A bill in California could hurt women’s sports nationally

A bill being considered by the California Senate would be catastrophic for women’s college athletic programs, setting a precedent limiting opportunities for female athletes nationally. The College Athlete Protection (CAP) Act aims to provide direct resources to revenue-generating sports such as football and basketball rather than all sports across college athletic programs. Supporters of the legislation argue that these student-athletes should receive a direct share of the money they are bringing into their schools. While the act aligns with growing opportunities to allow college athletes to maximize their “name, image, and likeness” (NIL), the legislation would also set a national precedent of legally undermining equity in college athletics.

I am a rising junior at Stanford University studying human biology and international relations, and for the past two years I have played for the women’s squash team. As a female South Asian American student-athlete, I have seen the power of sports to empower girls to grow not just as individuals but as contributors to society. Sports build confidence, inspire others to dream big and give women a platform to raise critical issues, proving that even in pursuing excellence, we are part of something greater than ourselves.

There is a lack of consensus on how colleges and universities should be involved in enabling NIL and enforcing Title IX, which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs” receiving federal funding. Legislation like the CAP Act works to overcome that ambiguity but fails to adequately consider the consequences that this redistribution of revenue would have on women’s sports, men’s Olympic sports and athletic programs overall.

The CAP Act walks back progress made toward equity since the 1972 passage of Title IX. As of 2022, more than 80 percent of Division I programs still fail to comply with Title IX. Title IX was enacted to foster equality across genders by uplifting female athletes without limiting opportunities for their male counterparts. However, passing the CAP Act will fail to address both of these objectives. The additional payments made to revenue-generating student-athletes, as well as compensation for female athletes, will make it harder for colleges and universities to support their overall athletics programs and will ultimately result in a decline in safety, transparency, quality and opportunities available to student-athletes across all sports.

These payments also launch a slippery slope toward professionalizing student-athletes and making them employees of their schools, raising greater questions about student-athlete compensation in the form of amenities and scholarships — and for international students who would then require permission to be considered employees in the U.S.

Ultimately, we are students and athletes, and our institutions should enable us to be both without allowing completion of our degrees to limit the athletic opportunities available to us.

Given my experiences competing as student-athlete and participating in designing an NIL curriculum for Stanford, I have come to see the critical role of institutions in enforcing compliance with Title IX, as well as the immense value of leveraging NIL — not just for student-athletes in revenue-generating sports, but for all student-athletes and the broader student body. There is a common misconception that NIL is limited to sponsorship deals reserved for top athletes, but in reality NIL allows everyone to establish their personal brands and build a platform to make their voices heard.

In a similar vein, funding toward degree completion — which the act includes to motivate student-athletes to come back and complete their degrees after pursuing an athletic career — should not be limited to athletes in revenue-generating sports, especially when many of these students already receive athletic scholarships. This policy does not account for the many other reasons that students may choose to take a break in their education. How is an athlete who chooses to turn pro different than a student who leaves school to pursue a startup, a musical career or employment to support their families?

Students should be supported in pursuing their degrees, and a “bill of rights” for students would bolster efforts to achieve equity, but enacting the CAP Act would limit me and other student-athletes in California, as well as set precedent to limit female athletes around the country in our ability to take part in the once-in-a-lifetime opportunities that college athletics provides. Given the novelty of the NIL space in college athletics, the steps we take now will set a standard for how schools should engage with and support all students while prioritizing Title IX.

NIL and equity are not mutually exclusive, and neither should be used as an excuse to compromise on the other. NIL provides unprecedented opportunities to student-athletes, and we should continue to explore ways to legally support students pursuing them, but the CAP Act is not the answer. Rather, we should strive for solutions that place equity at the forefront of maximizing NIL. We cannot let this bill deny student-athletes — and the young girls who will come after — the chance to reach our full potential.

Riya Mehta Saran is a rising junior at Stanford University.