Press Releases

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (MA-03), the only former Division I woman athlete in Congress, raised concerns during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on college sports about schools’ plans to adopt a revenue-sharing model that would shortchange women athletes and violate Title IX.

"Thanks to Title IX, I became the first in my family to graduate from college—an opportunity made possible by a scholarship to play Division I volleyball. Through that experience, I saw firsthand the transformative power of higher education and college athletics. That’s why I’m deeply troubled by the Trump Administration’s actions, which threaten to undermine higher education and strip future generations of the opportunities that athletes like me were afforded," said Congresswoman Trahan.

"If we’re serious about establishing fair federal standards on NIL, revenue-sharing, or athletes’ employment rights, then athletes themselves must be at the center of these conversations. Otherwise, we risk undoing the tremendous progress made in recent years with one-sided proposals that fall far short of what our nation’s athletes deserve."

Trahan’s line of questioning can be viewed by clicking HERE or the image below. A transcript is included below.

In November, Trahan led members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus in requesting that the U.S. Department of Education issue guidance on how Title IX applies to college athlete pay. Following the lawmakers’ request, the Department issued a fact sheet clarifying colleges’ obligation under Title IX to offer equal opportunity to college athletes with respect to publicity, support services, Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) offerings, and direct payments. In February, the Trump Administration rescinded the guidance, arguing that it lacked “a credible legal justification.”

Earlier this year, Trahan reintroduced the Fair Play for Women Act to close Title IX loopholes that deprive women and girls of athletic opportunities in college and K-12 sports. Last year, she invited University of California, Los Angeles Quarterback Chase Griffin to testify before Congress in opposition to legislation that would curtail athletes’ rights. The next month, she Last year, she partnered with Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) to reintroduce the College Athlete Economic Freedom Act, legislation they first introduced prior to the Supreme Court’s Alston v. NCAA decision to establish an unrestricted federal right for college athletes to market their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), grant international athletes the right to monetize their NIL, and place sensible guardrails on collectives.

—-------------------------------------------

Congresswoman Lori Trahan

Remarks as Delivered

Energy & Commerce Committee Hearing

March 4th, 2025

Congresswoman Lori Trahan: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for our witnesses today, especially our players. The state of college athletics, while imperfect, it's better today than it was four years ago. Now it may not be better for the people who have historically benefited from the guise of amateurism, but it's certainly better for athletes, and those are the folks who have always created the value in this industry. But while I celebrate the progress, I remain concerned about the inequities that persist in college athletics, and with respect to NIL, I worry that universities’  plan to finally share revenue directly with athletes could again short change women at a time when women's sports are seeing a massive surge in popularity. Mr. Whitman, are you aware of the tentative agreement in the House v. NCAA lawsuit that will require the NCAA to pay out nearly $2.8 billion in damages to current and former athletes dating back to 2016 with 75% going to football players, 15% for men's basketball players, 5% for women basketball players, and 5% for all other athletes?

NCAA DI Council Chair Josh Whitman: I am aware. Yes.

Congresswoman Lori Trahan: I figured, then you – and great. I wouldn't expect any other answer. You must also be familiar with the filing in that case by Barbara Osborne, an independent Title IX specialist with extensive experience auditing collegiate institutions who study the House settlement terms. If the lopsided terms of the House settlement were used in an institution, Ms. Osborne claimed she would have advised the institution that they were violating Title IX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter Miss Osborne's report on the gender inequities present in the House settlements revenue model into the record. Thank you. Mr. Whitman, you advocate that Congress codify a revenue sharing framework, that is, and I'm quoting here from your testimony, largely in line with what is contemplating by the House settlement. Your testimony comes amid reports that Power 5 schools like the University of Georgia are already planning to use those same thresholds in their future revenue sharing model scheduled to take effect later this year. Mr. Whitman, can you understand why many current and former women athletes like myself are alarmed that NCAA institutions and leaders are adopting a revenue sharing model that only gives women at most 10%?

NCAA DI Council Chair Josh Whitman: Thank you for the question Congresswoman. This is an issue that has weighed heavily on our campuses as we have tried to evaluate how to apply, – excuse me –  an old, a 50 year old law to a new set of facts that weren't contemplated when that law was passed. We have worked very earnestly to consult with a variety of different counsel to gain some clarity on that issue, and all that we have learned through those conversations is there seems to be some lack of consensus around exactly how that law will apply to these new opportunities that we can make available to our student athletes. What we know is that we're seeing an explosion in popularity in women's sports. We know that people who work in college athletics remain very strong champions of advancement in our women, amongst our women's teams. But we also see that we are faced with some, some really challenging balancing of equities in a case like this one. If we were to apply Title IX in the sense that of the traditional financial aid balancing proportionality, we would potentially be diverting money away from the athletes who generate that revenue, many of whom are student athletes of color, many of whom come from underprivileged backgrounds. On the flip side, we  understand that if we were to maintain those revenues with the student athletes who generate it, we wouldn't be potentially passing as much of it along to our female student athletes. And so it creates a really challenging dynamic for us to navigate on campus. What we know – 

Congresswoman Lori Trahan: Which is why I asked that question, because, as you're aware, in your role as Director of Athletics, Title IX requires that if a school awards financial assistance to athletes, they must, quote, provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics, end, quote. Surely the model that Georgia and other schools plan to use cannot comply with Title IX.

NCAA DI Council Chair Josh Whitman: We don't think that's been identified or established. We think there's a lack of clarity around how Title IX will apply to these new payments. We currently comply with Title IX, we're required to comply with Title IX, we have every intention of continuing

Congresswoman Lori Trahan: Well at a time when women haven't seen their fair market value because they've never had the benefit of promotion or boosting, at a time when women's Fandom of college sports is surging, I would hope that we would not base forward looking and forward looking frameworks for how we're going to distribute those revenues based on a model where women were short changed. So I thank you for the extra time, Mr. Chairman and I yield.

###