Department of Education rescinds Title IX guidance that NIL payments must be proportionate

The U.S.

Department of Education has officially rescinded a nine-page fact sheet on Title IX guidance that was released last month under the outgoing presidential administration, a move that was anticipated by many within college sports .

The memo, which was issued on Jan.

16, stated that name, image and likeness (NIL) payments to college athletes must be proportionate between a schools male and female athletes to comply with Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools that receive federal money.

That instruction could have had a significant impact on future revenue sharing between colleges and athletes under the pending House settlement, which has a final approval hearing on April 7.

Advertisement However, the department announced Tuesday that it has rescinded what it described as 11th-hour guidance from the Joe Biden administration.

Donald Trump took office on Jan.

20.

Enacted over 50 years ago, Title IX says nothing about how revenue-generating athletics programs should allocate compensation among student athletes, acting assistant secretary for civil rights Craig Trainor said via statement.

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.

That does not exist.

The U.S.

Dept.

of Education announces it has rescinded a nine-page fact sheet on Title IX guidance released last month, just before the previous administration left office.

The previous guidance could have impacted future rev sharing with college athletes under House settlement.

pic.twitter.com/uhLnCTxlss Justin Williams (@Williams_Justin) February 12, 2025 If the historic $2.8-billion House settlement is approved in the coming months , it will allow colleges to share roughly $20.5 million per year in revenue with athletes beginning July 1.

It will be up to each schools discretion how that money is allocated among its sports and individual athletes, and how Title IX would factor into those decisions has been a lingering question.

Many schools have cited the formula for the damages portion of the settlement paid out to former NCAA athletes as a guide for future revenue sharing.

The damages formula earmarks the vast majority of the money to football and mens basketball, the NCAAs top revenue sports.

That sentiment was largely unfazed by last months Title IX guidance, as many within college sports expected the new administration to have a different interpretation.

The Department of Educations announcement Tuesday provided that clarity.

Advertisement Colleges may feel more confident in plans for market-based revenue sharing that doesnt comply with Title IX, but plenty of unknowns remain regarding the House settlement.

In addition to the now-rescinded education department fact sheet, the Department of Justice penned a statement of interest last month that expressed concerns about the revenue-sharing cap as an antitrust violation.

The current DOJ could similarly amend or rescind that statement of interest under the new administration, but that remains to be seen.

Could a new DOJ issue a position statement that states it isnt concerned about the antitrust implications of the settlement? Sure, but its a little harder to square with that offices history, Cal Stein, a litigation partner at Troutman Pepper Locke, told The Athletic last week.

Stein has advised a number of colleges and collectives on NIL issues.

The House settlement has also received a slew of objections ahead of the April 7 hearing that Judge Claudia Wilken will likely consider.

And even if approved, the settlement could still face additional litigation on any number of fronts, including Title IX, which is why the NCAA and its power conferences continue to seek Congressional input.

If the judge approves the settlement, I think you would see new federal lawsuits filed against the NCAA and the conferences and potentially other parties arguing that the settlement violates antitrust, Title IX whatever the allegations are, said Stein.

(Photo: Andy Lyons / Getty Images).

This article has been shared from the original article on theathleticuk, here is the link to the original article.