Trump NIL Twist Carries Small Legal Impact, But to Some, It’s Putting Women’s Sports Back 25 Years
The Trump administration’s latest directive on Title IX offered athletic departments more certainty about paying players, while suggesting the federal government wouldn’t hold schools to rigid requirements to distribute the proceeds equitably between men and women.
Though experts say Wednesday’s largely expected decision to rescind guidance issued by the Biden administration will have more symbolic than real-world impact on the class-action lawsuit settlement and other issues reshaping college sports, some see that as exactly the reason it’s unwelcome news.
"Here we are experiencing this immense growth across all women’s sports and this sort of says we really don’t believe that’s valuable," UCLA women’s basketball coach Cori Close said. "It really feels like it’s putting women’s sports back 25 years, honestly."
Related Articles
• Rubio kicks off Mideast trip in Israel as Arab leaders reel from Trump’s Gaza proposal
• Trump suggests no laws are broken if he’s ‘saving his country’
• Anger, chaos and confusion take hold as federal workers face mass layoffs
• Trump calls for withholding federal money from schools and colleges that require COVID vaccines
• Second federal judge pauses Trump’s order against gender-affirming care for youth
Had the Biden guidance stayed in effect, colleges would have had to grapple with how to equally distribute up to $20.5 million in NIL payments between men and women. Now that it has been scrapped, schools can go back to their original plan for the House settlement, which in many cases involved funneling most of the money to football and basketball players.
"This change is an impact, but it’s a ‘what-we-expected’ impact because schools are going to follow the formula for NIL that they’d been planning all along," said Rocky Harris, the chief of sport performance for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, which has been watching the House settlement closely because around 75% of their athletes come from the college system.
Federal government not a nuts-and-bolts player in Title IX litigation
Because the federal government isn’t a party in the House case, it has little to do with the legal strategies being used in the $2.8 billion lawsuit, which has implications for women’s sports at almost every level — future payments to athletes, damages to athletes who played before NIL was allowed, and roster limits that will redistribute numbers across athletic departments.
In fact, almost all litigation involving the 1972 law — a statute that requires schools to award financial assistance in proportion to the number of students of each gender who play sports on campus — comes not from the government but from individuals. And most of the litigation is ultimately decided in courtrooms, not in the Oval Office or the hallways of the DoE’s Office of Civil Rights.
"We don’t generally rely on the Department of Education to have a major impact on how those cases are handled," said John Clune, an attorney who filed a Title IX-based objection over the House case.
Trump stamps his agenda on Title IX interpretations
This marks at least the third time since his inauguration that the Trump administration has attempted to shape Title IX to express the new president’s agenda.
Last month, the Education Department told universities the government would go back to enforcing provisions in the law it enacted during Trump’s first term that included more protections for students accused of sexual misconduct.
Last week, Trump signed an executive order aimed at banning transgender athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports.
The department also announced it was investigating San Jose State and Penn, two schools at the heart of the debate about transgender sports, over possible Title IX violations. On Wednesday, it said it was placing high school athletic associations in Minnesota and California under similar investigation.
There are fears the latest Title IX move could blunt momentum for women’s sports
Trump’s moves come in what has been an era of unprecedented growth for women’s sports.
With Caitlin Clark leading Iowa to the national final last year, the women’s title game drew better ratings than the men for the first time in history. Last month, the NCAA approved payouts for women’s teams who make March Madness, bringing it in line with a practice that existed in the men’s game for decades.
This comes after the NCAA and ESPN announced an eight-year, $920 million TV rights package with the women’s tournament as the centerpiece, an increase of more than 300% from the previous deal.
The Biden guidance appeared to be another step forward for women’s sports, but it has been taken off the books.
"It may not be just this new Title IX decision, it’s NIL in general," said Close, the UCLA coach. "It feels like we’re back to, ‘Well, we’ve got to take care of football and men’s basketball and everything else is an afterthought. I’m not talking about it as my own (situation at UCLA), I’m talking about it as a global view. I just don’t want us to go back on all the growth we’ve had in women’s sports."
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s latest move on Title IX has sparked concerns that it may be eroding the progress made in women’s sports. While the decision may have limited legal impact, it may have a significant symbolic impact on the growth and development of women’s sports.
FAQs
Q: What is the impact of the Trump administration’s latest move on Title IX?
A: The move rescinds guidance issued by the Biden administration, which would have required colleges to distribute up to $20.5 million in NIL payments equally between men and women.
Q: What is the concern about the move?
A: Some see it as a step backward for women’s sports, which have experienced unprecedented growth in recent years.
Q: What is the next step in the ongoing litigation over the House settlement?
A: The case is set to go to a hearing in April, where Judge Claudia Wilken will consider approving the settlement or making changes to it.
Q: What is the significance of the Trump administration’s move on Title IX?
A: It is the third time since his inauguration that the administration has attempted to shape Title IX to express the new president’s agenda.
