The Play Gap: House v. NCAA and Title IX Amnesia 

Gabrielle Tremblay*

For over fifty years,¹ Title IX required colleges and universities to provide men and women with proportionate athletic benefits.² Now, the House v. NCAA settlement requires colleges and universities to pay out over 90 percent of damages for lost athletic benefits to men.³ This settlement not only forgot Title IX, but also exemplifies how the public’s perception of what is fair for men’s basketball and football overshadows the potential of women’s sports. But in college sports, what’s fair is not equal. 

The NCAA v. House Settlement 

The House v. NCAA settlement arose from a lawsuit by several student-athletes against the NCAA under the Sherman Act.⁴ They alleged that the NCAA’s antitrust activity prevented them from receiving profits from their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”), shared revenue with universities, and other benefits.⁵ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement for injunctive relief and damages.⁶ Under the settlement’s injunctive relief portion, the NCAA will modify its current rule so that schools can provide direct benefits to student-athletes up to 22 percent of Power Five schools’ average athletic revenues.⁷ The suit also provides for $2.576 billion in damages.⁸ Of that amount, $1.815 billion comes from the colleges’ and universities’ profits from student-athletes’ name, image, and likeness through broadcasting (“BNIL”).⁹ $600 million is for losses in additional compensation, such as direct compensation for participating in athletics (“pay-for-play”).¹⁰ The rest of the damages settlement is for lost NIL profits resulting from the NCAA’s prohibition on receiving NIL from third parties.¹¹

Of the BNIL and pay-for-play categories, 75 percent will go to football, 15 percent to men’s basketball, 5 percent to women’s basketball, and 5 percent to remaining sports classes.¹² Several class members objected to the BNIL and pay-for-play categories under Title IX.¹³ They did not object to the other categories involving NIL from third parties because Title IX only applies to federally-funded institutions,¹⁴ so the third parties who pay student-athletes for their NIL are not subject to Title IX.¹⁵ 

Title IX Amnesia 

The district court dismissed the Title IX objection because, at bottom, the objectors did not bring a Title IX claim.¹⁶ The court argued that Title IX does not apply to damages in an antitrust settlement and the injunctive relief portion allows schools to revenue share in compliance with Title IX.¹⁷ The court left open Title IX claims for future litigation.¹⁸ 

Now on appeal, the objectors have revealed district court’s fatal flaw: “During the hearing, the district court’s comments reveal that it mistakenly believed that the Title IX objectors, collectively, were challenging only how the final settlement payments would be distributed, rather than whether the underlying damages had been miscalculated in the first place.”¹⁹ The Title IX objectors were not bringing a separate Title IX claim because the damages will be paid out disproportionately; they claim that the damages in the underlying antitrust claim were miscalculated based “on a hypothetical world in which Title IX does not exist.”²⁰ In antitrust suits, damages are calculated based on the economic position of the plaintiffs absent the antitrust violations.²¹ Had the antitrust violations not occurred here, the schools, as federally-funded institutions under Title IX, would have been required to distribute BNIL and pay-for-play proportionally.²² Consequently, the damages in these two categories should have been proportional. 

Pay-for-Play and Revenue Sharing Must Comply with Title IX 

The damages should have been calculated proportionately because BNIL and pay-for-play must comply with Title IX. “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .”²³ This section has long forbidden federally-funded colleges and universities from disproportionately distributing athletic scholarships and other benefits to student-athletes.²⁴ 

Like scholarships, BNIL and the pay-for-play are “benefits” under Title IX. An objector would be hard pressed to distinguish a scholarship from either of these benefits, as both are given in exchange for athletic participation like a scholarship. And BNIL is not distinguishable because some sports bring in more broadcasting deals. Indeed, Congress has repeatedly rejected proposals to exempt revenue-generating sports from Title IX.²⁵ 

Further, these benefits would come directly from the colleges and and universities, which are federally funded and therefore subject to Title IX.²⁶ We need not look further than the settlement itself to find that schools would have been paying the BNIL and pay-for-play directly to student-athletes had the antitrust violations not occurred.²⁷

Because pay-for-play and BNIL must be distributed proportionately under Title IX, the settlement miscalculated damages. But for the NCAA’s antitrust activity, the universities would have been allowed to provide pay-for-play benefits and BNIL. And under Title IX, they would have been required to do so proportionally. Yet the damages portion provided over 90 percent to male student-athletes.²⁸  

This conclusion has broader implications beyond the damages settlement. Under the injunctive relief portion, schools can provide direct benefits to student-athletes of up to 22 percent of Power Five schools’ average athletic revenues.²⁹ These direct benefits from federally-funded institutions are subject to Title IX. Some universities already plan to distribute future benefits in the same skewed manner as the damages portion of the settlement.³⁰ These universities can expect litigation. 

Forgetting the Potential of Women’s Sports 

Not only did the damages settlement forget Title IX, but the rave around finally giving football and basketball their “fair share” has also created a greater amnesia to women’s rights and progress.³¹ For instance, Sedona Prince, an advocate for gender equity and a lead plaintiff in the House case, offered the following solution for Title IX: “[A]ny increase in scholarship or medical benefits should be split equally between men and women but . . . revenue share dollars should be distributed based on a sport’s popularity.”³² Although reasonable, Sedona’s solution forgets Title IX by assuming that disproportionate revenue sharing—which comes straight from federally funded institutions—is somehow legal. The solution also forgets Title IX’s greater project towards equality in sport.³³ 

Universities are not going to invest in women’s sports unless they have to; football and men’s basketball simply make too much money. If amnesia to Title IX continues and universities keep reinvesting revenue back into football and college basketball, the immediate gratification of these sports’ revenue will always overshadow women’s sports. Investing in women’s sports might seem unfair to men’s football and basketball right now, but it’s what Title IX requires, and equality demands. This seeming unfairness is running on the assumption that women’s sports will never make as much profit as men’s sports. But nothing indicates that women’s sports can’t make the same strides with the same promotion and support.³⁴ And when that day comes, Title IX will not be a burden in college sports’ revenue-sharing era. 

*Gabrielle Tremblay, J.D. Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law Class of 2026 (Publications Editor). 

1. See generally Women’s Sports Found., 50 Years of Title IX: We’re Not Done Yet 5 (2022), https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/13_Low-Res_Title-IX-50-Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/F8EY-4XBQ] (celebrating 50 years of Title IX). ↩︎
2. See id. at 5 (listing Title IX’s three-part test of gender equity in athletic participation). ↩︎
3. Breeding Objectors-Appellants’ Opening Brief at 24, House v. NCAA, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2025). ↩︎
4. Opinion Regarding Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement at 1, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 20-cv-03919 CW (N.D. Cal. 2025). This case is now on appeal and appellants have filed their opening brief. See House v. NCAA, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (9th Cir. 2025). ↩︎
5. Id. ↩︎
6. Id. at 76. ↩︎
7. Id. at 11.  ↩︎
8. Id. at 9. ↩︎
9. Id. at 5, 9. ↩︎
10. Id. at 10; see also Breeding Objectors-Appellants’ Opening Brief at 6, House v. NCAA, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2025) (stating that the additional compensation category is “pay-for-play”). ↩︎
11. Opinion Regarding Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement at 9, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 20-cv-03919 CW (N.D. Cal. 2025). This settlement also includes “video-game NIL,” which I include in the category of NIL that would be received from third parties rather than universities. ↩︎
12. Breeding Objectors-Appellants’ Opening Brief at 7, House v. NCAA, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2025).  ↩︎
13. Id. at 6, 9. ↩︎
14. 20 U.S.C. § 1681. ↩︎
15. Alicia Jessop & Joe Sabin, The Sky Is Not Falling: Why Name, Image, and Likeness, Legislation Does Not Violate Title IX and Could Narrow the Publicity Gap Between Men’s Sport and Women’s Sport, 31 J. Legal Aspects Sport 253, 270 (2021). ↩︎
16. Opinion Regarding Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement at 63–64, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 20-cv-03919 CW (N.D. Cal. 2025).  ↩︎
17. Id. ↩︎
18. Id. at 64. ↩︎
19. Breeding Objectors-Appellants’ Opening Brief at 11, House v. NCAA, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2025).  ↩︎
20. Id. at 21. ↩︎
21. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 36 (2013). ↩︎
22. See infra Pay-for-Play and Revenue Sharing Must Comply with Title IX. ↩︎
23. 20 U.S.C. § 1681. ↩︎
24. Title IX Frequently Asked Questions, NCAA, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/1/27/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions.aspx#apply %5Bhttps://perma.cc/WET2-BMCX%5D (last visited Nov. 11, 2025) (“Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation . . . .”). ↩︎
25. Amicus Curiae Brief of National Women’s Law Center in Support of Certain Objectors-Appellants at 4, House v. NCAA, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025). ↩︎
26. 20 U.S.C. § 1681. ↩︎
27. Breeding Objectors-Appellants’ Opening Brief at 26, House v. NCAA, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2025).  ↩︎
28. Id. at 24.  ↩︎
29. Opinion Regarding Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement at 11, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 20-cv-03919 CW (N.D. Cal. 2025). ↩︎
30. Blake Toppmeyer, College Sports Athletic Departments Face Tough Revenue Sharing Decisions, USA Today (June 12, 2025, at 09:35 ET), https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2025/06/12/revenue-sharing-college-sports-house-settlement-nil-football/84120253007/ [https://perma.cc/9QYH-5CHZ] (“Within the SEC, at least, it’s widely believed many schools will use a baseline distribution model that uses the settlement’s backpay formula as a guide.”); see also Jason Batacao, Utah Football Received a ‘Significant Increase’ in NIL Funding For 2025. Here’s How the Utes Are Paying for It., The Salt Lake Trib. (Aug. 19, 2025), https://www.sltrib.com/sports/utah-utes/2025/08/19/university-utah-sports-will-run/ [https://perma.cc/F53M-HTZY] (“[Utah athletic department executives] said the revenue-sharing totals will align similarly with how back pay to former athletes will be distributed as part of the House settlement.”).  ↩︎
31. To name one example, one commentator analyzed spending decisions after NCAA v. House, including potential investment in women’s sports, yet never once mentioned Title IX. See Toppmeyer, supra note 30. ↩︎
32. Dan Murphy, Answering the 10 Biggest Questions About the NCAA Antitrust Settlement, ESPN (July 28, 2024, 9:00 AM), https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40658452/ncaa-lawsuit-settlement-paying-players [https://perma.cc/9HN8-34GV]. ↩︎
33. Women’s Sports Found., supra note 1, at 2. ↩︎
34. For example, only two years after the NCAA even allowed women’s basketball to use “March Madness” branding, Caitlin Clark and the Iowa Women’s Basketball 2024 Elite Eight run received more viewership than every World Series and NBA finals games in the same year. Shelley Zalis, The Unstoppable Rise of Women’s Basketball Despite All Odds, Forbes (Apr. 8, 2024, at 04:26 EDT), https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleyzalis/2024/04/08/never-bet-against-equality-the-unstoppable-rise-of-womens-basketball-despite-all-odds/ [https://perma.cc/U5DX-KUYE]. Similarly, Simone Biles’s 2024 Olympic comeback created the most-watched days in the Paris games. Loree Seitz, Olympic Gymnastics, Swimming and Basketball Helped Drive Paris 2024 Ratings to Record Highs, The Wrap (Aug. 15, 2024, at 06:15 CT), https://www.thewrap.com/paris-olympics-ratings-highlights-gymnastics-swimming-basketball/ [https://perma.cc/PMR5-8UAA]. Volleyball is also seeing increased viewership in recent years. Madeline Kenney, Inside the Volleyball Popularity Explosion That’s Spreading into the Mainstream, N.Y. Post (Jan. 28, 2025, at 12:09 ET), https://nypost.com/2025/01/28/sports/inside-the-womens-volleyball-boom-spreading-across-america/ [https://perma.cc/AX2X-6XML]. ↩︎