Social media has been a game-changer for women in college sports, boosting their visibility and helping them land big NIL deals. But just because the opportunity is there doesn’t mean it’s equal. Yes, women technically have the same opportunity as men to cash in on NIL deals, but that doesn’t mean it’s always equal. And now, the debate over fairness is heating up even more after the Trump administration rolled back a Title IX guidance put in place during Joe Biden’s presidency.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a landmark federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs. Over the years, its application has expanded to include equal funding, scholarship distribution, and protection against sexual harassment in schools and universities.

However, NIL presents a new challenge, as the law remains silent on how revenue-generating athletic programs should allocate compensation among student-athletes. This is where the Biden administration stepped in. The Department of Education sought to extend Title IX’s scope to include direct NIL payments.

Not only that, but the administration argued that such funds should be distributed proportionally between male and female athletes. While this stance properly aligned with broader commitment, it also ignited a legal and ideological battle culminating in the Trump administration’s decision to roll back the policy.

The Trump administration’s reversal throws a wrench in the works

On February 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education formally announced the rescission, stating that Title IX does not apply to NIL deals. “Without a credible legal justification, the Biden administration claimed that NIL agreements between schools and student-athletes are akin to financial aid and must, therefore, be proportionately distributed between male and female athletes under Title IX,” explained Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. “The claim that Title IX forces schools and colleges to distribute student-athlete revenues proportionately based on gender equity considerations is sweeping and would require clear legal authority to support it.”

This move was a game changer, as the Trump administration directly overturned a December 2024 memo issued by the Office for Civil Rights. The decision followed a major legal victory for conservatives when a federal district court, on January 9, 2025, vacated the Biden administration’s 2024 Title IX regulations. The now-nullified memo had mandated that future NIL payments be considered athletic financial assistance and, therefore, be distributed equitably.

The memo primarily aimed to ensure that female athletes received a fair share of NIL compensation, particularly since most NIL money currently flows toward male athletes in revenue-generating sports like football and basketball. However, the court ruled that Title IX does not protect students from discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Furthermore, Judge Danny Reeves stated in his ruling that the Biden administration had exceeded its statutory authority by broadening the definition of sex beyond the traditional biological male and female classification.

So the question remains: What are the implications for women’s sports after this decision?

What could be the implications for Women’s sports after drastic move?

As expected, the decision to rescind Biden’s NIL guidance has sparked vehement reactions from both supporters and critics. Catherine Lhamon, the former Assistant Secretary of the Office for Civil Rights under Biden, expressed her dismay: “I think it’s appalling for an administration that performatively and repeatedly claims to be intent on protecting women and girls’ equal access to sports to then disavow a legal interpretation that protects women and girls’ ability to benefit financially from their athletic talents.”

And she has a point. The revenue disparity between men’s and women’s sports is glaring. While women’s sports are experiencing notable growth, they are still projected to generate only $1.3 billion globally for the 2023 season—a fraction of the revenue in men’s sports. By comparison, the NFL alone generated $18 billion in 2023.

Beyond football, men’s professional leagues like the NBA and global soccer leagues report annual revenues in the multibillion-dollar range. The disparity is evident in other areas, too—such as prize money distribution. A recent example is the World Cup Ski Jumping event. “I don’t want to complain too much about it, but you can see the differences,” said Olympic athlete Selina Freitag.

Her frustration followed a shocking disparity in prize money: The male winner received over $3,000, while the female winner was awarded towels and shampoo. However, it’s not all negative. Despite policy shifts, there has been significant progress in the equitable distribution of NIL deals.

According to Sponsor United, as of 2023, 52% of the top 100 athletes with the most NIL deals were women—a 38% increase from 2022. This number has likely grown even more with the rise of stars like Paige Bueckers and Caitlin Clark. So, what do you think? Who’s right—the Biden administration or Trump’s stance? One thing is certain: The fight for gender equity in college sports is far from over.