The playing field has never been level in Division I athletics, whether the discussion is about Power 4 schools vs mid-majors or men vs women. Santa Clara head softball coach Gina Carbonatto laid out how difficult it is for mid-majors to compete when she visited Tucson in 2025 for the Broncos’ first ever NCAA postseason appearance.
“The university speaks for itself,” Carbonatto said as her team prepared to face Arizona last season before the House settlement went into effect. “I never have a recruit
that doesn’t say, ‘It’s gorgeous here. I’d love to get a degree here. Wow. This is fabulous.’ It’s can it work both academically and athletically and financially? Because we’re underfunded. So right now, the NCAA still limits us to 12 scholarships. We have nine, you know. And what comes forth with the settlement that the NCAA may change to 25 scholarships. We’re still going to be at nine, and so to find the right kids that can compete has been hard.”
That kind of imbalance exists within states, as well. NAU does not have the resources to offer the same benefits as ASU. As for what Arizona offers, it’s anyone’s guess.
While both NAU and ASU provided information on the number of scholarships offered by their athletic departments since the House settlement went into effect, the University of Arizona has refused so far. Arizona has incorrectly claimed that such information can’t be released due to FERPA.
FERPA is the federal law that protects the personal educational and financial information of individual students and (in the case of minors) their families at American K-12 and higher education institutions. It protects things like transcripts and financial information that is tied to an individual. For example, although coaches often publicize when an athlete moves from walk-on to scholarship status or when they offer a specific recruit, it still could conceivably be argued that stating the exact dollar amount of the aid an individual athlete gets is a FERPA violation. Stating that women’s basketball has 15 scholarships to award is not. This type of information has been public for decades, but the House settlement made it more difficult to ascertain.
State open records laws vary for public institutions across the country. Private institutions can generally withhold such data based on their states’ public records laws. Arizona, ASU, and NAU are all public institutions that are subject to Arizona’s open records laws, but institutions across the country commonly try to use FERPA to dodge state open records requests even when it is not applicable. These battles can move to court if the media outlet has the legal wherewithal to fight, but many institutions roll that dice that the outlet will not or cannot fight them.
To the credit of ASU and NAU, they are not doing that in the case of scholarship allocations by sport. Both released the information with NAU doing so within 24 hours. Arizona denied an open records request for such information last October, citing FERPA as the primary reason.
Arizona also claimed that releasing such information would not be in the “best interest” of the state of Arizona. That caveat to the state’s open records law is not meant to shield institutions from legitimate questions about their operations and how they affect matters of public interest.
A second request to the University of Arizona, entered on July 12, has not been acted on.
The information released by two of the state’s three public universities gives some insights into what has changed since House. These changes have an impact on important questions, like the balance of aid offered to men vs women and how mid-majors who don’t opt into House are being affected by the settlement.
By looking at how things operated under the old system and using information gleaned from other sources, it may be possible to make educated guesses about what is happening in some athletic programs at UA. There is a much more concrete view of what is happening at ASU. NAU’s release shows just how much mid-majors have stacked against them if they hope to compete.
Before House, Arizona sponsored 18 sports, eight for men and 10 for women. The eight men’s sports could offer up to 141.2 scholarships under NCAA rules. The 10 women’s sports sponsored by Arizona could offer a total of 123.5 scholarships under the pre-House rules.
In the spring of 2022, former Arizona athletic director Dave Heeke said that Arizona was adding another women’s sport because “we know we need to do better” with Title IX compliance. That sport was triathlon.
Triathlon’s 6.5 scholarships were added to the list beginning with the 2023-24 academic year, bringing women a bit closer to men in regards to the total number of scholarships that were available at Arizona. There was still a deficit of 17.7 scholarships, but that was a decrease from a 24.2 deficit. The difference between the number of scholarships offered to men and women could amount to six figures of additional scholarship money going to male athletes each year.
How has that changed since House? It’s really difficult to tell across the entire Power 4 landscape, but it’s even more difficult to know in a single state with just three public universities.
When the settlement was proposed, it was obvious that it would become more difficult to track how women were being supported even within the Power 4 leagues because it would vary so widely from one institution to another. Departments could also throw roadblocks into attempts to finding out, such as claiming that the law forbade release; that has long been a tactic across higher education.
At first glance, some things stand out about ASU’s offerings that suggest more support is being offered to female athletes in Tempe than in Tucson. ASU’s release also shows that while there isn’t a huge gap between the number of scholarships offered to men and women, women are much more likely to get a partial scholarship than men.
Male athletes are not just getting most of the revenue share money, they are also getting more in scholarship money every year. Without knowing the exact dollar amount attached to each scholarship, it’s not possible to determine exactly how much more.
A rough estimate can be made based on public cost of attendance numbers, though. ASU’s online tool estimates the cost of attendance for an in-state undergraduate at about $38,000 per year. An out-of-state student is expected to pay about $60,000 per year. The costs for tuition, fees, and books are estimated to run $14,854 to $16,134 for in-state. For out-of-state, those costs total between $38,392 and $40,582. Just 10 extra COA scholarships for one group tilts the financial imbalance by as much as $600,000. At Arizona, the difference is even more extreme because out-of-state cost of attendance is higher. An extra 10 full scholarships at UA could amount to almost $680,000 in additional aid for the group in question.
How Arizona is doing in that regard to the balance of aid offered to men and women is harder to pin down. The judge in the House case threw the onus on women at the institutions to fight yet another battle for equity, but the difficulty in getting data from Arizona shows just how challenging that is going to be.
In the run-up to the House settlement, Arizona was already telling coaches what they could expect to receive when it was finalized. Women’s basketball was an anomaly, since it did not change; the 15 full rides offered before House were equal to the 15 roster spots outlined by the settlement. Unless a school docked scholarships from the women’s program, it would likely continue to offer up to 15 full rides.
The Arizona volleyball program shared the number of scholarships it was expecting during the preparations for the settlement. Gymnastics did not give the exact number, but the program did not expect all 20 roster spots would be fully funded. Head coach John Court discussed how merit aid, the academic aid that is given to all students who qualify and is separate from athletic aid, could be used to get as many gymnasts as possible to full cost of attendance.
At the time, Wildcat volleyball was told that they would not receive any of the $15.5 million in direct revenue share that is paid to players. The team would benefit in some ways with expanded scholarships coming out of the $5 million allocated to that purpose. Some players would also benefit from the $5 million set aside for “Alston” payments by the House settlement. Head coach Rita Stubbs expected to receive an extra 2.75 in scholarships for her program, bringing up the scholarship allocation to 14.75 from the 12 allowed prior to House. That money could be spread to as many as 18 athletes allowed for volleyball under the roster limits.
A full cost-of-attendance scholarship would need to cover between $37,270 (in-state) and $67,770 (out-of-state) per year at Arizona if the student lives on campus. At Arizona, how much of those costs are covered are up to the coach’s discretion unless all roster spots have fully funded scholarships. While the department refuses to release information about how many sports have all roster spots fully funded, available information suggests that most do not. Except for women’s basketball, none of the women’s sports covered by Arizona Desert Swarm appeared to expect all of their roster spots to be attached to full scholarships during discussions in the spring of 2025.
The change at House may have actually diminished the balance between individual male and female athletes at Arizona. While men, as a group, were receiving more aid in total prior to House, as recently as 2020, the average award to an individual female athlete was $3,o00 more than the average award to a male athlete. Arizona was in the top 25 in the dollar amount of individual athlete aid that year.
The 15.5 million allocated to direct revenue share payments to players goes to football, men’s basketball, baseball, women’s basketball, and softball at Arizona. Over 90 percent is believed to go to football and men’s basketball. When baseball is added, that means the total percentage allocated for women is in mid- to low-single digits.
At Arizona State, volleyball received the full 18 scholarships allowed under House. All 18 are “cost of attendance” (COA) scholarships. None of the 18 volleyball scholarships are partial awards, which ASU refers to as “tuition, fees, and books” (TFB) scholarships. Whether the Sun Devils volleyball players are also receiving direct NIL-based revenue sharing payments isn’t clear, but they are already significantly ahead of Arizona simply by approving the full 18 scholarships allowed by House at a cost-of-attendance level.
ASU has expanded the cost-of-attendance scholarships across the board despite carrying six more sports than Arizona. All 105 football players receive COA scholarships, as well as 34 baseball players, 15 men’s basketball players, 26 men’s hockey players, 20 men’s wrestlers, 15 women’s basketball players, nine women’s golfers, 25 softball players, and 18 volleyball players.
Except for wrestling, all of these sports are receiving COA awards for the full roster limit allowed under House. In total, there are 200 COA spots for men and 67 for women in this group of eight sports, but that imbalance is partially mitigated by the other 15 sports sponsored by ASU.
Those sports have their scholarships split between COA awards and TFB awards. Men’s golf receives five COA and two TFB scholarships. Men’s tennis gets five COA and three TFB. Men’s swimming and diving gets 10 COA and 10 TFB awards. Men’s track and cross country receive a combined 13 COA and 13 TFB. Beach volleyball is allocated six COA and six TFB awards. Triathlon gets seven COA and five TFB. Women’s gymnastics gets 12 COA and four TFB scholarships. Lacrosse gets 12 COA and 13 TFB awards. Women’s swim and dive receives 14 COA and 12 TFB. Soccer has 18 COA and four TFB. Women’s tennis has eight COA and two TFB. Women’s track and cross country combine for 20 COA and 15 TFB. Water polo has eight COA and 10 TFB.
In total, this group of 15 sports offers 138 COA scholarships and 99 TFB. Of those, 33 COA awards go to men and 105 go to women. Men receive 28 TFB awards while women get 71. Across all 23 sports, ASU offers 233 COA awards to men and 172 to women, an imbalance only partially addressed by the additional 43 TFB scholarships allocated for women’s sports.
Based on ASU’s published numbers for cost of attendance vs tuition, fees, and books, the TFB scholarships are expected to cover approximately $20,000 per year less than the full cost of attendance. Men are still receiving a higher number of scholarships, most of which are funded at the full cost of attendance.
Unless or until Arizona chooses to release its scholarship allocations, it’s impossible to know how the Wildcats are doing in this arena. It’s clear that in at least one women’s sport, ASU is doing a far superior job giving its head coach the financial means to succeed. It could be why ASU volleyball has skyrocketed to the top of that sport in the past three years, regularly pulling in top transfers and hosting NCAA Tournament matches, while Arizona is still hovering around the NCAA bubble.
Whatever ASU’s advantages over Arizona in scholarship funding, the advantage the Sun Devils have over the lone public mid-major in the state is even more extreme. While some mid-majors opted into the House settlement, NAU was not among them. That means the Lumberjacks operate under the old scholarship limits that used to apply across Division I. As the case of Santa Clara reveals, those limits were guidelines, though. Some mid-majors have never been able to fully fund the number of scholarships allowed by the NCAA.
For NAU, that gap between mid-major and Power 4 leagues is evident even in what is supposed to be the biggest sport. While the old system allows 85 football scholarships, the Lumberjacks allocate just 63. Men’s basketball offers the full 13 scholarships. Men’s track and cross country offer 12.6. Men’s tennis gives out 4.5 scholarships. That totals 93.1 scholarships on the men’s side.
The Lumberjacks sponsor eight women’s teams compared to five for men (with track and field and cross country being counted as separate on both sides, although their scholarships are combined). The women get 15 scholarships for basketball, eight for tennis, 12 for volleyball, 18 combined for track and cross country, six for golf, 14 for soccer, and 14 for swimming and diving. That comes to 87 scholarships for women.
NAU is providing almost 50 percent of its scholarships to women, but the introduction of roster limits at the Power 4 level puts it considerably behind ASU in the number of scholarships it offers in the sports that both departments sponsor. This has widened the competitive imbalance that existed even before the House lawsuit.
The Sun Devils offer 42 more scholarships than the Lumberjacks just in football, a gap that has almost doubled since the introduction of the House settlement roster limits at the Power 4 level. In volleyball, they offer six more, amounting to a 33 percent advantage in aid offered. Even in sports that offer the same number of full rides, like women’s tennis, the addition of TFB scholarships at ASU means the Sun Devils can bring in more talent than their fellow in-state program.
This story will be followed up if Arizona responds to the second open records request by releasing the information already received from ASU and NAU.
