Proactive Title IX Compliance After the SDSU Athletics Settlement

In April 2026, San Diego State University (SDSU) entered into a court-approved settlement resolving Title IX class action claims alleging systemic disparities in athletic financial aid awarded to female student-athletes. In a first-of-its-kind outcome, SDSU agreed to pay $300,000 to former female student-athletes. Although SDSU denied liability, the settlement signals a shift associated with athletic scholarship compliance risk.  

The settlement comes against the backdrop of two recent federal executive orders (Urgent National Action to Save College Sports, April 3, 2026, and Saving College Sports, July 24, 2025), which aim to preserve scholarship participation opportunities for women’s and non-revenue sports. 

Taken together, the settlement and this broader policy landscape offer an important compliance lesson for institutions seeking to avoid similar exposure.

The Law

Title IX regulations require that athletic financial assistance or scholarship (used interchangeably) be awarded in proportion to male and female athletic participation rates (within 1%).1 Athletic scholarship compliance is data-driven and depends on accurate, annual reconciliation of participation numbers and total aid awarded.  

Institutions that rely on informal budgeting practices, fail to integrate roster management into scholarship planning, or tolerate recurring proportionality gaps may face heightened legal risk. 

What Should You be Doing on Campus? 

1. Conduct Annual Scholarship Proportionality Audits

   Institutions should perform annual audits comparing athletic participation rates to scholarship allocations. These audits should be reviewed collaboratively by athletics, finance, legal, and Title IX leadership. 
   
   In addition, when conducting these audits, Division I institutions should carefully consider how direct payments to student‑athletes following the House settlement affect the Title IX analysis. An ongoing and key question is whether those payments are treated as athletic financial aid for Title IX purposes or whether those payments fall into a different category. For a deeper discussion of these issues, see our prior article: Title IX’s Journey in Higher Ed: From NIL Beginnings to the House Settlement (Part 2). 

2. Treat Proportionality as a Risk Metric

   Scholarship proportionality should be treated as a compliance threshold rather than a flexible guideline. Institutions should define variance thresholds that trigger review and corrective action and monitor trends over multiple years, not just snapshots.

3. Integrate Roster Management and Aid Planning

   Roster decisions(whether increasing or decreasing team sizes) can materially affect scholarship proportionality. Institutions should evaluate roster changes for Title IX impact in advance, coordinate headcount projections with scholarship budgets, and train athletics leadership on these compliance implications. 

4. Use External Equity Reviews Proactively

   Independent gender equity reviews are most effective when conducted voluntarily rather than imposed through resolutions or settlements. External reviews can identify emerging risks early and demonstrate good-faith compliance efforts. 

The SDSU settlement underscores that proactive Title IX compliance is far less costly than reactive remediation. Institutions that invest in routine audits and early risk detection can significantly reduce exposure while advancing gender equity in athletics.