Cutting Olympic Sports to Pay Players: Stephen F. Austin and Title IX

Timeline

1. May 22, 2025SFA announces it will drop bowling, men's and women's golf and beach volleyball.
2. Jul 2025Female athletes file a Title IX class action (local reporting).
3. Aug 2025The district court orders the women's teams preserved while the case is pending.
4. Sep 2025The Fifth Circuit grants SFA a stay pending appeal (divided panel).
5. Dec 4, 2025The Fifth Circuit vacates the injunction as insufficiently specific and remands.
6. Mar 13, 2026SFA agrees in court to continue its existing women's teams until the lawsuit is resolved.
7. Jun 2026The district court lets two athletes' claims proceed and dismisses others as moot.

The ethical issues

• Who bears the cost of revenue sharing.
• Gender equity under Title IX.
• Commitments to athletes recruited into dropped programs.
• Financial sustainability vs. broad-based participation.
• Using litigation to preserve programs.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Athletes in cut sports	Their teams, scholarships and careers.
Revenue-sport athletes	Revenue-sharing payments.
The university	Financial sustainability and compliance.
Women athletes broadly	Equal opportunity.
Coaches and staff	Their jobs.

The case

The House v. NCAA settlement allowed schools to share revenue directly with athletes. For schools already running deficits, that raised a hard question: where would the money come from? At Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA) in Texas, part of the answer was cutting sports, and the cuts led to a Title IX lawsuit.^[1][2]

Background

On May 22, 2025, SFA announced it would reduce its sports by four, effective at the end of the academic year: bowling, men’s and women’s golf, and beach volleyball. It said the decision was “based on sustained departmental budget deficits and the anticipated financial impact of upcoming revenue-sharing requirements with Division I athletes.”^[1]

The athletic director said the department had already cut expenses, especially travel, but “those efforts have not been enough.” SFA said it would honor scholarships for athletes who stayed to graduate and support those who wished to transfer.^[1] It described itself as joining “a growing number of institutions” dropping teams amid the financial pressures tied to the $2.8 billion House settlement.^[1]

A national pattern

SFA was not alone. The settlement, approved on June 6, 2025, allows schools that opt in to share up to $20.5 million with athletes in 2025–26, and it reduces the annual distributions conferences receive from the NCAA, which is paying the damages.^[5] In May 2025, the head of the American Volleyball Coaches Association told a Knight Commission panel that 32 Division I Olympic-sport programs had been cut since the settlement was announced, and Saint Francis University moved 22 Division I programs to Division III because it could not afford the new terms.^[5] Coaches’ associations for volleyball, wrestling, track and field, and swimming warned that “program eliminations have already taken place in anticipation” and that “more are likely to follow.” Front Office Sports also noted that many Olympic sports cost relatively little in departments with eight- or nine-figure budgets.^[5]

Revenue sharing was optional. Of the Division I schools that had to decide by June 30, 2025, 310 opted in and 54 opted out. Some opted out because joining would have required cutting roster spots, and with them tuition-paying students.^[6]

The underlying numbers

The pressure predates revenue sharing. The NCAA’s own 10-year finance report shows that in 2024 the median Football Bowl Subdivision school generated just over $82 million against almost $110 million in expenses, a negative net generated revenue of about $25 million; only 21 FBS schools generated more than they spent. In the Football Championship Subdivision, where SFA competes, expenses exceeded generated revenue at all but one school, and the median shortfall was about $16.8 million. Over the decade, FCS schools’ median generated revenue grew 47% while median expenses grew 57%.^[8] Across Division I, 37% of the nearly $20.5 billion in total athletics revenue in 2024 was “allocated” revenue from institutional or government support and student fees rather than money the departments generated themselves.^[8]

The first revenue-sharing year

The first year of payments showed the strain even at well-funded schools. In February 2026, North Carolina State projected an $18.5 million athletics deficit on $126.1 million in revenue. The expenses included $18 million in direct payments to athletes: $13 million to football, $4 million to men’s basketball and $1 million to women’s basketball. The university had already given athletics $5 million that year. Its athletic director said the department would “fight and claw our way to a balanced budget” through seat-donation requirements, concerts and a possible stadium naming-rights deal. The cap on revenue sharing rises to $21.3 million for 2026–27.^[9]

Schools without football revenue felt it more sharply. In May 2026, Wichita State eliminated men’s golf, a program dating to 1935, and women’s golf, dating to 1974. The Wichita Eagle reported that the two programs had about $1.1 million in assigned expenses and a combined deficit of nearly $800,000 in the latest year, and that the athletic department’s net position had fallen from more than $13 million in 2019 to $1.42 million by 2024. The athletic director cited “long-term financial sustainability” and rising travel costs alongside “NCAA distributions that are diminishing,” and said: “Eliminating opportunities is the last thing an AD wants to do.” The cuts left Wichita State with 14 sports, the Division I minimum.^[10]

The rules and governance

Title IX bars sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Its athletics regulation requires schools that sponsor sports to “provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes.” The first factor regulators consider is “whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes.”^[2][7] Female athletes at SFA filed a class action alleging that the cuts violated Title IX.^[2] According to local reporting, the suit alleges that women make up 63% of SFA’s undergraduates but receive 45.6% of athletic opportunities, and that SFA would need to add 223 opportunities for women to comply.^[4] These are allegations, not findings.

The litigation

After a hearing, the district court ordered SFA to “preserve the women’s beach volleyball team, women’s bowling team, women’s golf team, and all other women’s varsity teams” while the case was pending. A divided Fifth Circuit panel stayed the order.^[2]

On December 4, 2025, the Fifth Circuit vacated the injunction because it did not say what SFA had to do. “Must SFA hire a new coach, and if so, by what date?” the court asked of the already-discontinued bowling team. It noted that courts may order schools to preserve or reinstate teams cut unlawfully, but that such orders usually set specific benchmarks and deadlines. It expressed no view on whether an injunction should issue.^[2]

Aftermath

SFA had committed to field women’s golf and beach volleyball, and on March 13, 2026, it agreed in court to continue funding its existing women’s teams until the lawsuit is resolved.^[3][4] In June 2026, the district court dismissed as moot the claims of plaintiffs who had graduated or exhausted their eligibility, but let two athletes’ claims proceed. It rejected SFA’s argument that reinstating teams ended the case, saying SFA had not shown the alleged conduct could not recur.^[4]

The core dilemma

A school with deficits wants to pay revenue-sport athletes and stay solvent. Cutting sports saves money but takes opportunities from athletes who generate little revenue, and may violate gender-equity law. Who should bear the cost?

Competing values

• Financial sustainability vs. broad participation.
• Paying revenue-sport athletes vs. opportunities for others.
• Gender equity vs. institutional discretion.
• Commitments to recruits vs. changing circumstances.

Strongest arguments

For the cuts: a school cannot spend money it does not have; honoring scholarships shows good faith.

For the athletes: cutting women’s teams at a school allegedly already short of equity shifts costs onto those with the least power.

Middle ground: cost savings elsewhere, phased changes, or cuts that do not deepen gender gaps.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks whether costs fall fairly, especially on women athletes.

Utilitarianism

A utilitarian lens weighs savings against lost opportunities.

Ethics of care

A care lens focuses on athletes whose plans were upended.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are an athletic director facing a deficit and revenue-sharing costs. Stakeholders include athletes in all sports. Less visible are future women athletes. The codes are Title IX and NCAA rules.
2. Gather facts. What is your participation gap? Beware assuming cuts are the only option.
3. Test options. (a) Cut sports. (b) Cut costs elsewhere. (c) Share less revenue.
4. Check codes and law. Check Title IX compliance before any cut.
5. Decide and document. Record your reasoning.
6. Communicate and follow up. Tell affected athletes early and support them.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: SFA’s stated reasons; the Fifth Circuit’s ruling; SFA’s agreement to maintain its women’s teams.
• Contested: whether SFA violated Title IX (unresolved); whether revenue sharing requires cuts.

Why this case matters

The SFA dispute shows the hidden costs of paying athletes and how equity law shapes who pays.

Key terms

Title IX

The 1972 U.S. law barring sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, including school and college athletics.

Distributive justice

Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.

Commercialization

The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Duty of care

The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Is it fair for athletes in non-revenue sports to bear the cost of paying football and basketball players?
2. Should a school with persistent deficits be required to keep sports it cannot afford?
3. How should Title IX apply when cuts affect both men's and women's teams?
4. What does a school owe athletes it recruited into a program it later cuts?

Sources

1. SFA Announces Sports Sponsorship Changes (May 22, 2025) — Stephen F. Austin State University Athletics
2. Myers v. Stephen F. Austin State University, No. 25-40487 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2025) (unpublished) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
3. SFA agrees to continue women's golf, beach volleyball until lawsuit resolved (Mar. 13, 2026) — KTRE
4. Federal judge rules two athletes can continue discrimination lawsuit against SFA (Jun. 16, 2026) — KTRE
5. Olympic sports face cuts in wake of House v. NCAA settlement (June 2025) — Front Office Sports
6. Every Division I school's revenue-sharing decision for 2025-26 (July 18, 2025) — Sportico
7. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41, Athletics — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
8. Division I Athletics Finances: 10-Year Trends from 2015 to 2024 — NCAA Research
9. NC State athletics faces budget deficit in first year of revenue sharing, unequal ACC distribution (Feb. 19, 2026) — WRAL
10. How Wichita State's golf cuts reveal harsh new math in college sports (May 6, 2026) — The Wichita Eagle