By: Cayla Michels
Published: March 11, 2026
Women’s collegiate athletics experienced a huge boom—both financially and in the media—within the last five years.[1] Just prior to this major increase of attention, college athletes saw huge victories in both O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston which, in combination, allow student-athletes to profit from the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL).[2] Following these decisions, student-athletes have benefitted financially from their athletic participation more than was ever previously allowed.
One major development to come from these changes is increased participation of donors when it comes to player compensation.[3] Many of the top athletic-performing colleges in the country now have donor groups, known as “collectives,” specifically dedicated to raising and maintaining funding for NIL payments to their athletes.[4] These collectives are independent groups, not operated or managed by the schools, focused on procuring large sums of money for student-athletes in exchange for small acts or services, such as appearances at meet and greets or doing charity work.[5] Typically, collectives associate with a single university and their student-athletes. While these collectives have been an incredible financial resource for schools and athletes generally, there is little to no accountability because they are neither subject to Title IX federal regulation as a private entity nor do they directly financially interact with the schools.[6] Instead, collectives pay athletes directly.
Title IX of the Civil Rights Act is meant to protect against sex-based discrimination.[7] The statute requires equal opportunities be presented for all students, regardless of gender.[8] Since the statute’s inception, it has been lauded for its protection of female athletic participation, but has failed to adapt to shifts in the modern collegiate pay-to-play system. As Title IX covers educational institutions and entities that receive federal funding, these private donor collectives are seemingly outside of the statute’s jurisdiction.[9]
Considering the lack of required reporting or accountability to any higher power, there is a major transparency problem with collectives and their spending and interactions with both the schools and athletes they associate with.[10] For example, there is little to no information on communication between collectives and schools discussing how much monetary compensation athletes should receive. More pressing is the obvious inequity between the financial packages being offered to male and female athletes by these collectives. Research shows that, in 2024 alone, many football teams were out-earning their school’s entire women’s athletic programs from collective sponsorship alone.[11] This disparity is even more exacerbated when these schools’ men’s basketball programs are included in the calculation.[12] A great example of this was the UCLA men’s programs receiving close to $2 million from UCLA’s collective, “Men of Westwood”, while the women’s programs received nothing from the group despite competitive representation from Olympic medal-winning athletes such as Jordan Chiles.[13]
There has been some slight progress, however, with the House settlement approval on June 6, 2025.[14] This settlement includes provisions that requires approval for NIL deals made with athletes by a new College Sports Commission (CSC).[15] All deals made with student-athletes at schools that have opted–in to the House settlement must now be approved by the CSC before any money can exchange hands.[16] The CSC announced in July that their review process would strictly approve only deals they considered appropriate.[17] The CSC stated that they would not approve deals concerning collectives that were created for the sole purpose of paying student-athletes and that do not “provide goods or services to the general public for profit”.[18] While this alone has hindered much of the collectives’ actions, schools are able to choose whether they opt-in to the House settlement or not.[19] This new CSC regime could be a step forward with new oversight to regulate collectives’ equitable spending.
But where does this leave collectives of schools that choose not to opt-in to the House settlement? Given that Title IX does not extend beyond educational institutions receiving federal funds, collectives sit in a gray area regarding gender-equity compliance. While donor funds gifted or given directly to schools are subject to Title IX, these collectives hire and pay student-athletes directly. This bypasses the school in all traditional and official aspects and thereby avoids Title IX requirements. This leaves few options to ensure protection of and equality for female student-athletes.
One step forward could be for federal guidance to bring collectives into Title IX’s purview. The Biden administration attempted to forge a path for Title IX involvement in NIL deals, structuring the contracts as forms of financial aid, thus requiring equitable distribution regardless of gender. However, these efforts to expand Title IX to NIL deals were quickly rescinded in the early days of the second Trump administration.[20]
Another option is for Congress to pass legislation connecting collectives officially to the school that they associate with. Such legislation would then, theoretically, bring the collectives under the purview of educational institutions, and thus, require the application of Title IX to any fund distribution to student-athletes. However, on top of dealing with the current political divisions within Congress, only a thin argument exists for pulling NIL deals under Congressional power through interstate commerce.[21] Any such argument would likely be because athletes compete in different states, and therefore, bring in money through interstate commerce. However, it is a much stronger argument that no such interstate commerce occurs, as the exchange of money for services between student-athlete and collective occurs in the same state that both the student attends school and the collective is based. It is likely that any potential bill or statute would not pass a judicial review when it comes to Congress’s scope and federalism overall.[22]
While many unknowns still exist surrounding the astounding inequity within donor collectives and their deals with student-athletes, it is clear that female student-athletes are generally getting the short-end of the stick. They deserve legislation that is aimed at their protection—in this case, Title IX and its equal funding requirements—not circumvented in the name of technicalities and profit.
[1] See generally Albert Samaha and Emily Giambalvo, As Women’s Hoops Booms, NIL Boosters Favor Men, Records Show, The Washington Post (October 21, 2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/10/21/college-basketball-basketball-nil-men-women/ (describing the increase in revenue seen by the Colorado women’s basketball team within the last seven years).
[2] See O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 802 F.3d 1049, 1079 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding NCAA regulations were more restrictive than necessary in maintaining a tradition of amateurism); National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 107 (2021) (holding that the NCAA restriction on “educational benefits” for student athletes).
[3] See Albert Samaha et al., The Hidden NIL Economy of College Sports, The Washington Post (Oct. 21, 2024, 6:00 a.m.), https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/interactive/2024/nil-money-deals-college-sports-athlete-pay/ (discussing the variety of revenue sources from which student-athletes are being paid).
[4] See id. (describing “collectives” made of groups of donors and boosters focused on paying student-athletes to ensure their loyalty to and play for certain teams and schools).
[5] See id. (exploring the impact of donor collectives following the NCAA’s shift in procedure and rules).
[6] See id. (describing how and why Title IX does not reach collectives, as they pay students directly).
[7] See generally U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, Title IX and Athletic Opportunities in Colleges and Universities (Feb. 2023), https://in.ewu.edu/titleix/wp-content/uploads/sites/119/2023/12/OCR_TitleIXAthleticsResources_Feb2023.pdf.
[8] See id. at 2 (establishing the measure of equal opportunity through “[t]he benefits, opportunities, and treatment given to men’s and women’s teams, how a school is awarding athletic scholarships and financial assistance and how a school is meeting students’ athletic interests and abilities”).
[9] See Samaha et al., supra note 3.
[10] See id. (detailing how secretive collectives and schools have been about NIL reporting and dealings).
[11] See id.
[12] See id.
[13] See id. (showing chart of Men of Westwood’s spending from September 2021 to May 2024).
[14] See Unpacking the “House Settlement’s Impact on Collegiate Athletics”, JacksonLewis (September 30, 2025), https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/unpacking-house-settlements-impact-collegiate-athletics-0.
[15] See id. (recognizing the creation of the CSC and its role in providing House compliance guides, oversight of NIL deals, and reporting requirements).
[16] See id.
[17] Michael Sheridan, College Sports Commission Memo Addresses NIL Deals Involving Collectives, L. Firm All. (July 15, 2025), https://www.lawfirmalliance.org/uploads/7-15-25-College-Sports-Commission-Memo-Addresses-NIL-Deals-Involving-Collectives-Collegiate-Sports-IMind.pdf.
[18] See Eddie Pells, Argument over ‘valid business purpose’ for NIL collectives threatens college sports settlement, Associated Press (July 15, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/nil-ncaa-house-settlement-6c743730c9c3ddcc3f4e787995ddd9e5.
[19] See Unpacking the “House Settlement’s Impact on Collegiate Athletics”, supra note 14 (confirming that schools have the yearly ability to opt-out of the settlement, which 18% of Division 1 schools have).
[20] See Ralph D. Russo and Justin Williams, DOE memo says NIL payments must be proportionate between male, female athletes, but guidance could be short-lived, The Athletic (Jan. 17, 2025) https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6068325/2025/01/16/department-of-education-title-ix-nil-memo/ (describing Biden’s nine page Department of Education memo); Paula Lavigne, Dept. of Education revokes guidance on Title IX and athlete pay, ESPN (Feb, 12, 2025) https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/43809645/dept-education-revokes-guidance-title-ix-athlete-pay (confirming the rescinding of Title IX guidance on NIL).
[21] See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. (creating Congress’s enumerated right to control and regulate interstate commerce).
[22] Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 588 (2012) (explaining that the Commerce Clause “authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it”).