By Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D., Professor, Sports Media (retired) at Ithaca College, Senior Writer
In 2019, the University of Kentucky (UK) was accused by women athletes competing in the club sports of equestrian, field hockey, and lacrosse of falling short of Title IX’s requirement to treat women athletes equally in the area of athletic participation. Following a three-day bench trial in in 2023 before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Karen Caldwell agreed with the Plaintiffs that the UK athletic department was not meeting the first part of the three-part test to assess athletic participation. Known as the proportionality test, varsity athletic opportunities are expected to be offered to men and women athletes proportional to their enrollment in the undergraduate population. In 2022-2023, the year under review at the time, women received disproportionately fewer opportunities to compete in varsity sports due to a gap ranging from 3 to 7 percent that conservatively would have required the addition of 59 to 116 varsity roster spots for women (the addition of one or more teams with an average team size of 32 per team). [1]
The three-part test, however, is flexible, providing schools avenues to explain why athletic opportunities are not offered proportionately to women athletes. Thus, the burden fell on the Plaintiffs to demonstrate that there were sufficient interest and ability among women students to justify the school elevating equestrian, field hockey, and lacrosse to varsity status. University of Kentucky administrators fell back on the results of an annual student survey that purports to measure athletics interest and ability to undermine the Plaintiffs argument that there was a foundation to build on to elevate all three sports to varsity status. They pointed out that student responses to questions about previous level of achievement, willingness to abide by NCAA and SEC rules, and the failure of women club sport athletes to share their contact information with administrators did not support a decision to add these women’s teams. UK argued that self-reported interest from women athletes did not support a conclusion that women wanted those sports at the varsity level at Kentucky and if teams were formed, they would not compete successfully at the NCAA Division I level. Although the Plaintiffs identified methodological flaws in the survey and problems with the interpretation of data, Kentucky was successful relying on those data along with administrator assessments to defend their Title IX record, asserting that they complied because they were satisfactorily accommodating the interests and abilities of women athletes on their campus.
Upon appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, an opinion rendered on January 20, 2026, found the District Court had not erred in its assessment of the Plaintiffs claims. The University of Kentucky had not failed to meet the interests of women athletes in the contested sports. Plaintiffs had not made a persuasive case that there was sufficient interest to sustain viable women’s teams at the Division I level.
Reflecting on this case, there are several points worth considering. One is the nuanced argument the Parties made regarding how women club athletes establish bona fides as varsity athletes if they are competing at the club level. The criticism of the UK administration that the field hockey team was disorganized is an administrative issue, not an on-the-field player issue that suggests that athletes at the club level live double lives as managers as well as players. Their seeming lack of seriousness may be due to the double demands and the structure of the experience. And if the players are struggling to look more professional or serious when they don’t have the infrastructure to do so, there is a circularity there that entraps Plaintiffs in a web seemingly designed to ensure their failure to be recognized as varsity sports. In effect, women club sport athletes playing in the only arena available to them were being judged on a varsity standard when their only option to compete was at the club level. For those interested in survey design and analysis, what is to be made of UK issuing an anonymous survey and then penalizing athletes if they do not relinquish their names and contact information. The survey does not appear to signal anywhere that if a student group wanted to start a varsity sport or have their club sport elevated, their disclosure of personal information would be critical to that undertaking. Might that not raise issues around informed consent and how the data are intended to be used? Is it worthwhile asking students if they really understood the purpose of the survey given that there is an appearance that the survey is less about students participating and more about fan experience as evidenced in questions regarding attendance at games and the length of time students watched games on streaming apps? And how can athletes truthfully agree to follow NCAA and SEC rules when they are not under the umbrella of the NCAA or the SEC and have no education in what it means to agree to those terms?
An outstanding question regarding this case is whether the Plaintiffs will pursue another appeal filing a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
References
Niblock v. University of Kentucky, No. 24-6060 (6th Cir. 2026). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/24-6060/24-6060-2026-01-20.html
Elizabeth Niblock et al. v. University of Kentucky. United States District Court Eastern District of Kentucky. Findings of fact and conclusions of law. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-394-KKC.
[1] The University of Kentucky attempted to argue that they could include numbers for cheerleading, dance, and jv soccer. Judge Caldwell noted that even if Kentucky were to be permitted to do that, they would still fall short of the proportionality standard, thus the range in numbers from 59 to 116 varsity spots.
