In the wake of the landmark June 6, 2025, House v. NCAA settlement, several groups have initiated appeals challenging the Settlement's terms, asserting Title IX, antitrust, and other related issues.
Title IX and Antitrust Challenges
Three groups of female student-athletes appealed the district
court-approved Settlement on grounds that the Settlement violates
Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 to the Higher
Education Act. Title IX forbids colleges and universities from
excluding students from participating in programs, denying them
benefits, or subjecting them to discrimination based on sex.
One group challenges the backpay damage calculations under the Settlement agreement as imbalanced, alleging that the calculated damages vastly favor male student-athletes over female student-athletes, in violation of the law.
Another group asserts that the Settlement impermissibly extinguishes Title IX rights through an imbalanced process favoring male student-athletes over female student-athletes.
The third group asserts that the Settlement's terms violate Title IX but also raises antitrust challenges to the Settlement.
Several additional appeals also assert antitrust challenges to the Settlement, including assertions of inadequate representation of student-athletes (male and female) in negotiating the Settlement and impermissible caps on revenue sharing.
Other Challenges
Male student-athletes also challenge the backpay damages
calculations as favoring revenue-generating sports and scholarship
student-athletes. They challenge the adequacy of the notice
provided to student-athletes during the settlement negotiations.
They also challenge whether the opt-out process permitted
student-athletes adequate time to protest the final terms.
While these appeals triggered an automatic stay to the distribution of the backpay damages for former and current student-athletes, none requested a stay to the revenue-sharing terms going forward and being overseen by the College Sports Commission. Student-athletes will likely have to wait for a year or more for backpay payments until these appeals are resolved.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
