On July 22, 2025, the Women’s Sports Foundation (WSF) urged U.S. House leadership to revise the “Student Compensation and Opportunity Through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act,” warning that the bill, if passed in its current form, could roll back decades of progress for women’s sports and Olympic sports – for both women and men.  

In a formal letter to the bill’s sponsors, WSF urged lawmakers to reexamine the legislation to ensure:  

• Women’s sports opportunities are protected;  

• It is clear that NIL and revenue share payments are subject to Title IX;  

• Women’s and Olympic sport participation opportunities are able to maintain or expand current levels;  

• Opportunities to invest in women’s broad-based sports are encouraged and incentivized.  

While WSF appreciates Congress’ efforts to bring stability to the current evolving NIL landscape in collegiate sports, the Foundation cautions that the SCORE Act, as currently written, risks codifying a broken and inequitable system and is urgently calling for revisions. Read our full letter here. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) issued several Direct Final Rules (DFRs) in May 2025 that would eliminate essential civil rights protections for girls and women. One of the rules — Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Sports Programs Arising Out of Federal Financial Assistance — would rescind critical portions of the DOE’s Title IX regulations that have provided vital opportunities for all students, especially girls and women to participate in sports.

If this DFR goes into effect, schools could effectively ban girls from participating in certain non-contact sports, such as baseball, by offering boys-only teams without requiring a corresponding team for girls.

The Women’s Sports Foundation strongly opposes this DFR that would roll back Title IX protections, limiting athletic opportunities for girls and women. This rule undermines decades of progress and to uphold the spirit and promise of Title IX, we urge for it to be withdrawn. Read the full text of our comment here.

The House v. NCAA Amended Settlement Agreement, overseen by Judge Claudia Wilken and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, was granted preliminary approval on October 7, 2024. If approved, the settlement would establish a revenue sharing model for past, present and future NCAA athletes.

With concerns about the potential misrepresentation of Title IX protections, insufficient representation of women athletes’ interest and a lack of clarity around how schools can equitably distribute funds in the future, WSF and the National Women’s Law Center submitted a letter to urge the court to ensure an approved settlement fairly and adequately serves all student-athletes.

Read the full text of our letter here.

AB 252 Overview 

The College Athlete Protection Act (California AB 252), sponsored by California Assemblymember Chris Holden, was introduced in January 2023. In its current state, AB 252 establishes a revenue sharing model that, due to its proposed regulations, would potentially pose a threat to gender equity, Title IX compliance, and broad-based sports offerings while also creating possible unintended consequences to women’s sports.  

With concerns about the potential consequences of the bill, both intended and unintended, WSF has taken a number of actions to ensure that implications for gender equity and Title IX compliance are thoroughly considered. 

WSF Actions 

• July 12 – Vice President of Advocacy, Sarah Axelson, spoke to and was quoted by the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal covered the news of AB 252 being withdrawn until 2024.  
• June 29 – Letter sent to the California Senate Education and Judiciary committees expressing our opposition to the bill and its newly added amendments.  
• May 24 – Condensed letter outlining our concerns sent to the California State Assembly. 

• May 19 – Official statement expressing WSF’s concerns about AB 252 released. 
• May 17 – Letter sent to AB 252 sponsor, Assemblymember Holden, urging him to re-examine the bill. 

AB 252 passed California Assembly on June 1, and on July 5, just prior to Senate Education and Judiciary Committee hearings, Assemblymember Holden decided to make AB 252 a two-year bill, delaying additional action until 2024. This pause in legislative proceedings does not eliminate the extant threat the bill and others like it would pose to gender equity, Title IX compliance, and broad-based sports offerings.  

WSF will continue to monitor this and other legislation for gender equity, Title IX compliance, broad-based sports offerings and unintended negative consequences to women’s sports. 

Opponents to AB-252  

The California Legislature received opposition to AB 252 from WSF and the following parties: 

Academic Senate of The California State University 

Association of Independent California Colleges & Universities  

Big Sky Conference  

California State University, Office of the Chancellor 

Community College League of California 

Stanford University  

Team USA Athletes’ Commission  

U.S. Ski & Snowboard  

United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee  

University of California  

University of Southern California  

USA Artistic Swimming  

USA Swimming  

USA Swimming Athletes’ Advisory Council  

USA Track & Field  

USA Volleyball  

USA Water Polo  

USA Wrestling 

Title IX consultants should always be used in conjunction with a comprehensive Title IX self-assessment by the educational institution. Title IX regulations are extremely broad and complex and individual athletic program practices too varied for any consultant to have a grasp of all athletic program practices in a school without the assistance of a comprehensive self-assessment.

Have you ever had that thought in relation to your school’s sports program? Your high school might schedule the girls’ basketball games on Thursday at 4:00 p.m. while the boys’ games are always on Friday evenings at 8:00 p.m. Or your college may restrict the best facilities for use by the men’s teams. Or the athletic department has been saying for years that there just isn’t enough money for the women’s soccer team to become varsity, even though they keep coming up with the money for other things.

Indeed, there is something wrong here, and it may be against the law. Girls and women in high schools and colleges have the right to equal opportunity in sports because of a federal law, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. States’ equal rights amendments, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and other laws may also apply.

Yet many girls and women are denied opportunities or treated like second class citizens despite these protections. The more you know about the rights of girls and women in sports, the more you will be able to gain those opportunities.

This guide is aimed at helping athletes, coaches, parents, administrators and others to ensure that girls and women receive equal opportunities in high school and college sports. It concentrates on explaining the Title IX rules and regulations so that you can do an informal analysis of your school’s athletic program. Once you have a better idea of what is and isn’t allowed under Title IX, you will be able to use this knowledge to ask the athletic department, school board or other authority for change. It will also help you to decide if you wish to file a Title IX administrative complaint or a lawsuit.

It has come to our attention that there are athletic governance associations, schools and colleges who are attempting to recognize drill team, cheerleading, danceline, marching bands, twirling and similar extracurricular activities as bona fide sports and varsity athletic program offerings in order to comply with Title IX. The purpose of this position paper is to comment on the use of an appropriate definition of varsity sport and the conditions under which physical activities should be considered sports for the purpose of compliance with Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act.

The regular use of male practice players may take practice and participation opportunities away from female athletes on varsity teams. Did you know that the regular use of male practice players may be a Title IX violation?

When is it appropriate or necessary that females and males participate with and against each other in sports? When are single-sex teams necessary or appropriate? On what basis can schools restrict participation? Find out the answers to these questions and more when we explain co-ed participation in physical activity settings.

The Women’s Sports Foundation is often asked whether it has a position on the elimination of sports opportunities for men as a method of complying with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs or activities at schools and colleges that receive federal funds. This question usually stems from situations in which schools cite insufficient finances to add more sports opportunities for women, cut a men’s non-revenue sport and use these funds to start a new women’s team. When alumni and students complain about the decision, the institution blames the law (Title IX requires no such reduction in opportunities for men) and female athletes. The Foundation is not in favor of reducing athletic opportunities for men as the preferred method of achieving Title IX compliance.