MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
It's been four years since college athletes won the right to make money from their name, image and likeness, NIL. Now a landmark antitrust settlement will require the NCAA to shell out nearly $3 billion in back pay to current and former athletes dating back as far as 2016. But eight female athletes are appealing the settlement. It's estimated that around 90% of that back pay will go to men who have played football and basketball, which the female athletes say is a violation of Title IX, which bans sex-based discrimination in education. One of those athletes is Kate Johnson. She plays volleyball for the University of Virginia. When we spoke, she told me she believes this settlement, if approved in its current form, would impact women athletes for years to come.
KATE JOHNSON: If this is approved, then that is the future of college sports. And sports have played a pivotal role in my life. And I feel as though it is my duty to protect that for not only current female student athletes, but future. So this 90% not only affects this back pay, it affects the future of college sports, and that worries me for female athletes around the country.
KELLY: What about the argument that men's basketball and football bring in the most revenue in college sports? Why shouldn't those players get more of the back pay?
JOHNSON: I think that's really fair question. I kind of have two answers for this. One, I would argue against the argument that these players are bringing in money to the school. So if a fan tunes in to watch, let's say, a UVA basketball game, they're doing so because they are fans of the University of Virginia or fans of the basketball program itself, not necessarily fans of a specific athlete over the other. Not to mention these media deals were inked long before anyone really knew what athletes were going to play at what universities.
Second, going back to Title IX, it's been the law for over 50 years, and the argument that some programs or people or sports should be exempt from this has been going on since Title IX was approved over 50 years ago. But schools are getting - once again, are federally funded and are getting a lot of money in order not to discriminate against women in this sense. If this money was coming from a private source, let's say, a company like Nike, they could do whatever they want with it, but it's not. It's coming from a federally funded school, and they must comply with Title IX.
KELLY: What about the timing issue? Your appeal will pause the back pay, could stall payments for months as this plays out in court. Have you gotten any complaints that you're holding up the process for everybody else to get paid?
JOHNSON: We've heard some complaints, and while they're valid, I think what I would respond with is that we want everyone to get paid, but we want these payments to be equitable. The appeal affects 1.1 billion of a $2.8 billion settlement. And so we aren't appealing over trivial amounts of money, and we understand the seriousness of the settlement. But the difference, like I mentioned earlier, is tens of thousands of dollars per athlete.
KELLY: You know, among the questions that all of this is raising is whether sports that don't generate a lot of revenue could potentially be on the chopping block. The NCAA is raising questions about the price tag, whether all of this is going to bankrupt them. As somebody who plays volleyball, which is a fabulous sport, it does not bring in the money that college football does. Does that worry you?
JOHNSON: I wouldn't say I'm worried that volleyball is on the chopping block necessarily. And I understand that sports like basketball and football have a greater viewership and bring in more media revenue for the school. But in a Power Four conference, almost every single one of our games is broadcasted on ESPN, ESPN+ or some other streaming platform. And so - and I make the argument that we are watched by more than just family and friends. Like, the Nebraska Volleyball program filled an entire college football stadium. The Final Four for volleyball is being aired on ABC. And I think, as far as volleyball goes, I'm not worried. However, if this proposed settlement is accepted, there is danger of some sports being cut.
KELLY: Yeah. Big picture, how are you feeling about the future of college sports? I know you've got just a year left, but it's been such a monumental time in college sports, with the whole amateur student athlete model out the window at a lot of schools.
JOHNSON: Yes, I think college athletics is navigating unprecedented change right now, and this House vs. NCAA settlement is the beginning of a new era for amateur athletics. And I'm not feeling uneasy, just interested as to how it is going to play out. And as far as this appeal goes, I think my biggest concern right now is the future of women's sports and making sure the same opportunities I've had to compete at such an amazing university is available for future generations of women.
KELLY: Kate Johnson - she's on the University of Virginia women's volleyball team, and she is one of eight plaintiffs appealing the NCAA's $2.8 billion back pay settlement. Kate Johnson, thank you.
JOHNSON: Thank you so much for having me. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
