College athletes have been engaged in a longstanding battle for their right to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). After years of advocacy, they achieved a significant victory in 2021. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) agreed to a historic settlement, allocating $2.8 billion to compensate current and former athletes who were previously barred from monetizing their personal identities. However, as the wheels of change turn, recent developments have cast a shadow over this victory, particularly concerning female athletes.
### The NCAA Settlement Explained
The NCAA’s agreement to pay out $2.8 billion is designed to compensate athletes who have missed out on earnings opportunities dating back to 2016. This money is intended for those athletes who couldn’t benefit from endorsing products, appearing in video games, or making revenue from jersey sales due to previous NCAA regulations that prohibited such activities. Additionally, the settlement clears the path for colleges to directly distribute revenue to current players, allowing for up to $20.5 million per school annually, beginning July 1, 2025. This development marks a drastic shift from the NCAA’s historical amateurism model, which maintained that athletes should be rewarded only with scholarships.
### Female Athletes Challenge the Settlement
Despite the promise of this settlement, eight female athletes—representing sports like soccer, volleyball, and track—have stepped forward to challenge the agreement. Their appeal, filed recently, raises questions of fairness and equity, arguing that the allocated funds disproportionately favor male athletes, specifically those in football and basketball. These athletes, including notable names like Kacie Breeding from Vanderbilt and Kate Johnson from Virginia, assert that the deal violates Title IX, the federal law designed to prevent sex-based discrimination in education.
Their concerns center around the claim that the current payout formula grants approximately 90% of the compensation to men, effectively depriving women athletes of $1.1 billion in rightful earnings. They argue that while both genders faced restrictions due to NIL laws, the compensation model used by the NCAA fails to reflect that equality.
### Title IX and Its Relevance
Title IX, enacted in 1972, mandates equal treatment and access for men and women in federally funded educational programs, including sports. Under this law, colleges are required to provide comparable resources and opportunities across gender lines. The female athletes argue that the NCAA’s approach to dividing the settlement money ignores the systemic barriers that have historically marginalized women in college athletics, particularly in terms of marketing and media exposure.
### Judicial Review and the Title IX Argument
In a recent ruling, US District Judge Claudia Wilken approved the NCAA’s settlement, dismissing the Title IX objections raised by the female athletes. She noted that their arguments fell outside the scope of the antitrust case concerning NIL regulations. Nonetheless, the female athletes have sought to escalate their dispute to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to overturn the settlement and institute a more equitable distribution of funds.
### Implications of Delayed Payments
Due to this legal challenge, distribution of back payments to eligible athletes is currently paused. This delay has the potential to persist for several months or even years, leaving many athletes who had anticipated compensation waiting. During this time, it is important to note that the NCAA will continue funding the settlement pool, but the funds will remain inactive until a court ruling is delivered.
### The Distribution Methodology
The NCAA’s existing compensation formula relies heavily on historical media revenue and licensing data, which favors men’s sports due to the significant earnings generated through television contracts. This methodology has drawn criticism for perpetuating long-standing inequalities in college athletics. Critics assert that the historical advantages given to men’s sports, combined with less marketing investment for women’s sports, have created a compounding disadvantage for female athletes in terms of sponsorships and visibility.
### Broader Concerns About the Settlement
Beyond just the distribution of funds, there are broader concerns about the implications of this settlement on college sports as a whole. Some experts worry that in the competition to fund revenue-sharing for top male athletes, schools may cut budget lines for so-called “non-revenue” sports, such as wrestling or swimming. This, they argue, could undermine the educational mission of colleges by leaning into a more professionalized model similar to minor leagues.
Additionally, without clear regulations regarding Title IX in this new landscape of college athletics, there is a fear that female athletes may continue to be sidelined and marginalized even as they garner new opportunities for earning potential.
### The Road Ahead
The Ninth Circuit will now review the appeal, with briefs due by October 3. While all parties involved express a desire for a speedy resolution, cases addressed by this court can often take between 12 to 18 months to conclude. During this interim period, no back payments will be distributed to athletes who were active between 2016 and 2021.
However, it is evident that the era of revenue-sharing in college athletics is on the horizon. Even with uncertainty surrounding the settlement, the fundamental transformation of how college athletes earn and profit from their participation in sports is inevitable. For female athletes, the battle for equitable compensation and representation in this new landscape has just begun. As they pave the way for a more inclusive and fair athletic system, the stakes are higher than ever, not just for their future, but for the future of collegiate sports as a whole.
Source link
