Quinnipiac University’s recent decision to downgrade its women’s varsity rugby program to club status and add a men’s distance track team grabbed headlines. The move triggered a lawsuit from 23 women’s rugby players, who allege gender discrimination, especially regarding revenue sharing and Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities.
This isn’t just a local controversy—it’s a snapshot of the shifting landscape in college sports. Title IX and the new NIL settlement are colliding, and it’s getting messy.
The Collision Course Between NIL and Title IX
The *House v. NCAA* settlement in 2025 changed the game for NIL rights. Now, schools can share athletic revenue directly with athletes—capped at $20.5 million at first, with a 4% bump each year.
On top of that, athletes can get uncapped NIL payments from outside collectives, mostly bankrolled by boosters and donors. The result? Football and men’s basketball players, who bring in the most value, are set to pocket the lion’s share of both capped and uncapped revenue.
Title IX’s Proportional Parity
Title IX requires schools to allocate resources proportionally between men’s and women’s sports. If women are 55% of undergrads, they should fill 55% of athletic slots.
Traditionally, schools have managed this by adding women’s teams or cutting men’s non-revenue sports. But with the NIL settlement, most new money is flowing to football and men’s basketball, and that could spell trouble for complying with Title IX’s equity mandate.
Economic Realities of College Sports
Football and men’s basketball pretty much bankroll everything. These sports rake in the bulk of TV money, ticket sales, and donor support at big schools.
At the University of Michigan, those two sports cleared over $120 million in operating surpluses. Tennessee wasn’t far behind, with just over $116 million. Almost every other sport—men’s and women’s—runs a deficit.
Subsidizing Non-Revenue Sports
For years, football and men’s basketball surpluses have kept non-revenue sports afloat. In the Big Ten, women’s sports programs average a $20 million deficit. The SEC’s nine women’s sports programs lose even more, exceeding $27 million combined.
Even powerhouses like South Carolina’s national champion women’s basketball team ran a deficit of more than $5 million. Men’s non-revenue sports lose money too, just not as much—there are fewer of them, for one thing.
The Impact of the NIL Settlement
The NIL settlement now lets the surpluses from football and men’s basketball go back to the athletes who generate them. This happens through both direct university payments and outside collectives that pull donations away from athletic departments.
Almost all NIL money lands in football and men’s basketball players’ pockets. That just deepens the imbalance and makes Title IX compliance even trickier.
Legal Challenges and Lawsuits
The clash between the NIL settlement and Title IX is showing up in courtrooms. Female athletes have appealed the NIL settlement’s back-pay formula, saying that sending more than 90% of the $2.8 billion fund to former football and men’s basketball players is simply sex discrimination.
There are also lawsuits over revenue-sharing payments. At the University of Oregon, beach volleyball players allege that close ties between athletic departments and collectives distributing NIL money might violate Title IX.
Executive Orders and Future Regulations
In April 2026, President Trump signed an executive order called *Urgent National Action to Save College Sports*. The order aims to limit player mobility and cap how much players can be paid through fair-market NIL compensation, instead of bigger side payments.
The order warns that the NIL settlement could threaten non-revenue sports. If more donor money goes to collectives funding football and men’s basketball, women’s and Olympic sports could be on the chopping block.
The Need for Title IX Revision
President Trump’s executive order doesn’t really tackle the tough issues that Title IX brings to the NIL settlement. As long as Title IX gets enforced as a demand for proportional outcomes instead of just equal opportunity, schools are stuck between the economics of revenue sports and the push for fairness.
Honestly, a smarter way to regulate college sports is just waiting for someone to rethink Title IX’s proportional-parity rules. It’s overdue, isn’t it?
If you want to dig deeper or see more perspectives, check out the original article on City Journal.
- Schools Covered
- College Football Articles
- Men's College Basketball Articles
- Men's College Soccer Articles
- Women's College Basketball Articles
- Olympic Athlete Articles
- Men's College Baseball Articles
- College Sports Media Professionals Articles
- Hall of Fame Member Articles
- Former College Player Articles
- Game Previews
