What began as a campaign to save a single collegiate sports program has expanded into a broader challenge to the University of California, Davis, with advocates now alleging systemic gender inequities in athletics that could expose the university to significant legal risk.
Parents and supporters seeking to reinstate the university’s NCAA Division I women’s equestrian team released a detailed statement this week outlining what they describe as longstanding disparities in funding, treatment and institutional support for women athletes.
The claims arrive at a pivotal moment, as UC Davis faces a potential Title IX lawsuit led by one of the nation’s most prominent civil rights attorneys.
“We are absolutely disgusted by what we continue to uncover about how UC Davis treats its women athletes,” the group said. “Title IX requires universities that receive federal funding to provide equal opportunities, financial aid, and treatment to male and female student-athletes.”
At the center of the dispute is the university’s decision to transition the women’s equestrian team from varsity to club status, a move advocates say not only eliminates opportunities for women athletes but also deepens existing inequities rather than resolving them.
The advocates’ statement draws heavily on data the university itself has reported to federal authorities. According to those figures, women athletes — who make up a majority of varsity participants — receive a smaller share of athletic financial aid.
“From the 2019–20 through 2023–24 academic years, UC Davis shorted women athletes between $317,970 and $490,026 each year,” the statement said.
The financial disparities extend beyond scholarships.
“Women comprise approximately 59% of UC Davis student-athletes but receive only about 49% of the athletic operating budget,” the group said. The statement added that “UC Davis spends roughly $19,706 per male athlete compared to $13,247 per female athlete, with projections indicating the gap may widen next year.”
Recruiting resources show a similar imbalance.
“Despite women representing the majority of athletic participants, only about 24% of recruiting dollars are allocated to women’s programs,” the advocates said, describing a structural disparity that affects which athletes can be recruited and retained.
The allegations align closely with those detailed in a March 16 letter sent to UC Davis Chancellor Gary May by Arthur H. Bryant, a veteran Title IX attorney who has built a national reputation litigating gender equity cases against universities.
Bryant and his co-counsel state in the letter that they have been retained by members of the equestrian team and are prepared to pursue a class action lawsuit if the university does not address the issues.
In that letter, Bryant argues that UC Davis is failing to meet its obligations under Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funding. He cites both internal university reports and federally mandated disclosures as evidence of disparities in financial aid and treatment.
Bryant’s involvement marks a turning point in the dispute, elevating it from a campus-level controversy to a potential legal battle with broader implications for college athletics.
Over decades of litigation, he has successfully challenged universities across the country, often securing reinstatement of women’s teams and court-ordered reforms.
Advocates say the current situation at UC Davis echoes patterns that have led to findings of Title IX violations elsewhere. They also point to the university’s own history.
“In 2012, the university paid $1.35 million to settle with the Department of Justice after a court found it had failed to adequately expand athletic opportunities for female students between 1998 and 2005,” the statement said.
The settlement required UC Davis to implement a decade-long plan to bring participation rates for men and women into compliance.
“It is particularly concerning that one of the sports added during that period is now being eliminated,” the group added, suggesting that the university may be reversing progress it was previously required to make.
While financial data forms the backbone of the advocates’ claims, the statement also describes disparities that extend into the daily experiences of athletes.
“Anonymous women athletes report that men’s teams frequently receive charter flights and higher-quality hotels, while women’s teams often travel on less direct flights and stay in lower-cost accommodations — even leaving in the early hours of competition days,” the group said.
Facilities are another point of concern. In Bryant’s letter, he describes situations in which women athletes lack basic amenities, including locker rooms and access to running water at certain facilities, while men’s teams benefit from significantly greater investment.
Public visibility, too, has become part of the debate.
“Over the past two years, approximately 98% of Athletic Director Rocko DeLuca’s Facebook sports posts have promoted men’s teams, and nearly 95% of athletics department YouTube videos in the past year have featured men’s sports,” the advocates said.
The lack of recognition was particularly striking, they said, in the case of the equestrian team itself.
“The UC Davis Division I Women’s Equestrian team — after winning their final home meet, remaining undefeated in conference play, and entering the conference championship as the number one seed — received no recognition from UC Davis Athletics on social media.”
For supporters, these disparities reflect not isolated decisions but a broader institutional pattern. The potential elimination of the equestrian team, they argue, must be understood within that context.
“This issue should not be framed as a choice between sports,” the statement said. “UC Davis can support both the STUNT program and the Women’s Equestrian team while fully complying with Title IX.”
“Eliminating a women’s varsity team does not resolve existing equity concerns and may further exacerbate them,” the group added.
The dispute is unfolding at a moment of significant change in college athletics, as universities prepare to distribute new forms of compensation to athletes following the House v. NCAA settlement.
In his letter, Bryant warns that if those funds are not distributed in a manner consistent with Title IX, they could create additional legal exposure for UC Davis.
At the same time, advocates say they have attempted to resolve the matter without litigation.
“Attorneys, industry experts, and state legislators have reached out to the university to address these concerns without litigation, urging UC Davis leadership to pause the planned elimination of the equestrian program while these issues are reviewed,” the statement said.
Those efforts, they added, have been complicated by delays in obtaining public records related to the university’s decision-making process.
“Repeated delays in fulfilling public records requests have raised serious concerns,” the group said, pointing in particular to questions about an independent report released Feb. 17, 2026.
Supporters noted that metadata associated with the report suggests it was created late on the day of its release, raising uncertainty about whether it had been finalized when the decision to eliminate the team was announced.
Advocates say the stakes in this dispute extend beyond a single team.
“These ongoing disparities highlight a clear failure to uphold the principles of Title IX,” the statement said.
“UC Davis has an opportunity — and a responsibility — to ensure equitable treatment for all student-athletes,” the group continued. “We call on the university to pause the elimination of the Women’s Equestrian team, review its policies and budget allocations, and take immediate steps to address these long-standing inequities.”
“The achievements of women athletes should be celebrated, not overlooked, and their programs should receive the support they rightfully deserve.”
Whether the university chooses to negotiate or defend its position in court, the outcome of the dispute could carry consequences not only for UC Davis but also for how colleges nationwide navigate the evolving demands of Title IX in an era of shifting financial and competitive pressures.