Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

As a response to the potential settlement of House v. NCAA, 12 formal objection letters were filed by female athletes and advocates contesting the settlement’s issues pertaining to gender inequity and Title IX compliance. Despite these efforts, the settlement was approved in June 2025. Therefore, the purpose of this critical discourse analysis was to assess how objections to the House settlement were framed, through the lens of frame alignment and Marxist feminism. Findings revealed that objectors used discourse and framing as a form of feminist resistance, contesting dominant capitalist-patriarchal power structures embedded within college sport. More specifically, objectors framed House as a fairness and morality issue that regresses gender equity, linking historical gendered struggles within collegiate sport with today’s inequities. Through these letters, objectors also described how House impacts other athletes from non-revenue sports, situating inequities in larger systems of unfairness, such as intraclass conflicts between athletes. However, objections were largely reformist, arguing for equity within the same collegiate sport structures that produced such marginalization. Thus, findings provide several implications, including calls for more critical and intersectional strategies for future resistance efforts. This study also offers extensions of frame alignment and Marxist feminism to sport communication scholarship.

Keywords

college sport litigation critical discourse analysis feminist theory framing theory Title IX

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

(2005). Feminist perspectives on power. In Zalta

E. N.

Nodelman

(Eds.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University Metaphysics Research Lab. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-power/

Axon

(2022, May 26). USA TODAY answers your questions about Title IX and its role in college sports. USA TODAY. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2022/05/26/title-ix-college-sports-questions-answered/9837129002/

Baker

S. B.

(2025, January 31). Objection. [objection letter]. In re House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

Black

W. L.

Ofoegbu

Foster

S. L.

(2022). #TheyareUnited and #TheyWantToPlay: A critical discourse analysis of college football player social media activism. Sociology of Sport Journal, 39(4), 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2021-0045

Brake

(2000). The struggle for sex equality in sport and the theory behind Title IX. U Mich JL Reform, 34(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.34.1.2.struggle

Breeding

Hardy

Taylor

Johnson

Drumm

Wannemacher

Baron

Hass

Appleman

Arnold

(2025, January 31). Objection to amended settlement agreement and opposition to final settlement approval based on failure to apply Title IX and request to speak at approval hearing. [Objection letter]. In re House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

Clotfelter

C. T.

(2019). Big-time sports in American universities. Cambridge University Press.

Coakley

J. J.

(2021). Sport in society: Issues and controversies. McGraw-Hill.

Collins

P. H.

(2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.

10.

Cummins

R. G.

Hahn

(2025). 10 years of communication & sport: A review of theory, method, and authorship. Communication & Sport, 13(5), 881–903. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795241293041

11.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2017). Critical race theory: An introduction. Press.

12.

Dellenger

(2025, June 7). NCAA's house settlement approved, ushering in new era where schools can directly pay athletes. Yahoo Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/ncaas-house-settlement-approved-ushering-in-new-era-where-schools-can-directly-pay-athletes-011814078.html

13.

Dodd

(2021, June 21). Supreme court cracks NCAA’s amateurism with unanimous decision allowing unlimited benefits tied to education. CBS Sports. https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/supreme-court-cracks-ncaas-amateurism-with-unanimous-decision-allowing-unlimited-benefits-tied-to-education/#:∼:text=The_0U.S._Supreme_Court_on,simultaneously_diminishing_the_NCAA's_power

14.

Ehrlich

S. C.

(2025). The tracker. The college sports litigation tracker. https://www.collegesportslitigationtracker.com/tracker

15.

Fairclough

(2000). Discourse, social theory, and social research: The discourse of welfare reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00110

16.

Fairclough

(2013). Critical discourse analysis. In Handford

Gee

P. G.

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 9–20). Routledge.

17.

Gamson

W. A.

Modigliani

(1994). The changing culture of affirmative action. In Burstein

(Ed.), Equal employment opportunity: Labor market discrimination and public policy (pp. 373–394). Walter de Gruyter, Inc.

18.

Garthwaite

Notowidigdo

M. J.

(2020, October 16) The COVID-19 pandemic is revealing the regressive business model of college sports. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-covid-19-pandemic-is-revealing-the-regressive-business-model-of-college-sports/#:∼:text=With_COVID_D19_shutting_off,households_and_to_wealthy_coaches

19.

Gellers

J. C.

(2015). Greening critical discourse analysis: Applications to the study of environmental law. Critical Discourse Studies, 12(4), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1023326

20.

Gimenez

M. E.

(2000). Marx, women, and capitalist social reproduction. Brill.

21.

Goffman

(1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.

22.

Harry

(2025). “You don’t want us to solve this”: Agenda setting in the federal hearings on name, image, and likeness. Communication & Sport, 13(4), 640–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795241265008

23.

Harry

Chang

Cunningham

M. G.

Cunningham

G. B.

(2025). Community politics and division I athletic departments’ gender equity practices. Journal of Sport Management, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2025-0053

24.

Harry

Graves

E. I.

Hall

(2022). Ambiguity and conflict in practice: A conceptual model for the equitable implementation of Title IX. Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education, 15(4), 332–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/26379112.2022.2134144

25.

Harvey

(2010). The enigma of capital: And the crises of capitalism. Profile Books.

26.

Hindman

L. C.

Keaton

A. C.

Walker

N. A.

(2025). “Slayyyed head to toe”: Social media discourses of blackness, queerness, gender, and the Women’s national basketball association draft. Journal of Sport Management, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2024-0068

27.

Knight Commission . (2025, Feb. 12). Brief on house v. NCAA settlement. Knight Commission. https://www.knightcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/KnightCommissionBrief_HousevNCAA_182025.pdf

28.

Koller

D. L.

(2010). Not just one of the boys: A post-feminist critique of title IX’s vision for gender equity in sports. Connecticut Law Review, 91(43), 403–456. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/91.

29.

Lavigne

(2025, February 12). Dept. of education revokes guidance on Title IX and athlete pay. ESPN. com. https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/43809645/dept-education-revokes-guidance-title-ix-athlete-pay

30.

Lehoucq

Taylor

W. K.

(2020). Conceptualizing legal mobilization: How should we understand the deployment of legal strategies? Law & Social Inquiry, 45(1), 166–193. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2019.59

31.

Lopiano

Woods

(2025, April 22). Objection. [Objection letter]. In re House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

32.

Lough

(2015). Effects of title IX on intercollegiate athletics, 1972-2012. In Comeaux

(Ed.), Introduction to intercollegiate athletics (pp.233-244). JHU Press.

33.

MacKinnon

C. A.

(1987). Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Harvard university press.

34.

Marx

(1867/1976). Capital: A critique of political economy. Vintage Books.

35.

McCabe Ernest

(2025, February 3). Objection. [Objection letter]. In re House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

36.

Menke

Dunn

Levy

Moore

Bishop

Barr

Yarich

Holp

Forman

Leak

Weidenbach

Hollingshed

Wheatley

(2025a, January 31). Objection to settlement agreement and opposition to final approval. [objection letter]. In re house v. National collegiate athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

37.

Menke

Dunn

Levy

Moore

Bishop

Barr

Yarich

Holp

Forman

Leak

Weidenbach

Hollingshed

Wheatley

(2025b, March 17). Menke-weidenbach objectors’ opposition to motions for final approval and reply to response to objections. [Objection letter]. In re house v. National collegiate athletic association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

38.

Menke

Dunn

Levy

Moore

Bishop

Carpender

(2024, August 9). Objection to settlement agreement and opposition to motion for preliminary settlement approval. [Objection letter]. In re house v. National collegiate athletic association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

39.

Meyer

E. J.

Quantz

(2021). Who is (not) protected by title IX? A critical review of 45 years of research. Teachers College Record the Voice of Scholarship in Education, 123(2), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812112300203

40.

Morse

(2024, May). College sports could see a dramatic change. Here’s what you need to know. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/sport/college-sports-settlement-house-v-ncaa-spt-intl/index.html

41.

National Women’s Law Center . (2022, October 31). Demand IX. https://nwlc.org/demand-ix/

42.

NCAA . (2025). Division I athletics finances: 10-year trends from 2015 to 2024. [Report]. https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/Finances/2025D1RES_DI-RevExpReport_Final.pdf

43.

NCAA . (2026a). NCAA demographics database. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2018/12/13/ncaa-demographics-database.aspx

44.

NCAA . (2026b). NCAA governance. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/9/governance.aspx

45.

NCSA . (n.d.). What is NCAA revenue sharing? Impact on recruiting explained. NCSA College Recruiting. https://www.ncsasports.org/blog/what-is-ncaa-revenue-sharing

46.

North

(2025, January 31). Objection. [Objection letter]. In re House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

47.

North

Nirundorn

Brooke Baker

McCabe Ernest

(2025, April 15). Objection. [Objection letter]. In re House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

48.

Ohl

Schoch

Bozzini

Viret

(2024). Advocating for athletes or appropriating their voices? A frame and field analysis of power struggles in sport. The Sociological Review, 72(3), 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261231217869

49.

Scraton

Flintoff

(2013). Gender, feminist theory, and sport. In Andrew

D. L.

Carrington

(Eds.), A Companion to Sport (pp. 96-111). Blackwell.

50.

Sethi

S. K.

Pericak

Felli

(2025). Capitalizing on sport labor migration: The role of ethnic capitalism in the discriminatory, regulatory, and exploitative environment for international college athletes in the United States. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 60(5), 811–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902241288267

51.

Snow

D. A.

Rochford

E. B.

Worden

S. K.

Benford

R. D.

(1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095581

52.

Southall

R. M.

Staurowsky

E. J.

(2013). Cheering on the collegiate model: Creating, disseminating, and imbedding the NCAA's redefinition of amateurism. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 37(4), 403–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723513498606

53.

Staurowsky

E. J.

Flowers

C. L.

Buzuvis

Darvin

Welch

(2022). The women’s sports foundation 50 years of Title IX: We’re not done yet executive summary and policy recommendations. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 30(2), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2022-0053

54.

Talty

(2025, June 7). The biggest winners and losers from house v. NCAA settlement: Amateurism is dead and the class divide grows. CBS Sports. https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/the-biggest-winners-and-losers-from-house-v-ncaa-settlement-amateurism-is-dead-and-the-class-divide-grows/

55.

Vogel

(2013). Marxism and the oppression of women: Toward a unitary theory. Brill.

56.

Voice in Sport . (2025a, January 31). Objection of voice in sport. [Objection letter]. In re House V. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

57.

Voice in Sport . (2025b, February 3). Objection of voice in sport. [Objection letter]. In re House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

58.

Women’s Sports Foundation . (2025, February 5). Objection of the Women’s sports foundation. [objection letter]. In re House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).

59.

Yan

Pegoraro

Watanabe

N. M.

(2018). Student-athletes’ organization of activism at the university of Missouri: Resource mobilization on Twitter. Journal of Sport Management, 32(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2017-0031

60.

Yanus

A. B.

O’Connor

(2016). To comply or not to comply: Evaluating compliance with Title IX of the educational amendments of 1972. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 37(3), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2016.1188601

Inequitable by Design: Framing,Marxist Feminism,and Objections to House v. NCAA

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References