In a move signaling major changes for college football, President Trump convened a roundtable to address the sport’s new landscape. The meeting included a range of stakeholders, from the NCAA president to major donors like Cody Campbell and prominent coaches such as Nick Saban and Urban Meyer. However, there was no current NCAA athlete at the roundtable, fueling discussions about excluding the main stakeholders. And a former OSU player has called it out publicly.

“You can’t determine what’s best for student athletes without student athlete representation,” wrote the former Ohio State cornerback, Chimdi Chekwa, on X.

Chekwa played for Ohio State from 2007 to 2010 during a tumultuous period that included tattoo-gate. He wasn’t the only one to call out the lack of student-athlete representation in the March 6 meeting.

“We deserve a seat at the table,” Temple player Khalil Poteat said. “We as athletes are the reason the stands are filled, logos are worn, and the game thrives the way it does. It is unfair and unfaithful to hold a discussion without the main attraction in mind. We want college sports to thrive just like everyone else in the room. So let’s bond together to generate the best outcome for all.”

Despite such pointed criticism from former players, organizers of the roundtable defended the composition of the group. Randy Levine, president of the New York Yankees, served as co-chair and outlined how current NCAA athletes will be consulted and included in the process going forward. Moreover, President Trump repeatedly argued that college athletes are effectively represented through coaches such as Nick Saban and Urban Meyer.

“They’re very well-represented,” Trump said. “You know why? Because people like Nick Saban and Urban Meyer, all of the people that I know in the room—and the people probably I don’t know—they all care very much about the student-athlete more so than they care about themselves, so I think they’re really here. In that sense, they’re represented very well here.”

The roundtable’s agenda focused mainly on advancing the SCORE Act. Although the bill has yet to be drafted, its eventual passage could bring significant changes. The NCAA and the programs will have a limited antitrust exemption to provide defense against lawsuits. A varying-state-law framework would dissolve and be brought under a single umbrella. But the issue of student-athlete representation still remains.

The SCORE Act would also regulate athlete compensation, codify the House v. NCAA settlement, and prevent athletes from becoming employees. However, it won’t solve the economic strains programs are facing. Moreover, President Trump has repeatedly called for a return to the system ‘we had before,’ when college athletes couldn’t earn money beyond their scholarships. It will likely affect college athletes directly, and thus, more players are calling for their representation at the table.

While proponents argue it saves college sports from bankruptcy, many athlete advocates, labor unions, and some high-profile players view it as a rollback of civil rights. The primary opposition argues that the SCORE Act serves as a “shield” for universities to avoid paying fair wages and providing workplace protections like workers’ compensation.

Ramogi Huma, the Executive Director of National College Players Association (NCPA), has been the most vocal critic of the act. In an opposition letter to Congress, he wrote, “Contrary to its name, the SCORE Act does not advance the rights or benefits of college athletes.

Instead, it rolls back key protections that exist under state NIL laws and deprives them of equal rights under labor and antitrust laws. The SCORE Act intentionally shuts down pathways for athletes to pursue fair treatment and further empowers institutions that have long exploited college athletes physically, sexually, academically, and economically.”

Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, has argued that many athletes are employees under the NLRA. The SCORE Act would nullify the Northwestern (2014) and USC (2024) labor cases that sought to give athletes the right to unionize.

Opponents also fear that giving the NCAA a “limited antitrust exemption” allows the organization to cap athlete compensation without fear of being sued, essentially creating a monopoly.

Urban Meyer calls for sweeping changes as President Trump promises swift action

President Trump has repeatedly expressed frustration with the current college status quo, and the SCORE Act will likely change it. Nick Saban argued for a system without a pay-for-play scenario and where student athletes could still get the opportunity to “enhance their quality of life.” Former Florida and Ohio State head coach Urban Meyer, however, was blunt. He voiced his concerns harshly about program collectives.

“That’s cheating,” Urban Meyer said. “Donors put money in the billionaire’s distributed to the players through coaches and managers. That’s not allowed. Not supposed to do that. That’s pay-for-play.” However, billionaire donor Cody Campbell remarked that many ideas discussed at the roundtable were “going to become impossible.” Instead, Campbell argued for a scenario where everyone is equally happy.

Campbell is arguably the biggest NIL donor in college football and fueled Texas Tech’s 2025 rise with a $29 million financial injection. For now, though, President Trump has promised to produce an executive order within the next week. As for how it will work without player representation at the table, it is still unknown.