In June 2025, a historic $2.8 billion settlement—stemming from the House v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit—was approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, intended to compensate current and former Division I college athletes who were barred from profiting from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) since 2016. The agreement marks a pivotal change: it grants retroactive Golden Era payments to alumni and empowers schools to pay up to $20.5 million annually to active athletes beginning July 1, 2025.
However, immediate distribution of funds has been halted due to an appeal. Eight female athletes—including Kacie Breeding, Kate Johnson, and others—argued that the settlement unfairly favors male athletes from football and men’s basketball, potentially shortchanging women by over $1 billion.
Why Female Athletes Are Raising Objections
A Disproportionate Compensation Formula
The settlement’s payout formula allocates compensation based on historical media and licensing revenue—fields where men’s football and basketball dominate. Estimates show those revenue-generating sports could receive about 90% of the funds, leaving women’s sports significantly underrepresented. The women’s coalition argues that this entrenches past discrimination and violates Title IX, the federal law mandating gender equity in education and athletics.
One objection highlighted that most female athletes could be entitled to as little as $125, while male football and basketball players could receive over $100,000 each.
Title IX Asserting Its Rightful Place
At the heart of the appeal is Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination at federally funded institutions. The female athletes contend that the retrospective compensation must be gender-equitable since NIL restrictions affected all genders equally.The NCAA’s lead counsel, Rakesh Kilaru, counters that the issue falls outside of this antitrust suit, and that Title IX does not govern damage distributions under these terms.
Broader Legal and Structural Concerns
The female athletes and other objectors have voiced further complaints:
- Alleged cap on athlete compensation: The settlement imposes a 22 percent cap on revenue-sharing which some argue essentially enshrines a salary cap without athlete negotiation.
- Roster limit implications: New roster rules replacing scholarship caps could reduce opportunities in non-revenue sports.
- Potential conflict of interest: Settlement terms may require plaintiffs’ attorneys to support NCAA lobbying for future legislative limits.
- Enforcement of NIL third-party deals: The NCAA and conferences may still influence external NIL agreements, raising concerns over autonomy.
These objections reveal tensions over future autonomy, equitable pay, and representation.
Legal Timeline and Impacts on Payments
With appeals now lodged before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the distribution of retroactive payments has been put on hold. According to the NCAA and legal counsel, this legal pause could stretch for 12 to 18 months, with briefs due by October 3, 2025.
Despite the hold, the forward-looking revenue-sharing mechanism remains set to begin July 1, 2025. That means schools may continue planning and structuring compensation for current athletes, though equitable distribution under Title IX will remain uncertain until legal resolution.
Ongoing Consequences and Concerns
Threat to Non-Revenue Sports
As institutions gear up to allocate large sums to football and men’s basketball, anxieties are rising that smaller programs—like swimming, wrestling, volleyball, gymnastics—may be deprioritized or defunded.
Precedent for Title IX in NIL Era
This appeal could define how Title IX applies in NIL contexts. If successful, it may enforce more robust gender equity measures in future distributions and compel schools to create fairer allocation systems.
Legislative Backlash
Simultaneously, new congressional proposals aim to standardize NIL across states and protect the NCAA from future suits. Critics warn that these bills, if passed, could gut existing legal gains secured by the settlement.
Key Watch Points
- Ninth Circuit appellate decision: This will determine whether Title IX concerns can block or reshape the settlement.
- Implementation of the revenue-distribution model: Will schools proactively pursue gender equity in payouts?
- Congress’s NIL proposals: Could legal reforms render the settlement moot or reshape athlete compensation regimes?
- Institutional strategy adjustments: Universities must balance competitive patronage with compliance to Title IX and broader civil rights obligations.
Conclusion
Female athletes challenging the NCAA’s $2.8 billion NIL settlement are highlighting systemic inequities embedded in decades of gender-discriminatory media coverage and financial structures. Their Title IX appeal—if successful—could recalibrate how compensation is distributed and mandate stricter equity measures moving forward. Meanwhile, the pause in retroactive payments leaves thousands of former players in limbo, even as a new era of revenue-sharing for current athletes approaches. The outcome will not only shape compensation practices in collegiate sports but could redefine Title IX enforcement in the NIL era and influence national legislative directions.
