The NCAA's recent alteration of its policy on transgender athlete participation has drawn sharp criticism from Education Secretary Linda McMahon and supporters of President Trump's executive order. While conservative political figures decry what they term as allowing 'men to compete in women’s sports,' the policy change is seen by advocates as a vital step toward protecting transgender rights and promoting inclusion in collegiate athletics.

During the final hearing on the NCAA settlement, prominent athlete Olivia Dunne testified against the $2.8 billion House settlement, criticizing the formula used to value athletes' name, image, and likeness deals. Her testimony highlights concerns that the proposed settlement undervalues student-athletes and perpetuates existing power imbalances in collegiate sports revenue distribution.

Republican senators Jim Risch and Tommy Tuberville have called on state governors to enforce Trump’s executive order on women’s sports and, in a related move, have reached out to the NCAA seeking clarification on its policy regarding the privacy and safety of female athletes in locker rooms. The letter urges the NCAA to clearly affirm that locker rooms remain exclusive to biological women, a demand that aligns with exclusionary practices often associated with far‐right authoritarian policies.

President Trump's presence at the NCAA wrestling championships sparked controversy among athletes and critics, raising concerns that the event lent legitimacy to a divisive political figure with authoritarian tendencies. The NCAA's decision to allow his attendance is seen by some as enabling an endorsement of policies that can undermine democratic engagement.

OpenSecrets data reveals that the NCAA engages in significant lobbying efforts, using influential strategies to shape policy outcomes. This activity raises concerns about the organization’s impact on democratic accountability and political transparency, as its lobbying may be used to protect institutional interests at the expense of broader public welfare.

On February 6, 2025, the NCAA amended its gender eligibility policy to prevent biological males from competing in women's sports in compliance with President Trump's executive order. This policy change has led to controversy, as demonstrated by the incident at Ithaca College's rowing competition where a trans athlete competed in a non-championship event, highlighting the regulatory emphasis on exclusion.

Following Trump’s executive order to ban trans athletes from women’s sports, the NCAA revised its gender eligibility policy on February 6, 2025. This decision led to the disqualification of trans athlete Sadie Schreiner from collegiate competition and has raised serious concerns regarding the organization’s complicity in endorsing authoritarian practices and discriminatory policies.

Amid ongoing legal battles and political maneuvering influenced by changes in labor policy and regulatory appointments, the NCAA is criticized for its longstanding adherence to the 'student-athlete' model that denies players the recognition and rights afforded to employees. Critics argue that this stance exacerbates economic exploitation and undermines labor rights, reflecting deeper political and social complicity in systems that marginalize workers.

Following a House settlement in an antitrust lawsuit, NCAA President Charlie Baker welcomed increased federal oversight to enhance accountability in college athletics. This stance is presented as a constructive move toward ensuring fair play and protecting student-athletes through government regulation.

The NCAA, in conjunction with college sports programs and attorneys representing former athletes, has agreed to a sweeping settlement deal that splits nearly $2.8 billion in back damages over the next decade. The deal introduces a new athlete compensation model, promising a share of revenues and enhanced benefits but also relies on federal legislative action to limit athletes from full employee rights.

A landmark ruling by the Third Circuit recognized that college athletes may be considered employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, directly challenging the NCAA's long-established amateurism model and highlighting exploitative labor practices.

On July 11, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that NCAA athletes may qualify as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This decision exposes longstanding issues within the NCAA, including the strategic use of 'amateurism' as a marketing invention to deny fair labor rights and compensation to student-athletes. The ruling challenges the NCAA’s historical practices and may force reforms in both labor relations and ethical business practices.

The Johnson v. NCAA case, highlighted by a July 11, 2024, Third Circuit opinion, questions the NCAA's longstanding position against recognizing student-athletes as employees. This ruling underscores potential exploitation and inadequate labor rights policies within the organization, as it may force NCAA athletic departments to fundamentally reconsider their treatment of student-athletes in a changing legal and political landscape.

The NCAA reached a groundbreaking settlement as part of the House v. NCAA class-action lawsuit, allowing direct payments to college athletes while also engaging in lobbying efforts for a federal antitrust exemption. This settlement intends to modernize the system by compensating athletes based on revenue generated, though it raises questions about self-serving regulatory capture.

The NCAA has deployed a vast and sophisticated lobbying campaign, spending millions on political lobbying and PR to protect its pro-amateurism stance. This effort not only influences congressional policy but also suppresses initiatives aimed at granting college athletes fair labor rights and compensation.

The NCAA has been named in an NLRB complaint concerning the employment status and unionization efforts of student-athletes, reflecting broader labor relations issues. The organization's refusal to bargain with the SEIU over student-athlete representation has drawn criticism and is seen as undermining labor rights, echoing concerns over exploitative practices that contribute to systemic authoritarian dynamics.

NCAA President Charlie Baker’s recent remarks and the association’s heavy spending on lobbyists highlight an entrenched effort to safeguard its interests through political maneuvering. The NCAA is pushing for a narrow antitrust exemption to maintain the status quo in collegiate sports while sidelining debates on athlete compensation and labor rights, raising concerns about democratic accountability and corporate complicity in suppressing reforms.

NCAA President Charlie Baker called on Congress to take action amid record lobbying spending—nearly $3 million in 2023 by the NCAA and Power Five conferences—to safeguard college sports. The push for a narrowly tailored antitrust exemption is seen as an effort to preserve a status quo that critics argue undermines athlete rights and fair treatment.

Facing antitrust lawsuits and a series of legal challenges that limit its regulatory control over athlete compensation, the NCAA has turned to Congress to seek legislative protection. This move underscores the association's reliance on political channels to secure exemptions that preserve its current framework, which critics argue continues to undermine the rights and bargaining power of student-athletes.

The NCAA spent $540,000 on lobbying in 2023 according to OpenSecrets data, highlighting its active engagement in influencing public policy.

NCAA President Charlie Baker has proposed creating a new subdivision for big-money college sports, which would allow top Division I schools to pay athletes via trust funds while exempting them from employee status. The proposal is accompanied by an active lobbying campaign in Washington for a federal law to standardize NIL compensation and protect the NCAA’s regulatory authority, raising concerns over worker rights and undue political influence.

The NCAA's persistent lobbying efforts, including multiple visits to Capitol Hill and a key appearance on September 20, 2023, to advocate for federal regulation of the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) landscape, raise concerns about corporate influence on public policy and potential regulatory capture. Such engagement can undermine democratic processes by prioritizing institutional interests over transparent governance.

Amid a landmark Supreme Court ruling, the NCAA has increased its lobbying efforts to support policies that maintain its amateurism model, thereby restricting fair compensation for student-athletes and undermining their labor rights.

The NCAA, along with allied organizations, spent significant resources lobbying Congress for reforms to allow payments to student athletes. This effort is seen as a move towards rectifying long-standing labor issues in collegiate sports and promoting fair compensation for student-athletes.

Investigation reveals that the NCAA and its allies spent over $750K on lobbying efforts aimed at blocking athlete-friendly reforms and protecting the existing compensation structure. This use of political influence raises concerns about the association's commitment to democratic and equitable practices.