On February 12, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education rescinded Title IX guidance issued by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) during the final days of the Biden administration concerning name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation in collegiate athletics.
OCR’s prior memo, issued on January 16, 2025, stated that paying athletes through NIL deals could violate Title IX if not distributed proportionally between male and female athletes. The Biden administration’s guidance clarified that NIL compensation should be treated as athletic financial assistance, necessitating a proportional distribution that reflects the gender makeup of the student body.
In the February 12, 2025 letter, Acting Assistant Secretary for OCR, Craig Trainor, labeled the January 16, 2025 memo as “11th-hour guidance” from the previous administration. Trainor stated that Title IX does not dictate how revenue-generating athletic programs should allocate compensation among student-athletes and that there was no legal authority supporting the claim that Title IX mandates proportional distribution of NIL payments.
This rescission may embolden colleges and universities to pursue market-based revenue-sharing models that are not based on gender equity, allowing institutions greater flexibility in allocating NIL funds. Yet, significant uncertainties remain regarding the $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement, which would permit colleges to share approximately $20.5 million annually with athletes as soon as July 1st, and the extent to which Title IX considerations will factor into these decisions.
The potential for future litigation remains high. Enforcement of Title IX often occurs through the courts, with ongoing lawsuits such as one brought by female athletes against the University of Oregon claiming violations in NIL distribution plans. The OCR’s prior guidance had strengthened such claims, and questions linger regarding how the Trump administration’s rescission will impact these cases, particularly in light of the pending House settlement, which Judge Claudia Wilken will hear finally on April 7.
While some athletic departments had already begun reassessing their NIL distribution strategies based on the now-rescinded guidance, the Department’s latest announcement offers little clarity in the ongoing debate over Title IX compliance and revenue sharing in college sports. The landscape remains volatile, with the enforceability of Department of Education mandates and the evolving political context likely to influence future regulations governing NIL compensation.
