Trade Commission is asking 20 universities with Division I sports programs whether agents working with their athletes are following a federal law tied to sports-agent conduct.
There are three proposals in front of Congress, will any of them progress and would they even help maintain the NCAA’s relevance?
The NCAA insists that while Title IX requires financial aid and athletic scholarships be gender-balanced, it does not mandate “all student-athlete benefits” be gender-balanced.
“There’s no mood for consolidating more money in Power Two conferences at the expense of all the other conferences and small to mid-size schools because that’s just going to accelerate the trend of cutting Olympic or women’s sports,” said Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), a former Division I volleyball player who sits on the committee of jurisdiction.
E60’s Jeremy Schaap unpacks the seismic shift that has transformed college athletics from an amateur ideal into a high-stakes marketplace.