“You still can’t eat if you split a penny.”

This quote from USC basketball legend Cheryl Miller sums up the predicament in which women athletes are often forced to settle for less, which is exactly what is happening in the ongoing name, image and likeness debate.

Just this month, a federal judge granted preliminary approval to a nearly $3 billion legal settlement allowing student-athletes to be paid directly by their universities starting as early as Fall 2025. The measure would also reimburse former college athletes dating back to 2016 for compensation they potentially missed out on as a result of NIL only recently being legalized.

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

At first glance, this settlement appears to be a significant win for student-athletes, as current and former college athletes are projected to benefit from a windfall of billions. However, as we have seen in the past, with litigation and legislative efforts related to NIL, women athletes may be shortchanged.

One of the main reasons that this recent judgment has become so controversial is that 90% of the funds are projected to go directly into the pockets of male ex-collegiate football and basketball players, raising concerns not only about the ethics of this case but also its compliance with Title IX. Only 10% of the multibillion-dollar settlement will be left to divide among women and men who played other sports.

The compensation division is based on the level of broadcasting revenue each sport, men’s or women’s, brought in from 2016 onwards. The settlement is meant to reflect how much money players could have made during their time as student-athletes if they had the ability to take advantage of NIL deals and other marketing opportunities.

With the ability for universities to pay their athletes closer to reality than ever before, this uneven distribution is setting a dangerous precedent for future sex-based discrimination in college sports.

NIL is already on the verge of violating Title IX regulations, as men are outearning women at alarming rates. This settlement reinforces a pattern in which women are expected to be content with any inclusion in profit at all rather than striving for equity.

I recently reached out to Miller, a legend of women’s sports, to get her perspective on NIL and the many new issues it raises.

“I hope women don’t take the bait through statements like, ‘Oh, women’s basketball generates more revenue than women’s volleyball, or golf, or maybe a little more than tennis,’” Miller said. “That’s where they get us, trying to [make us] bicker [among] ourselves, instead of saying, ‘No, it needs to be an equal share of an equal pie.’ That’s what they’ve done for decades now.”

Miller stresses, and I agree, that it is critical that the pie be equitably distributed. It is impossible to compare the revenue generation of men’s and women’s sports, particularly since women have only recently begun to receive the necessary resources to successfully generate revenue.

Historically, women’s sports have been blatantly underfunded and overlooked, making any direct comparison with men’s sports — which have been championed since their inception — deeply misleading.

Additionally, the settlement, which only compensates athletes who competed in the last eight years, raises critical questions about fairness and recognition of all ex-NCAA athletes, but again, more disproportionately women athletes. This is particularly important when considering the legacy of outstanding women’s sports teams from past decades with players who were true trailblazers.

The one team that immediately came to mind for me was USC’s women’s basketball dynasty in the 1980s. In 1983, the Trojans took home the national championship, dropping only two games the entire season and having three players named to All-American teams.

In 1984, the Trojans took home another national title. These two teams were led by one of the greatest women’s basketball players of all time, who not only developed the legacy of USC’s program but also completely changed the sport, taking it to a new level of popularity.

This player was, of course, Miller. She collected a long list of accolades during her time as a USC athlete, such as Naismith Player of the Year in 1984 and Most Valuable Player of the NCAA Tournament in both 1983 and 1984.

Women athletes like Miller, who made their sports what they are today, would have benefited greatly from NIL had it existed during their time in college. How is it equitable for players who created legendary athletic dynasties to be completely omitted from the compensation pool? How could we even put a dollar amount on what players like Miller did for women’s athletics? Miller and other athletic superstars of the late 20th century quite literally put women’s sports on the map, yet they are excluded from the ongoing lawsuit. 

During our conversation, Miller expressed concerns surrounding the evolving landscape of NIL and its impact specifically on women’s collegiate athletics. She believes that we need strong leaders at the forefront of this debate who have the best interests of women athletes in mind and continue to push for equality.

“When it comes to equity in our situations, we need women who are not only fiscally responsible but also think outside the box and know how to [secure even more] than we deserve,” Miller said. “Along the way, I hope we can use the resources we do receive to help grow each and every women’s sport.”

Unfortunately, this multibillion-dollar settlement is just another missed opportunity to level the playing field between men’s and women’s athletics. It continues the long, historic tradition of undervaluing women’s sports. I encourage my fellow women athletes not to go quietly and settle for a short-term payout, as there are long-term consequences that will hugely impact the future of women’s athletics.

Sloane Morra is a senior giving her opinions and perspectives on current issues in women’s sports through her column “Second Serve,” which typically runs every other Friday.