Motion to Disrupt Vol. 8
Title IX: The Next Battleground for the Future of College Sports
OPENING STATEMENTS
Nearly 15 years ago, I was involved in shaping the implementation of the Department of Education “Dear Colleague” letters that sought to clarify how schools should comply with Title IX. Back then, the focus was mostly on accusations of sexual assault alongside a lack of equity for female athletes in locker rooms, scholarships and equal access to coaching. What we’re seeing now is something far bigger: Title IX becoming the central legal lever in a college sports economy being remade in real time.
The last week alone has seen two major flashpoints. Stephen F. Austin State University was hit with a Title IX class action after cutting three women’s sports to “manage costs.” That followed, and cited, the Trump administration’s new “Saving College Sports” executive order, demanding that scholarship and roster opportunities for women and other non-revenue athletes not just be preserved, but in many cases, expanded. Both developments signal the same thing: litigation over gender equity is accelerating, and I don’t see that slowing down.
Why? Because the House v. NCAA settlement, which allows schools to share up to $20.5 million annually with athletes, upended the old financial model. To pay for it, conferences are imposing roster caps, especially in football. Meanwhile, federal guidance on whether revenue-sharing counts as “athletic financial assistance” under Title IX has seesawed twice in six months. First, the Biden administration said yes. Then the Trump administration reversed that position. Athletic Directors are left to guess how courts will interpret their budgets.
But the momentum was building before this week. In April, a judge allowed Schroeder et al v. University of Oregon to proceed, a case believed to be the first lawsuit that takes into account gender inequality and NIL benefits for student-athletes. In June in the Ninth Circuit, eight female athletes challenged the $2.8 billion House settlement, claiming it shortchanges women by more than $1 billion; if successful, courts may need to overlay Title IX math on future antitrust remedies. Stephen F. Austin’s cuts to bowling, beach volleyball, and golf were made on a campus where women already held only 47% of roster spots despite making up 63% of the student body.
There’s a major structural issue at play. Athletic departments are facing $3-7 million in new, annual scholarship costs, according to Yahoo Sports reporting, if they want to stay compliant once sport-specific limits disappear. But the executive order now discourages the old tactic of cutting men's teams to balance out proportionality. So if you can’t cut, and you can’t afford to expand, what’s left? Lawsuits.
I expect four types of Title IX claims to rise fast.
Revenue-sharing disparities: If most of the $20.5 million goes to football and men’s basketball, expect suits from female athletes arguing they were denied equal pay.
Roster compression: New limits on team sizes may continue to push Olympic-sport athletes off teams, and walk-ons may lose access to opportunities. Those are fertile ground for Title IX claims.
Program eliminations: When entire teams get cut, as they did at SFA, the math becomes simple, and plaintiffs don’t have to guess about harm.
Unequal NIL access: If schools or collectives are seen as steering deals toward male athletes, that’s a risk, particularly with the Oregon case moving forward.
Add to this the conflicting federal signals, the void left by the vacated 2024 Title IX rules, and the new executive mandate that agencies “deploy all available enforcement mechanisms,” and it’s clear where this is going.
Courts, not the Department of Education, will be the main referees for Title IX in the NIL era. And athletes - particularly women - are wasting no time in using the statute as their playbook. We’re not just seeing new claims; we’re watching a whole new legal economy emerge, one that sits squarely at the intersection of gender equity and commercialized college sports.
It’s already here. And I’ve seen the playbook before.
EXHIBIT A
Iowa State’s projected $147 million deficit through 2031 seems to be a major warning sign. The House settlement’s revenue-sharing model may help athletes, but it’s straining already tight budgets. According to The Gazette, ISU is pausing $45 million in facility upgrades and shifting new costs onto fans, raising Cyclone Club donations by 20% and ending ticket tax subsidies. With NCAA and Big 12 revenues shrinking, Iowa State’s situation won’t be unique. Other schools will face similar pressure sooner than they think.
EXHIBIT B
North Carolina became the latest battleground where athletes are challenging outdated NCAA rules. A federal judge this week allowed a class action lawsuit to proceed against the NCAA’s $100,000 prize money cap Division I tennis players can accept without losing their eligibility - an increasingly indefensible rule in an era where athletes can earn unlimited income through NIL and revenue sharing. Class certification means thousands of current and future athletes can now join the fight, significantly raising the pressure on the NCAA to modernize. The implications of this could stretch to other sports, including golf - where amateur status is also closely tied to prize money. This is just the beginning – expect the reach of this to continue.
ON THE DOCKET
It’s been a week since President Trump’s “Saving College Sports” executive order was signed and I’ve received many questions about what it will change. The short answer is not very much…at least for now. Executive orders can’t create laws, override state rules, or grant antitrust exemptions. That’s Congress’s job.
So how does Trump plan to enforce it? He plans to direct various members of his cabinet - the attorney general, secretary of labor, secretary of education, etc. - to create policy around several concepts within the order. The specifics of those policies will dictate exactly how pivotal, if at all, this order is.
FOOTNOTES
“You can’t fix this stuff from an executive order. Our focus for now really needs to be trying to get stuff dealt with through the legislative process.” – Charlie Baker, NCAA President, on President Trump’s executive order (via Yahoo Sports).
