Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The discussion reflects general insights shared by Alicia Jessop, Esq., and should not be interpreted as guidance for any specific legal situation. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Alicia Jessop, the author, or any individuals or entities mentioned herein. If you have questions about your individual circumstances, you should consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice tailored to your specific situation.

---

As Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) compensation and revenue sharing reshape college sports, women athletes are navigating a marketplace that looks dramatically different from that of men athletes.

We recently spoke with Alicia Jessop, Esq., a sports law professor, attorney and founder of Ruling Sports, a media company focused on the business of athletics. Jessop, a leading voice on NIL and student-athlete legal issues and a professor at Pepperdine University, has closely tracked how policy decisions and institutional practices are influencing the next phase of college athletics.

Her assessment? The system is evolving rapidly, but it is not evolving evenly.

A Marketplace With Uneven Elasticity

The rise of NIL and revenue sharing has introduced new economic opportunities for college athletes. But according to Jessop, the financial marketplace remains far more competitive—and better funded—on the men’s side.

“Most Division I decision-makers are allocating a very high percentage of their revenue-sharing budgets to football and men’s basketball,” Jessop said. “That creates a much more elastic marketplace for men.”

In economic terms, elasticity refers to how flexible and responsive a marketplace is. In men’s sports, particularly football and basketball, more schools are deploying significant financial resources. That fuels transfer activity, bidding wars and aggressive recruiting.

In women’s sports, the picture is different.

Transfers still occur, Jessop noted, but they are more concentrated among top-tier athletes rather than widespread across rosters. The reason is not a lack of talent. It’s resource allocation.

“The same amount of money is not being deployed across women’s sports,” she said. “So the marketplace simply isn’t as elastic.”

That reality complicates long-standing hopes that NIL would automatically level the playing field.

While NIL has undeniably delivered meaningful income to many women athletes, particularly those with strong personal brands, Jessop cautions that institutions are still defaulting to historical spending patterns.

“Instead of being visionary and asking what could happen if we meaningfully invested in women’s sports,” she said, “a lot of schools are falling back into old allocation habits.”

“Most Division I decision-makers are allocating a very high percentage of their revenue-sharing budgets to football and men’s basketball. That creates a much more elastic marketplace for men.”

Alicia Jessop, Esq.

Title IX in a New Era

The distribution of revenue-sharing funds has also raised Title IX questions.

Under guidance issued during the Biden administration, schools were told that revenue-sharing payments should be distributed proportionally to gender participation rates. If 48% of athletes were women, then 48% of revenue-sharing funds should go to women.

When President Donald Trump returned to office in January, that guidance was rescinded. Schools are no longer required to allocate revenue-sharing dollars proportionally.

Under current federal interpretation, Jessop explained, the disproportionate allocation of funds to men’s sports does not constitute a Title IX violation.

But she described the moment as transitional.

“The text of Title IX was written in an era when athletes couldn’t even take an extra scoop of cream cheese for their bagels,” she said. “We are operating in a completely different economic environment.”

Whether Congress acts, or whether future administrations reinterpret the law, remains an open question.

Contracts, Complexity and Legal Risk

For women athletes entering revenue-sharing agreements, the stakes are significant.

“These are very complex contracts,” Jessop said. “I’ve been practicing law for 16 years, and I finally feel competent negotiating all of the esoteric legal issues embedded in them.”

The other side of the agreement is typically a university with an endowment in the hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars and access to elite legal counsel.

College athletes, by contrast, are often 18-to-22 years old.

Jessop rejects the blanket assumption that agents are inherently untrustworthy, noting that many are bound by professional codes of ethics. Still, she emphasizes the need for informed counsel.

“Athletes need representation,” she said. “They are negotiating with institutions that have far greater resources.”

For women athletes who may already earn less than their men peers, strong contract negotiation becomes even more critical. The enforceability of terms does not depend on the size of the payment. A contract is binding regardless of the dollar figure.

“Athletes need representation. They are negotiating with institutions that have far greater resources.”

Alicia Jessop, Esq.

The Transfer Portal Gamble

The transfer portal has become one of the defining features of modern college sports. But its risks are often misunderstood.

While women enter the portal at lower rates than men, Jessop said that thousands of men athletes go unclaimed each cycle. The perception of opportunity does not guarantee a landing spot.

For women, the marketplace is tighter, but not necessarily safer.

“The athlete has to take a risk,” Jessop said. “You can lose your scholarship by entering the portal.”

Current NCAA rules restrict free-flowing conversations before portal entry, a system Jessop believes disadvantages athletes who lack information before making high-stakes decisions.

“If the goal were to reduce the number of athletes left without a school,” she said, “you would allow more information to reach them before they make that decision.”

Instead, athletes often enter the portal without clarity about available opportunities, a gamble that can affect both education and financial stability.

When Sports Act Like a Business Without Business Rules

Jessop describes college athletics as a business operating inside a nonprofit structure, insulated from traditional market pressures.

“It’s functioning as a business without traditional business discipline,” she said.

Football and men’s basketball have been optimized as revenue engines. Other sports are often labeled financial losses without meaningful exploration of growth potential.

Universities such as South Carolina, Nebraska, and Texas, she said, have demonstrated that intentional investment in women’s programs can expand the overall revenue pie.

But many departments continue to operate with a short-term view, cutting women’s programs or reallocating funds without reimagining broader strategies.

If a typical corporation reported annual losses year after year, Jessop noted, leadership would face consequences. In college athletics, structural subsidies and nonprofit status shield institutions from that level of accountability.

The Road Ahead: Employees or Exemptions?

The future of college sports may hinge on one of two paths: congressional action granting the NCAA antitrust immunity, or collective bargaining that recognizes athletes as employees.

Jessop believes congressional antitrust exemptions face steep political hurdles. Both parties historically resist granting industries permission to operate as monopolies.

That leaves another possibility: unionization.

“If Congress doesn’t act,” she said, “collective bargaining becomes the legal pathway to enforce rules.”

Such a shift would be seismic, affecting compensation models, governance and even visa structures for international athletes. But Jessop argues that collective bargaining is a legally tested framework in the broader American economy.

“The current system is not sustainable,” she said. “So we have to look at viable legal solutions.”

For women athletes, the outcome of that evolution could determine not only earning power but institutional leverage, mobility and long-term opportunity.

NIL was once framed as a revolution. For women in college sports, it may be only the beginning of a more complex negotiation, one shaped by contracts, compliance and the continuing question of who truly holds the power.