Institutions should be prepared for disagreements and litigation about the applicability (and requirements) of Title IX for future payments to student-athletes.
On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved the settlement agreement in House v. NCAA, Oliver v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. As higher education institutions determine how to implement the terms of the agreement, all should be cognizant of potential Title IX implications.
In her approval of the settlement agreement, Judge Wilken held that back payments for student-athletes are not subject to Title IX requirements (see our Sports Law Blog for updates on this ruling). The court did not, however, reach a determination on whether future compensation payments are subject to such regulations. As such, institutions of higher education must implement the House agreement, including the option for revenue-sharing models, without clarity as to whether future compensation payments must provide equal opportunities for male and female athletes.
Title IX Background
Title IX was originally enacted as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., and provided the U.S. Department of Education with enforcement authority to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. The Department later published regulations specifying the scope of its regulations:
To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics. 34 C.F.R. § 106.1(c).
On January 16, 2025, the Biden administration released a fact sheet that provided guidance and stated Title IX requirements apply to “all compensation and other financial assistance provided by a school to its student-athletes when calculating the total amount of athletic financial assistance.” However, that guidance was later rescinded by the Trump administration on February 12, 2025. The current applicability of Title IX to future direct payments to student-athletes remains unclear.
June 6 Court Ruling
In the June 6, 2025, final approval of the House settlement agreement, the court overruled objections that certain provisions of the settlement agreement violate Title IX regulations. As to past payments to former student-athletes, the court held:
[T]he Court cannot conclude that Title IX violations will occur when the Gross Settlement Fund is distributed by the claims administrator pursuant to the damages allocations that Plaintiffs have proposed…
This decision was met with immediate challenges, as a group of eight female athletes filed an appeal of this order shortly after the approval of the settlement. This ruling is currently “stayed” during the pendency of the appeal.
As to future compensation payments, the court held:
[T]he Court cannot conclude that violations of Title IX will necessarily occur if and when schools choose to provide compensation and benefits to student-athletes pursuant to the Injunctive Relief Settlement.
Beyond stating that institutions retain the obligation to comply with Title IX requirements—and student-athletes to pursue actions for alleged Title IX violations—in connection with the distribution of future payments, the court did not provide guidance to schools and student-athletes.
What Higher Education Providers Need to Know
Institutions should be prepared for disagreements and litigation about the applicability (and requirements) of Title IX for future payments to student-athletes. Particularly if (as expected) schools allocate substantially more revenue to male athletes than female athletes.
As institutions begin adopting revenue-sharing models and implementing changes to their athletic departments, they should assess any potential Title IX vulnerabilities that could expose them to litigation or penalties. All relevant stakeholders—including Title IX coordinators, legal counsel and other school leaders—should be involved in this process. Factors to consider include, but are not limited to:
- Risk tolerance of institutions and whether to take proactive or retroactive approach;
- Likelihood of future Title IX lawsuits;
- Future guidance/legislation/court rulings;
- Financial viability of athletic departments;
- Cost-cutting alternatives to offset revenue-sharing obligations;
- Evaluation of the athletic mission and goals of institutions; and
- Alternative measures to comply with Title IX regulations.
For More Information
If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Katherine D. Brodie, Daniel R. Walworth, any of the attorneys in our Higher Education Group, Matthew Steinway, Bryan Shapiro, any of the attorneys in our Sports Law Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm’s full disclaimer.
