On March 24, former Auburn football head coach and Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R) introduced a bill that addresses issues “plaguing college sports today,” specifically the transfer portal. Subsequently, on April 3, President Donald Trump signed an executive order limiting players to one transfer and five years of eligibility. The punishment for any violations could be the withdrawal of federal funding.
Do these rules benefit the game? Will they solve the issues at present? The executive order addresses some of the deepest tensions of college sports — how do you balance what is best for both players and fans?
These questions have left the college sports landscape of today in flux. It was not until April of 2024 that the National Collegiate Athletic Association allowed players unlimited transfers. Now, student athletes can be offered money for their play through NIL contracts and revenue sharing. Because of these factors, players today transfer frequently, sometimes from smaller to larger schools, and oftentimes between larger programs, in an attempt to earn more for their play.
The previous college football landscape, most of us can agree, was unfair to players. For example, in 2013, Johnny Manziel, one of the most famous college football players of all time, was investigated by the NCAA for accepting money for signed memorabilia. Despite being a true phenomenon and a household name, Manziel wasn't allowed to monetize the fame that came from his own abilities.
So when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the NCAA’s rules violated antitrust laws in 2021, it marked a substantial shift for collegiate athletes.
Now, many believe that this shift is ruining college sports, specifically college football. Fans raise concerns about program loyalty. We’ve seen some schools lean into the idea of developing players, so they can get more money to transfer to bigger programs. We’ve seen players stop playing in the middle of a season to extend their eligibility and potentially earn more through their college football career. For example, in September 2024, Matthew Sluka, former UNLV quarterback, quit three games into his season to preserve his red shirt eligibility, citing an NIL payment dispute.
As fans of college teams, it can be disheartening to see players put themselves above the teams that we adore so much.
However, we need to ask ourselves why players wouldn’t put themselves first? In a cutthroat business like college football, loyalty from the team or coaching staff toward a player is not guaranteed. A 5-star freshman could easily appear on a team and take the spot of a player who’s been working for years in order to get on the field.
This type of scenario becomes more harrowing when you factor in the amount of players at big programs who aspire to play the sport professionally. Currently, the absolute minimum that an NFL player can be paid on a one-year deal is $885,000. Being drafted in this year’s draft will give a player the chance to compete to make four million dollars over the next four years. Why should a player stay in a disadvantageous position where they risk losing out on money like that for “loyalty” to a college football program?
Still, there are arguments that the current college football landscape is not the best for players. With around 1,700 roster spots in the NFL, it should be clear that most college football players will not make it to the league. Some would argue, then, that there’s a concern about whether collegiate athletes can get their degrees if they are constantly transferring.
While trying to ensure that collegiate athletes leave school with a degree that can better their future seems like a noble goal, it still raises concerns. If an athlete decides that they are fine with risking their degree in order to make as much money as they can from their talents, who are we to decide that they can’t? Are we comfortable with the federal government making these decisions for people?
Ultimately, any discussion around NIL and the transfer portal will have to contend with what’s good for players. The question, then, is how much should the good of the sport be valued in these discussions. While we as fans may be nostalgic for the college sports of old, there’s a strong possibility that it won’t come back. Is it selfish to wish for old college sports to return if it may come at the detriment of the athletes who are playing the game?
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
Jordan Wright, sophomore majoring in Law and Justice, has been with The Auburn Plainsman since January 2025. He is currently serving as the Opinion Editor.
