As universities scramble to pay football and basketball players directly, a financial squeeze is threatening to gut Olympic sports and women's programs across American campuses. The fix may come from the last place anyone expected: Donald Trump's desk.
The concern is real and spreading fast. University administrators are warning that when money flows heavily toward marquee men's sports, smaller programs face elimination. Menâs tennis in Division I has already hemorrhaged from 258 programs in 2010 to 237 by 2025. Other Olympic sports are stagnant or losing ground. This spring alone, several college tennis programs were shuttered, though Arkansas saved its program when donors intervened.
Kirby Smart, Georgia's football coach, voiced what many in the industry fear: âMy biggest concern for our sport is weâre going to ruin all the other sports.â
Enter Trump, who issued an executive order in April 2026 calling for federal action to protect competition across all college sports. The order states that without a national solution, major football programs may withdraw resources from women's and Olympic sports to achieve financial stability. It urges Congress to pass legislation addressing the crisis.
Trump's sports resume is eclectic. He owned the New Jersey Generals in the USFL, hosted MMA events, named the Tour de Trump for cycling, participated in the 1991 Olympic torch relay, and has been a fixture in golf. His connection to sports is genuine and varied, extending beyond football and basketball. That broader perspective appears to inform his concern about college athletics' narrowing focus.
The numbers tell a grim story for mid-tier programs. The median Power Five conference school lost money in 2024, generating $153.5 million in revenue while spending $167.2 million. These losses occurred before direct athlete payments and expanded scholarship limits took effect. Most athletic departments survive through student fees, taxpayer support, and institutional funding. Now they face mounting athlete payouts concentrated in two sports.
Current NIL distribution tilts heavily toward basketball and football. The House v. NCAA settlement of $2.8 billion in retroactive athlete payments allocates 90 percent to football and menâs basketball players, 5 percent to women's basketball, and 5 percent to everyone else. Going forward, schools will distribute around $20.5 million in athlete compensation annually, but projections suggest menâs basketball players in major conferences will average over $200,000 yearly, while womenâs basketball players average roughly $16,700. Every other athlete gets crumbs by comparison.
Some see Trump's move as a backdoor play to protect football's dominance rather than genuine concern for women's athletics. Victoria Jackson, Arizona State's sports historian, noted that the focus remains football above all. âWomen may get a good deal out of that as a result,â she said, but emphasized the word âmay.â Jackson expects universities to cut many teams regardless.
The contradiction is stark. Trump's Department of Education previously weakened Title IX enforcement and scrapped NIL guidance that required equitable distribution. Now his administration pushes schools to report spending on menâs and womenâs sports separately, despite having undermined the very law designed to protect womenâs athletics.
Shiwali Patel of the National Women's Law Center framed the paradox bluntly: âWithout strong Title IX guardrails, many schools will continue to pour money into menâs athletics while under-resourcing womenâs sports. If the Trump administration cared about womenâs sports, they would not be undermining Title IX enforcement.â
The stakes extend to Olympic talent pipelines. The U.S. Olympic Committee reported that 75 percent of the 2024 U.S. Olympic team played college sports. Track and field, gymnastics, swimming, ice hockey, and skiing all depend heavily on NCAA programs for athlete development. Yet if schools eliminate these programs to fund basketball and football, that pipeline dries up.
The Trump order doesnât restore the full old system. It places limits on athlete earnings while leaving the basic structure of direct payments intact. Schools would still fund sports selectively, potentially cutting marginal programs entirely and converting others to club status where students run operations without institutional money.
Whether Trump's intervention succeeds remains uncertain. If it fails, the college sports landscape will transform dramatically. Some schools will concentrate resources on five or six fully funded sports while trimming others to bare-minimum varsity programs or club status. Others may shift priorities entirely, cutting sports that donât generate revenue or Olympic prestige.
Jackson's forecast was sobering: âWhat we have right now will not be what weâll have 20 years from now. That's probably a good thing, but weâre going to have a lot of casualties to get there.â
Author James Rodriguez: "Trump may save college womenâs sports by accident while trying to protect football, but donât mistake good intentions for real commitment when his own Education Department is still gutting Title IX."
Comments