College athletics is evolving rapidly. The name, image, and likeness landscape is entering a new phase as stakeholders adapt to the realities of the post-House era. While many focus on the future of college sports, institutional leaders should not lose sight of a longstanding area of concern: Title IX.
As universities evaluate new athletics-related initiatives and navigate a complex regulatory environment, Title IX considerations may arise in traditional athletics compliance and in broader institutional compliance.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved what is now known as the House settlement on June 6, 2025. The settlement contained a retroactive settlement and a settlement of prospective NIL issues for the DI institutions impacted by the suit. Beginning with the academic year just ended, schools may share up to 22% of athletic-related revenue with student athletes.
Soon after settlement was reached in House female athletes filed class action suits alleging Title IX issues. The cases, which are now consolidated, started with a group of female former student athletes contesting the back pay provision, which results in at least 90% of the money heading toward male former student athletes. Plaintiffs argue that allocation violates Title IX.
Especially now, questions regarding institutional oversight, third-party relationships, and compliance infrastructure require coordination among university leadership, legal counsel, compliance personnel, and athletics administrators. Now is the time to determine whether existing governance structures adequately address emerging Title IX risks.
More than college athletics oversight
Historically, athletics-related decisions were viewed through the lens of wins and losses and student recruitment. Today’s decisions relating to NIL opportunities, athlete support programs, and other initiatives raise questions that extend beyond the athletics department and implicate university wide legal, compliance, and risk-management considerations.
Universities must ensure that athletics leaders do not evaluate these issues in isolation. Collaboration among athletics administrators, general counsel, compliance personnel, Title IX coordinators, and senior leaders will help institutions identify concerns early and develop a coordinated approach.
While no single governance model fits every institution, cross-functional oversight will better position universities to respond to rapid changes. The following questions may be helpful:
- Do athletic administrators meet regularly with the institution’s general counsel, Title IX coordinator and other senior leaders?
- Does this group discuss the risks associated with various approaches?
- Is the Board engaged, as appropriate, in determining the correct approach?
Third parties present new challenges
The growth of NIL collectives and other third-party organizations adds greater complexity for institutions. Although they may operate independently from universities, their activities still affect the broader athletics ecosystem.
University boards must address how much oversight to provide over third-party deals. Spartan Ventures, which is associated with Michigan State University, has received media attention over that board’s struggle.
Issues that a board may encounter are:
- What oversight will the board have over the third party?
- For public institutions, may the matters be discussed in executive session to preserve the ability of the university to strike a good deal with the third party?
- Are existing oversight and communication channels adequate?
- How does this fit into broader compliance and risk-management of the university?
A clear understanding of institutional policies, reporting structures, and areas of responsibility can reduce uncertainty while positioning institutions to respond effectively to future developments.
Compliance should evolve
Effective compliance programs depend on more than written policies; institutions should review whether existing compliance structures match current athletics realities. The review should include:
- Evaluating reporting mechanisms
- Assessing training programs
- Reviewing documentation practices
- Ensuring that stakeholders understand their responsibilities
Regular communication among athletics personnel, compliance officers, and institutional leadership can identify emerging issues before they become larger concerns.
While the direction of college athletics remains uncertain, proactive planning will help institutions adapt to new developments.
Universities that regularly assess their compliance infrastructure will be better positioned to navigate change while supporting student-athletes and institutional objectives.
Dynamic and closely watched
College athletics will remain a dynamic and closely watched area. Although many questions surrounding athlete compensation, NIL oversight, and regulatory developments remain, universities must act now to evaluate their governance and compliance structures.
By ensuring that Title IX considerations are part of institutional decision-making, university leaders can better position their institutions to navigate change while managing risk and supporting equitable opportunities for student-athletes.
The image above was created with AI.
