Women's sports are more popular and marketable than ever — but that doesn't translate to equal pay

Hey there! In today’s newsletter, we’re taking a deeper look at women’s sports, NIL pay disparities and Title IX with insight from conversation with Michael LeRoy, a labor expert and professor at Illinois who has studied, researched and written about employment law through the lens of college sports for more than a decade. He’s also been quoted in ESPN, the New York Times and Politico, among many other outlets. Let’s get into it.

— Deyscha

Over the past few years, the growth of women’s sports has been monumental. The 2024 women’s basketball championship game between Iowa and South Carolina averaged 18.9 million viewers, which marked the first time that more people watched the women’s title game than the men’s. Last year’s title game between the Gamecocks and UConn saw a dip in viewership, with an average of 8.5 million viewers, but even so, the entire 2025 women’s tournament was the second most-viewed tournament on record. 

The 2025 Women’s College World Series was the most-watched WCWS ever, with viewership on ESPN up 24 percent from 2024. And the 2025 women’s gymnastics championship was the second most-viewed championship ever, with the final peaking at 1.5 million viewers, ESPN’s highest rating for the sport.

In terms of spectators, the 2025 NCAA women’s lacrosse championship between UNC and Northwestern set the record for the most spectators at a title game, with 14,423. Fun fact: I was there, watching with my sister, and I can confirm that it was way more packed than past years (and also really fun)!

With so much momentum and growth, I’ve been thinking a lot about how NIL and revenue sharing will continue to play out in women’s sports. Female athletes are inking deals, starring in commercials and serving as brand ambassadors, but what do the actual numbers look like now that schools have started to pay athletes directly? 

Last week, I ended a virtual conversation led by Opendorse and Women Leaders in Sports, a nonprofit focused on empowering women in sports business, titled “The Power of Women’s Sports for Commercial NIL.” It began by breaking down how schools are allocating the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap this year. According to the data presented:

• 63.8% of revenue-sharing funds are going to football

• 20.9% goes to men’s basketball 

• 8% goes to women’s basketball

• 7.3% goes to all other sports

Are these numbers surprising, given what we already know? No, but they do show the harsh reality of money in college sports, especially for women. Illinois professor Michael LeRoy has written about this pay disparity extensively, including in a piece published in May in the University of Cincinnati Law Review.

When I spoke to him this week, LeRoy explained how in 2023, he received anonymized data from a Power Five program (he can’t say which) after submitting a FOIA request, which showed that male athletes made 10 times more than female athletes in NIL deals. LeRoy also pointed out that in court documents from the House settlement, he noticed men were issued nearly 10 times more back damages than women.

“For power conference schools, it is structurally impossible to meet the market demands of paying football players and men's basketball players while also complying with Title IX requirements for equal benefits,” LeRoy said, discussing the post-House settlement landscape. “Even if the NIL pay situation improves for women, it’s hard to see how NIL pay for women will be equalized to men,” he added.

So where does Title IX fit into all of this? The House settlement doesn’t address Title IX claims, and in February the Department of Education rescinded guidance that stated payments should be proportionate. So now, colleges might have to choose between Title IX compliance and competition. “You can have one or the other, but you can't have both,” LeRoy said. “If you want to have compliance, you have to sell your football players and your men's basketball players woefully short. If you want to compete in football and men's basketball, there just isn't any possibility of equalizing out or being equitable to women.” 

For instance, AJ Dybantsa, the BYU freshman hooper projected to be a top prospect in next year’s NBA draft, is slated to earn more than $5 million in total compensation this year, according to CBS Sports. That figure includes revenue sharing payments, front-loading from BYU's collective and marketing deals with major brands like Red Bull. No female college athlete is expected to earn anywhere near that much.

In terms of marketability, LSU’s Flau’jae Johnson, a national championship-winning guard, has more followers on social media than most other high-earning college athletes, including Texas quarterback Arch Manning. This is another point LeRoy made: Female athletes typically have significantly larger social media followings then male athletes. He mentioned former college basketball players Hanna and Haley Cavinder and former LSU gymnastics star Olivia Dunne, who built massive social media followings while also benefitting from NIL through deals and endorsements. “The anecdotal evidence is still that among college-age users of social media, women seem to be more active, seem to be more marketable and more market-savvy,” LeRoy said. In 2024, of the 30 Wooden Award finalists, the five players on the Wooden Award with the most social media followers were all women.

But despite the fact that some of the top women's players are earning big money — and many women's players are highly marketable on social media — those numbers Opendorse shared proves equality is a long way off.