A group of female college athletes has filed an appeal against the NCAA’s proposed $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, arguing that the agreement violates federal antidiscrimination laws by failing to adequately compensate women athletes and reinforcing long-standing inequities in college sports.
The appeal, submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contends that the settlement—announced in May as part of a resolution in House v. NCAA and related cases—disproportionately benefits male athletes, particularly those in revenue-generating sports such as football and men’s basketball. According to the appellants, the proposed formula for distributing back pay from name, image, and likeness (NIL) revenues unfairly disadvantages women athletes, many of whom participate in sports that historically receive less media attention and commercial support.
At the heart of the challenge is Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The plaintiffs argue that by adopting a payout system based primarily on historical revenue metrics—metrics shaped by years of unequal investment and exposure—the NCAA and its co-defendants are perpetuating a discriminatory structure.
The appeal was filed on behalf of current and former female athletes from various NCAA Division I programs. Their legal team argues that any settlement involving the allocation of compensation based on athlete status must comply with Title IX, given that colleges and universities are recipients of federal funding. The appeal also warns that the court’s approval of the current terms could set a dangerous precedent, essentially allowing educational institutions to resolve antitrust claims in ways that sidestep their gender equity obligations.
Legal experts say the appeal could complicate the already contentious settlement, which marked a turning point in the NCAA’s decades-long defense of amateurism. Under the terms of the deal, the NCAA and its conferences agreed to pay billions in damages to former and current athletes who were barred from profiting off their NIL rights prior to a 2021 policy change.
The objecting athletes are not alone in their concerns. Several civil rights and gender equity organizations have issued statements of support, asserting that the proposed allocation system undermines progress made under Title IX and fails to remedy the systemic barriers female athletes have faced in the college sports landscape.
Supporters of the original settlement argue that the revenue-based distribution model reflects the realities of commercial market forces, not gender bias. They also point out that the agreement includes forward-looking reforms that allow schools to share NIL-related revenue directly with athletes, creating new opportunities for both male and female participants. However, critics maintain that unless the underlying disparities in exposure, sponsorship, and program funding are addressed, female athletes will continue to receive a disproportionately smaller share of those opportunities.
The NCAA has not yet filed a formal response to the appeal, but observers expect a vigorous defense. The organization has previously insisted that the settlement is a compromise that balances the interests of athletes, schools, and the broader college athletics system, while avoiding years of additional litigation.
The Ninth Circuit’s handling of the appeal could have significant implications not only for the settlement itself but also for future efforts to equitably compensate college athletes. If the court finds that the current agreement fails to meet federal gender equity standards, it could force a renegotiation of the terms and potentially reshape how athletic revenue is shared in the NCAA moving forward.
As college sports continue to evolve in the era of NIL rights and increased scrutiny of athlete treatment, the legal clash underscores a broader reckoning over fairness, opportunity, and equity across the NCAA’s vast and varied playing field.
