California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) athletes have voiced strong objections to the NCAA’s $2.78 billion name, image, and likeness (NIL) settlement, expressing concerns over its detrimental effects on women’s sports and the resulting program cuts. During a recent hearing in a California federal court, these athletes argued that the settlement has led to inequitable reductions in athletic programs, particularly impacting female athletes.
In March 2025, Cal Poly announced the immediate discontinuation of its men’s and women’s swimming and diving programs, a decision attributed to anticipated financial strains stemming from the House v. NCAA settlement. This settlement is expected to impose an annual financial burden of at least $450,000 on the university’s athletic programs. Cal Poly President Jeffrey D. Armstrong highlighted the challenges posed by the evolving NCAA Division I landscape, emphasizing the significant financial impact of the settlement and the additional pressures from pending national class-action lawsuits against the NCAA. ([content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com](https://content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/president/1/documents/Announcements/03.07.2025%20Follow-Up%20on%20Budget%20and%20Organizational%20Changes%20vs%202.pdf?utm_source=openai))
The elimination of these programs has sparked significant backlash from the affected athletes. Former team members, such as Scott Iannaccone and Abigail Leight, have formally objected to the settlement, arguing that it disproportionately harms non-revenue sports and undermines the future of Olympic sports in the United States. Iannaccone emphasized the adverse impact on Olympic non-revenue sports, noting that college swimming and diving have historically been pipelines to the U.S. Olympic Team, and cutting such programs endangers American competitiveness on the world stage. ([swimswam.com](https://swimswam.com/former-cal-poly-swimmers-divers-commits-object-to-house-settlement-citing-lost-scholarships/?utm_source=openai))
Further complicating the issue, the settlement has raised concerns about compliance with Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs. Critics argue that the financial pressures resulting from the settlement may lead universities to make cuts that disproportionately affect women’s sports, thereby violating Title IX provisions. ([docs.house.gov](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20250304/117989/HHRG-119-IF17-20250304-SD003.pdf?utm_source=openai))
In response to these concerns, class counsel defending the settlement have stated that it specifically preserves class members’ Title IX rights. However, the practical implications of the settlement have led to tangible reductions in women’s athletic programs, prompting ongoing debates about the equitable distribution of resources and the future of non-revenue sports in collegiate athletics.
The situation at Cal Poly underscores the broader challenges universities face as they navigate the financial and legal complexities introduced by the NIL settlement. Balancing compliance with federal regulations, equitable support for all athletic programs, and financial sustainability remains a contentious and evolving issue within collegiate sports.