Title IX in the NIL Era: Oregon Lawsuit Could Reshape College Sports

Lawsuits around Title IX and the evolving Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) era are not new. However, the combination of these two issues is uncharted territory. With the surge in women’s sports, with the aid of the intense March Madness match ups, the WNBA, and the new Unrivaled league, discussions surrounding the equal opportunities for women’s sports have become more prominent. Currently, the University of Oregon is at the center facing the first known lawsuit that regards Title IX and NIL.

Title IX: A Step Forward

Enacted in 1972, Title IX is a federal law that bans sex discrimination in any educational institution that receives federal funding. This law prohibits sex discrimination in education resulting in institutions providing equal opportunities and treatment for both female and male student-athletes. While Title IX was a monumental step toward gender equality in education and sports, its application has been uneven, especially when it comes to providing equitable opportunities in athletic programs.

As the NIL landscape grows, gender equity in sports is facing different challenges. With NIL allowing student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness, athletes now have opportunities that have never existed. Though this is monumental, this shift has also exposed the gaps in how male and female athletes are supported, especially when it comes to funding and the support for women to take advantage of these opportunities.

Schroeder v. University of Oregon

Schroeder v. University of Oregon is believed to be the first lawsuit that specifically addresses gender inequalities with NIL opportunities for student athletes. On December 1, 2023, 32 female athletes from the beach volleyball team and women’s rowing club files a class action lawsuit alleging that the University of Oregon provided too few scholarships, poor quality gear, and improper facilities. Specifically, beach volleyball members recall instances where the removal of drug paraphernalia and feces from the sand was required before practice.

This lawsuit highlights the disparities in funding between men’s and women’s sports. The complaint alleges the spending disparities between the men’s and women’s programs. It is claimed that the university allocated only 15% of its recruiting budget and 25% of its athletic spending to women, despite female athletes constituting nearly half of the university’s varsity sports roster.

A Milestone Scholarship

In 2024, the very first scholarship in beach volleyball history was received by Gwen Fife. This milestone marks progress toward gender equality in sports at the University of Oregon, but it also raises and important questions: Why did it take until 2024 for the first scholarship to be received by a beach volleyball player?

While the university celebrates the achievement, it shines a spotlight on the ongoing challenges female athletes face, particularly in sports that have historically received less attention and investment. This delayed recognition brings up important issues about resource allocation and the historical underfunding of women’s sports programs. This achievement is a step towards the right direction. However, this is a reminder that progress in women’s sports is overdue and littered with boundaries and obstacles.

Latest Case Updates

The University of Oregon recently filed a motion for a protective order to stay discovery, requesting a delay until the court rules on its pending motions to dismiss parts of the case. The university contends that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate mistreatment based on sex and challenged the statute of limitations, proposing that it should be one year instead of two or six. If the court agrees, the university claims that all of the women’s rowing club plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane denied the motion, stating that there was no valid reason to delay discovery and expressing doubt that the plaintiffs would be unable to state a valid claim for relief. This ruling allows the case to move forward.

Setting a Precedent for the Future

This legal battle could set a precedent for other lawsuits combining Title IX and NIL issues, potentially reshaping the way universities handle gender equity in athletics. As more female athletes capitalize on NIL opportunities, this case could prompt universities to reevaluate their policies and practices in supporting their athletes in navigating this new era. By exposing the disparities in NIL opportunities, this case allows for the publicity and recognition of these issues, pushing the much-needed change. Not only could this case reshape how universities manage NIL, but it could also influence future NCAA rules and regulations.

The Hope for Women’s Sports

As this lawsuit progresses, there is hope that this will cause a ripple effect of change for women’s sports. Universities must reevaluate how they allocate resources, supports women’s athletics, and sure the compliance of Title IX in this new NIL era. With this case being the first of its kind, there is hope that this will create the landscape to improving equality with women’s sports and aid the in this long-fought battle.

The fight for equal treatment in college athletics is far from over. The Schroeder v. University of Oregon case is just the beginning of a larger movement that will determine the future of women’s sports in the NIL era.

Katherine Vescio is a 1L at University of Gonzaga School of Law. She can be found on LinkedIn.