A PYMNTS Company

Female Athletes Challenge NCAA’s $2.8 Billion Settlement on Title IX and Antitrust Grounds

By  |  October 30, 2025

A group of female athletes has escalated their challenge to the NCAA’s $2.8 billion settlement over player compensation, arguing that the agreement violates federal gender equity laws and unfairly favors male athletes. According to Bloomberg, the appeal, filed in the Ninth Circuit, contends that the settlement disregards Title IX protections and perpetuates gender-based inequities in college sports.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The objectors—four female athletes represented by Equity IX LLC—argue that the deal intentionally excluded Title IX considerations when determining damages. Their filing claims that more than 90% of the compensation pool is directed to male athletes, leaving female athletes with a disproportionately small share. The brief asserts that the settlement “perpetuates gender-based inequities in student-athlete compensation” and fails to meet the fairness requirements of class-action law, per Bloomberg.

    The controversial settlement, approved by a federal judge in June, would compensate thousands of Division I athletes for lost name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities dating back to 2016. It would also allow schools to directly pay athletes, marking a major shift in NCAA policy. Over a ten-year period, the NCAA and its conferences are expected to pay roughly $2.75 billion in back damages, with schools allowed to allocate up to 22% of their annual athletic revenue—estimated at around $20 million per institution—to player compensation.

    Related: NCAA Eligibility Dispute Pushes Courts Into Antitrust Territory

    But multiple groups are appealing the ruling on both gender equity and antitrust grounds. According to Bloomberg, attorney John Clune, representing eight student-athletes, argued that the district court improperly approved the settlement without addressing earlier Title IX objections. His clients, the filing notes, would receive only between $188 and $456 each—compared to tens or even hundreds of thousands awarded to athletes in men’s sports.

    Another challenge, brought by MoloLamken LLP, focuses on what objectors describe as systemic undercompensation of women athletes. Their brief states that although women comprise about half the settlement class, they will receive less than 10% of the total payout. The filing also claims that the class economist, Dan Rascher, made flawed assumptions regarding how NIL compensation would be paid in a competitive market free from antitrust violations.

    Beyond gender-based disparities, other objectors are questioning whether the settlement adequately resolves broader antitrust concerns. One appeal, led by Bradford Edwards LLP on behalf of former basketball player K. Braeden Anderson, argues that the agreement cements a wage cap and relies on a notice system that failed to reach many Black athletes. The Department of Justice has previously cautioned that such compensation limits could amount to illegal restraints on trade.

    Source: Bloomberg