With the 2025 college football season in full swing, there is growing concern about an emerging paradigm for paying student-athletes. Even the White House is entering the fray with a dubious new executive order about player compensation. It may not be enforceable, but it can still carry weight.

Will colleges soon overspend to chase sports glory? Do schools need protection from themselves? Is it fair, even legal, to let the NCAA generate billions in revenue while cutting out the studentathletes?

The overspending already started. No fewer than 73 college basketball coaches earn salaries of $1 million or more. The five highest range from $6.1 million to $8.65 million — the latter the salary of Bill Self at the University of Kansas. Top football coaches earn even more. The 10 highest football coach salaries range from $9.75 million per year — Brian Kelly at Louisiana State University — to $13.28 million — Kirby Smart at University of Georgia. Deion Sanders earns $10 million per year at the University of Colorado-Boulder. If the student-athletes are no longer indentured amateurs, can lofty player salaries be far behind? Not if the new executive order, or some other federal intervention, holds up.

Schools may also be lured by the Stephen Curry effect, chasing Cinderella seasons for fame and notoriety. In his early days, Steph was slender, unimposing and largely unnoticed, so he wound up playing basketball at a smaller liberal arts school, Davidson College. Then he put Davidson on the map during the 2008 NCAA Tournament by dropping 40 points in a first-round upset of powerhouse Gonzaga. A tsunami of headlines followed, triggering a surge in Davidson new student applications.

In January, the latest landmark case, House v. NCAA, led to a massive $2.8 billion settlement among players, the NCAA and the power conferences (Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, ACC and SEC). This was a game changer. Now student-athletes can earn direct compensation beyond their own marketing rights. Combine that with the recent portal rules facilitating student-athlete transfers, and the future of college athletics is suddenly much more complex.

Today the NCAA struggles to balance sportsmanship, fairness and massive spending to buy wins, acclaim and even student-athlete free agents. But should the NCAA get artificial protection from executive orders or otherwise? Not when it disingenuously pockets billions under the pretext of student-athlete amateurism. Two wrongs, after all, still do not make a right.

Eldon L. Ham, Glencoe