A group of eight current and former female athletes has appealed the recently approved House v. NCAA antitrust settlement, contending that the accord violates Title IX. The notice of appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenges U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s decision last week to grant final approval to the landmark pact, which is designed to compensate student-athletes for past restrictions on name, image and likeness (NIL) earnings and to establish future revenue sharing. The athletes argue that the deal’s payment formula discriminates against women, citing figures that direct about $2.4 billion of the settlement’s roughly $2.8 billion in back pay to male athletes while allocating just $102 million to women. Their attorney, Leigh Ernst Friestedt, said the disparity “constitutes a violation of Title IX,” the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at educational institutions receiving federal funds. Because of the appeal, distribution of back-pay awards that was scheduled to begin in late July will be placed in escrow until the legal challenge is resolved. The move does not affect the agreement’s separate provision allowing schools to start sharing new revenue with athletes on 1 July, a key element of the NCAA’s revised compensation model. NCAA attorney Rakesh Kilaru said the association is confident the settlement will withstand judicial scrutiny. Legal analysts note that proceedings in the Ninth Circuit could take years, prolonging uncertainty over how—and when—billions in past NIL compensation will ultimately reach athletes.