Title IX and Gender Equality in Current Day College Athletics
- Lauren O'Brien
- Feb 21
- 11 min read
What part does Title IX Play in the current day NIL era?
Since its passing in 1972, Title IX has been crucial to providing women equal educational and athletic opportunities. The law, just 37 words long stated that no person should be discriminated against on the basis of sex. However, 53 years since its passing, many gender inequalities still persist in college sports in the form of media exposure, funding, and scholarships. With the introduction of Name Image Likeness, which allows student-athletes to make money from endorsements and sponsorships, it has added a complex layer to school compliance of Title IX. It raises questions such as has NIL increased the gender gap in college sports? NIL offers increased exposure and income for female athletes, but also exposes traditional gender themes of how women are marketed and valued in sports. Gender inequalities aren't the only thing that dictates a female athlete's ability to earn NIL endorsements, for school size, conference, and appearance all factor into NIL success. While Title IX laid the foundation for gender equality in sports, the rise of Name Image Likeness, has revealed and strengthened existing gender inequalities. NIL highlights how media portrayal, institution size, and unequal support from colleges continue to increase the equality gap between men's and women's college sports.
Legacy of Title IX and the Fight for Equality
Before Title IX was implemented on June 23, 1972, there were barely any opportunities for women to participate in college athletics. Early traditional gender stereotypes also played a factor in these inequalities. Women's sports were considered to be harmful, unfeminine, and inappropriate for college competition. Early women's athletics focused on maintaining traditional gender norms, it was strongly discouraged for women to take part in any contact sports. In fact, organizations like the Women's Division of the National Amateur Athletic Federation instilled this ideology, when they published a 16 point "creed" outlining the principals and goals of women's athletics. These points emphasized sportsmanship, minimizing the emphasis on personal achievements, and discouraged competitive play between institutions (Rivera, 405). These ideas about women's sports persisted until the enactment of Title IX in 1972. Title IX mandated that "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 educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance"(Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688). Originally intended to apply to the workplace, these 37 words gave women more opportunities in athletics than they could have ever imagined. In 1974, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare confirmed that Title IX would apply to college athletics. While enforcement required schools to provide equal access to coaching, equipment, facilities, and travel, it did not mandate equal expenditures (Rivera, 408). Although the addition of Title IX led to an almost immediate increase in women's sport participation (fewer than 30,000 in 1971 to around 229,000 in 2021), resource and scholarship disparities still persist. A USA Today investigation found that 87% of Division 1 schools failed to offer athletic opportunities for women proportional to their enrollment, which is a clear violation of Title IX (USA Today, "Title IX at 50"). Additionally, male athletes earned $252 million more in athletic scholarships than their female counterparts during the 2019-2020 school year. While the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has the authority to revoke federal funds for schools who violate Title IX, they have never done so. This lack of enforcement enables schools to look past equity obligations without consequence. Meanwhile, the collapse of the AIAW in 1983 eliminated the only governing body that prioritized women's sports without profit motives (Andrada, 4). Title IX successfully opened doors for women but has failed to ensure that the opportunities men and women are actually equal.
Name Image Likeness: A New Opportunity for Growth
The 2021 NCAA v. Alston decision marked a major shift in collegiate sports, allowing student-athletes to earn money through their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). While this move was celebrated as a breakthrough of freedom for athletes, it has also highlighted, and reinforced, gender disparities in college athletics. NIL deals are largely dictated by market forces, not equity laws. Due to this, male-dominated, revenue producing sports like football and men's basketball receive a disproportionate amount in NIL deals. Football accounted for nearly 50% of NIL earnings, while men's basketball made up another 21.6%. Women's basketball only brought in 11.1%, and all other women's sports such as volleyball, track and field, and swimming each received less than 2% (Andrada, 15). This drastic difference in earnings does not come from a lack of talent or effort, but from exposure and market bias rooted in decades of systemic inequality.
Title IX mandates gender equality in institutional sport, it does not extend to private companies, boosters, or brand endorsements. Schools are required to provide equal access to workshops, branding opportunities, and NIL related support services. However, actual NIL deals, often arranged by third-party booster collectives, favor male athletes, particularly in high revenue producing sports like basketball and football. As of 2023, only about one-third of NIL collectives actively supported women's sports. The average football player earned about $100,000 from these deals annually, compared to just $9,000 for women's basketball players (Andrada, 15). Although NIL has created new possibilities, these opportunities are often expose existing inequalities. For instance, top Power Four schools have departments specifically dedicated to help athletes secure and manage NIL deals, a luxury mid-major schools do not have,. Without targeted intervention or oversight, NIL risks becoming yet another area where male athletes are prioriized while women are left behind. To ensure that NIL becomes a tool for equality rather than exclusion, institutions must be proactive. Policies should be enacted to track gender equality in NIL support services, create women-focused collectives, and educate donors and alumni on their Title IX responsibilities when acting on behalf of schools.
Performance vs Appearance: Sexualization and Marketability of Female Athletes
The NIL era has given female athletes the opportunity to have a platform and gain exposure and income because of it. However, this is often overshadowed by the continued sexualization and objectification of female athletes. Rather than being recognized for their achievements, many are rewarded NIL endorsements based on their looks, social media presence, or conformity to societal beauty standards. A prime example of this is Louisiana State University gymnast, Olivia Dunne, who is blonde and white. Dunne has gained millions of followers on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, and has an estimated NIL net worth of $4.1 million. Because of this, one would think Dunne is one of the best gymnasts in the NCAA, however this is not the case. Dunne has never competed in the all-around, missed much of her junior year due to injury, and only participates in select events (Rivera, 424). Dunne earns the most money in NIL endorsements among all female athletes, and ranks fourth in the NCAA, only behind Arch Manning (Texas football), Cooper Flagg (Duke basketball), and Carson Beck (Georgia football) (Cunningham, 1). It is crazy when comparing Dunne who has earned over four million in endorsements to Trinity Thomas, the 2022 NCAA All-Around National Champion, who only earns about $109,000 (Rivera, 424). It really shows how social media presence and marketability outweigh athletic achievement in women's NIL. This trend is also seen with Haley and Hanna Cavinder, former basketball players at the University of Miami, and known on social media as the Cavinder twins. While being average collegiate basketball players, their large social media following and conventionally attractive looks earned them each over $800,000 in NIL deals (Rivera, 426). Meanwhile, that same year, top performing athletes like Aliyah Boston, and Trinity Thomas did not make the top 100 in NIL earners, despite being considered the best in their respective sports. In fact, only two of the women featured on that list had any kind of individual national awards, Paige Bueckers (UCONN basketball), and Sunisa Lee (Auburn gymnastics) (Rivera, 427).
This discrepancy is partially due to how the media portrays female athletes. Male athletes are typically shown in dynamic and action oriented shots, emphasizing strength and competition. In contrast, women are often depicted in aesthetically pleasing, passive poses, most notably in Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit edition (MacKeigan, 8). This reinforces traditional gender norms, and the idea that a female athlete's looks are what brings in the endorsements, not athletic performance. The NIL world makes these issues more prevalent. Oftentimes, when scrolling on TikTok one will see their favorite female athletes promoting brands like Bloom, healthy greens, and skincare products. Female athletes find NIL deals in "soft" lifestyle products, whereas men find theirs in fitness, tech, and sports gear. As one female volleyball player stated, "I wouldn’t want to do a deal like that, using your body to just make some money. I mean, it’s a great opportunity for them. Personally, as a female athlete, I think it’s not the right message…That you’re a female athlete, you’re shaking your a** on TikTok…. So I think it can be a great opportunity, but I also think it can be sexualized, like a lot of the NIL deals can also be like just using female athletes for their bodies and making them like an object." (SJSU Study, 25). This issue extends way beyond income, as female athletes, especially women of color, may feel pressured to conform to westernized beauty standards in order to make money off of their image. Without conforming to traditional beauty standards, NIL success may remain limited to those who "look the part" rather than those who succeed in competition.
Power Four Privilege: Institution Size & Opportunity
Institutional size plays a crucial role in shaping NIL earnings. Power 4 schools in conferences like the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and ACC have more power when it comes to NIL that mid-major Division 1 programs can't match. These large schools benefit due to more media coverage, lots of support from alumni and boosters, and dedicated NIL departments seen in schools like Notre Dame, Stanford, and the University of Southern California, giving their athletes a massive edge in NIL endorsements (MacKeigan, 22). For example, Louisiana State University shows off a department dedicated to finding their athletes NIL deals on their TV show on Amazon Prime. This show goes behind the scenes showcasing the NIL journey's of star athletes like Jalen McDaniels, Angel Reese, and Flau'jae Johnson. Such exposure leads directly to endorsement deals, especially in women's sports. After the 2023 Women's March Madness tournament, many athletes gained a huge following after star performances in the tournament. This tournament served as a turning point in women's sports exposure and in that year many viewership records were broken. With the growing amount of eyes on these athletes, NIL deals shortly followed. Two athletes who gained a large following after that year were Caitlin Clark (Iowa basketball), and Angel Reese (LSU basketball). Shortly after the tournament Clark rose to 44 on the NIL earners list, and after winning the National Championship Reese signed 17 endorsement deals (Rivera, 427). When games are more widely available on networks like ESPN, ABC, and FOX, NIL deals will follow for these athletes. In contrast, athletes at mid-major Division 1 programs have fewer opportunities for exposure. Many of their games are not broadcasted on major networks, and oftentimes on subscription based programs like ESPN+ and Fubo. Without a large audience, these athletes have little chance to grow their personal brand, even if they outperform peers at Power 4 schools (MacKeigan, 23). The inequality in media exposure creates a constant loop when it comes to recruiting athletes out of high school and the transfer portal. Top recruits gravitate to Power 4 schools because of NIL potential and more media exposure. Schools with larger fanbases attract more booster funds, and therefore more NIL money to give top recruits. In combination with the transfer portal, a mid-major program's chances to grow and succeed are diminished because as soon as an athlete is offered millions to play at an SEC school they transfer. There are a few exceptions like Sacramento State, a school in the Big Sky Conference, who's Sac 12 booster committee raised $35 million in NIL funds. This has gained the attention of many top recruits, and many high profile high school athletes have gone on visits all because of the NIL earning potential.
Title IX in the NIL Era
Title IX was enacted to ensure equal access to educational and athletic opportunities, but its application in the NIL era is limited and complex. Technically Title IX applies to colleges and universities and not private businesses or booster collectives. This means offering NIL deals are not legally required to treat male and female athletes equally (Rivera, 432). However in July 2021 when considering the Alston v. NCAA case, the NCAA actually flagged Title IX compliance as a concern for NIL. The NCAA emphasized that schools must ensure gender equality in how they facilitate and support NIL opportunities (Andrada, 34). This includes equal access to branding workshops, promotional materials, and institutional NIL opportunities. Schools are not expected to ensure equal earnings between genders, but they are expected to provide proportional representation based on student demographics under the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights three prong test (Andrada, 17). Despite these rules, most schools have failed and as discussed earlier 87% of Division 1 schools are not in compliance with Title IX ("Title IX at 50"). With nobody making sure these rules are enforced, schools can claim to be in compliance while failing to invest in women's programs. Booster programs and collectives further complicate this issue. Even though these collectives are supposed to be independent, many work closely with athletic departments. These collectives have been found to disproportionately fund men's programs which is a violation of Title IX. As of 2023, only about one-third of collectives support women's sports, an astounding gap considering 44% of college athletes are women (Andrada, 15). Looking at the upside, there are emerging solutions to this issue. Nebraska and LSU have invested in female focused NIL collectives like the "Livvy Fund" founded by Livvy Dunne, and "NIL Island" founded by Leah Clapper (Florida gymnastics). These collectives offer mentorship and brand building support to female athletes (Rivera, 435). These collectives attempt to close the gap between majority of NIL collectives and Title IX. Still, equality cannot be achieved through Title IX compliance alone, but it requires schools to challenge traditional male favored funding, and support underrepresented programs. As NIL becomes more and more dominant in college sports, colleges and universities must make sure that their practices do not cycle back to old inequalities in a new form.
Conclusion
Title IX reshaped opportunity for female college athletes by mandating equal access to sports and scholarships. However 50 years later, true equality has not been reached. While the NIL era has given athletes the opportunity to earn money from their name, image, and likeness, it has also exposed inequalities embedded in historical gender bias, objectification and sexualization of female athletes, and uneven access to resources due to institution size. This proves that college sports continue to favor men's athletics and women who fit society's idea of what is pretty. Title IX does not extend to NIL, leaving many female athletes without the same opportunity to earn endorsements and make money off of their image. Reaching equality in college sports, does not require compliance to Title IX, but rather a shift that prioritizes investment in women's sports and NIL opportunities, values diverse ideas on what is athletic excellence, and makes sure that every athlete regardless of gender and institution size has equal access to the opportunity to monetize from their name, image, and likeness.
Annotated Bibliography
References
Andrada, Stephanie. “The Debate on NIL. ” Master’s Theses, San Jose State University, 2023.
This scholarly secondary source was very helpful. It talked a lot about female athletes in mid-major conferences and how they struggled with finding NIL endorsements due to a lack of resources. It also provided interviews with mid-major athletes across many different sports including volleyball, gymnastics, and basketball.
Apostoleris Rivera, Ana. 2024. “The Image and Likeness of Women: The Implications of Title IX in the NIL Era.” Marquette Sports Law Review 34, no. Article 5 (March): 1-40.
This scholarly secondary source was extremely helpful and did a deep dive of discussing the gender dynamics in NIL. It also gave a brief explanation of the state of women’s sports before Title IX. The source also discussed modern day attempts to help women with their NIL journey's.
Congress. 1972. “Civil Rights Division | Title IX Of The Education Amendments Of 1972.” Department of Justice.
This primary source provided Title IX word for word. This was used when talking about Title IX and its legacy.
Cunningham, Nate. 2025. “Highest Paid College Athletes via NIL Deals.” Sports Illustrated.
This source provided a data table and talked about the college athletes who earned the most in NIL. This was used in the project when talking about performance and appearance and the correlation between that and NIL earnings.
MacKeigan, Lauren. “An Equity Analysis on Collegiate Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Market.” Senior Theses, Michigan Ross, 2023.
This scholarly secondary source analyzed the resource gap between power four and mid-major division one programs. At the end of the source, the author provided many charts, data tables, and graphs that allowed me to visualize the discrepancies in NIL, sport, and gender.
Mertens, Maggie. 2022. “50 Years of Title IX: How One Law Changed Women’s Sports Forever.” Sports Illustrated. https://www.si.com/college/2022/05/19/title-ix-50th-anniversary-womens-sports-impact-daily-cover.
This tertiary source provided a solid background to the conditions of women’s sports before Title IX was passed. There were interviews with old athletes including a former women’s basketball player from Stanford. This source also talked about modern day Title IX violations.
Comments