A group of eight female athletes is appealing a landmark antitrust settlement that could result in the NCAA paying nearly $3 billion in back pay to current and former college athletes. The settlement stems from the NCAA’s previous restrictions on athletes’ ability to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL), following a significant court ruling. However, the back pay distribution has raised concerns about gender inequality, with around 90% of the funds expected to go to male athletes, particularly those in football and basketball. The female athletes argue that this violates Title IX, which bans sex-based discrimination in education, and could set a damaging precedent for women’s sports.
The Settlement and Back Pay Distribution
The settlement is a result of the NCAA v. Alston case, which concluded that the NCAA’s restrictions on compensation violated antitrust laws. This ruling allowed athletes to profit from their NIL, but the subsequent settlement, which totals $2.8 billion, is now under scrutiny. While the settlement is a major victory for college athletes, the disproportionate allocation of funds to male athletes has caused significant concern among women athletes.
The back pay is estimated to benefit male athletes overwhelmingly, with football and basketball players set to receive the lion’s share. This is because these sports generate the most revenue for schools, making it seemingly logical to direct the bulk of the settlement funds toward athletes in those programs. However, female athletes, particularly those in less revenue-generating sports, argue that this creates a stark imbalance and ignores the principles of Title IX, which mandates gender equity in educational institutions.
Title IX and Gender Equity in College Sports
Title IX has been in place for over 50 years and is a cornerstone of women’s rights in education, including sports. It was designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs and activities, including athletics. Despite this, female athletes have long faced disparities in funding, resources, and recognition compared to their male counterparts.
Kate Johnson, a volleyball player from the University of Virginia and one of the eight athletes appealing the settlement, has emphasized the importance of Title IX protections. She argues that by allocating such a disproportionate amount of the settlement to male athletes, the NCAA would be undermining the progress made in women’s sports under Title IX. She also notes that because many schools are federally funded, they are obligated to comply with Title IX, meaning they cannot legally discriminate against female athletes in compensation distribution.
Why the Appeal Matters for Women Athletes
Johnson has been vocal about her concerns, stressing that if the settlement is approved as it stands, it could have long-lasting negative effects on female athletes and their opportunities in college sports. The primary concern is not just about the back pay, but about the future of college sports, where women’s programs might continue to be undervalued. Johnson’s point is that the distribution of these funds will affect how the NCAA and schools approach gender equity in the long term. If this precedent is set, it could diminish the visibility, compensation, and opportunities available to women athletes in the future.
Her argument centers on two key points:
-
Revenue Distribution Isn’t Everything: While it’s true that football and basketball bring in substantial revenue, Johnson challenges the notion that athletes in these sports should receive the bulk of the settlement based solely on revenue generation. She contends that fans attend games to support the school’s program as a whole, rather than individual athletes. Furthermore, the media deals that contribute to the revenue were often negotiated long before specific athletes were even recruited to the schools. Thus, the idea that only athletes in these high-revenue sports should be compensated the most is flawed.
-
Equity and Title IX Protections: Johnson also emphasizes that Title IX protections should not be ignored when considering how the back pay is allocated. Title IX mandates gender equity in educational programs, including sports. With the money coming from federally funded schools, it’s essential that the NCAA and schools comply with these guidelines, ensuring female athletes are not left behind in the distribution process.
The Potential Impact on Future College Sports
While some critics of the appeal argue that delaying the settlement may stall payments for other athletes, Johnson and the other plaintiffs are not appealing over trivial amounts of money. They understand the importance of the settlement but believe it’s essential to get the distribution right, as the stakes are high for female athletes. The appeal is not about delaying compensation, but about ensuring fairness.
Furthermore, Johnson raises concerns about the broader implications for college sports, especially women’s sports. She notes that the NCAA’s focus on revenue-generating sports could lead to underfunding of other programs, which may eventually result in some sports being cut. She acknowledges that volleyball doesn’t generate as much revenue as football or basketball but points to the growing popularity of the sport, with programs like Nebraska’s volleyball team filling football stadiums. This increasing visibility suggests that women’s sports are gaining traction, but if the proposed settlement is approved, it could limit future opportunities for women athletes.
The Future of College Sports
As college athletics navigates unprecedented changes—especially with the shift away from the amateur model and the introduction of NIL compensation—the future remains uncertain. For Johnson and her fellow athletes, the appeal represents a critical moment in the fight for gender equity in sports. They are not only challenging the fairness of the current settlement but also advocating for a more inclusive and equitable future for all athletes.
Johnson’s main concern is ensuring that the same opportunities she had to compete at a high level are available for future generations of women athletes. While the outcome of this case is still pending, the result will likely shape the future of college sports, particularly in how athletes—especially women—are compensated and recognized for their contributions.
In conclusion, the appeal of the NCAA’s antitrust settlement is about much more than back pay. It is about ensuring that women athletes are not left behind in the changing landscape of college sports. The case could set a significant precedent for how gender equity is handled in collegiate athletics, with implications that could impact the future of women’s sports for years to come.
