Trump's college sports plan ridiculed as theatrical spectacle

President Donald Trump is trying to alter how college sports are played — and is being called out for what one columnist called a “dog and pony show.”

In an editorial headlined “Trump college sports meeting turns into dog and pony show with no real answers, Matt Hayes from USA Today argued that “if universities receive the antitrust exemption, the first thing implemented is a return to restricting player movement. (That voice you just heard was Trump announcing, ‘Go back to the wonderful system.’)” This would make it difficult for players to pursue better financial and educational opportunities at competing schools and instead lock them into a single institution.

“SEC commissioner Greg Sankey says his conference wants one free transfer, and that’s it,” Hayes wrote. “You know, the old days.”

Although the SEC commissioner and others who met with Trump on Friday insist that free player movement leads to structural and financial instability, Hayes observed that “the ‘old days’ were awful for players, the financial equivalent of traversing a long, lonely desert — only to have someone eventually offer you a box of cotton balls to quench your thirst.”

Despite the financial hardships that the old system imposed on players, Trump said he is issuing an executive order within a week that will make it harder for players to effectively advocate for their own careers. While Hayes acknowledged that the existing college sports system “is an unwieldy mess,” he added that “the only body on the planet that’s more tribally dysfunctional than the NCAA” is Congress.

Hayes also noted sarcastically that one of the college sports figures who visited Trump, disgraced ex-football coach Urban Meyer, does not have a “spotless reputation” and yet offered a “gift to the day.”

“Get rid of collectives. That’s cheating!” Hayes quoted Meyer as saying before adding, “Cheating. Imagine that.”

Hayes is not alone among commentators in slamming Trump’s involvement in college football. Conservative pundit George F. Will wrote for The Washington Post in August that he had no sympathy for universities fleeing the “terrors” of “athletes being paid their market value” and of “antitrust litigation resulting from the cartels collaborating to stifle this.” To counter this, the colleges are calling for “federal price controls, lest athletes in some states be able to earn more than those in other states — a nightmare for recruiters. And lest too much money flows to the athletes the money-spenders pay to see."

Will later continued, "Trump, who cannot see a parade without jumping in front of it, has issued (what else?) an executive order, saying that federal action is needed to 'restore order.' Translation: to suppress the disorder that results when society's lower orders (here, athletes suddenly allowed serious compensation) acquire rights and aspirations. This has happened now that athletes with lucrative skills enjoy free agency, the ability to sell their services to the highest bidder."

Similarly Slate journalist Alex Kirshner argued in June that Trump, despite claiming to care about women’s sports when it gives him an opportunity to insult transgender athletes, does not show the same interest when it comes to fairly compensating them.

"Trump's dedication to the cause did not last long," Kirshner wrote. "In the time since signing the anti-trans order, the president has ensured that hundreds of millions of dollars that might have gone to female athletes will go to men instead. On July 1, college sports will shift to a new economic model. This is an attempt to correct for a few years of a messy system. Since 2021, players have been allowed to earn money from third parties in marketing and endorsement deals."

Kirshner later continued, "In practice, though, the system has meant that donor “collectives” just pool money to pay athletes to play for their favorite teams, under the thin guise that the deals are somehow for appearances or endorsements."

In fact, after Trump insulted the US women’s hockey team following their gold medal victory, they declined to visit the White House.

“We are sincerely grateful for the invitation extended to our gold medal–winning U.S. Women’s Hockey Team and deeply appreciate the recognition of their extraordinary achievement," a USA Hockey spokesperson said in a statement to NBC News. "Due to the timing and previously scheduled academic and professional commitments following the Games, the athletes are unable to participate. They were honored to be included and are grateful for the acknowledgment.”