UC Davis’ decision to reclassify its Division I women’s equestrian team to club status beginning in the 2026–27 academic year has drawn sharp criticism from athletes and supporters, who argue the move is based on conflicting data, inflated cost estimates and flawed reasoning, even as the university says the transition is rooted in long-term strategic planning and financial stewardship.
The program will continue competing at the varsity level through the end of the 2025–26 season before transitioning in July 2026, the university confirmed in its official statement on Feb. 17. UC Davis leaders acknowledged the decision is painful and disappointing for many and said it followed a comprehensive review that included detailed financial analysis and an independent assessment of the national competitive landscape.
On Feb. 17, UC Davis released a third-party report outlining the reason for the decision. According to UC Davis News and Media Relations, “club status allows students to continue participating competitively while operating under a different organizational and funding model than NCAA varsity sports.”
The decision has sparked significant backlash within the equestrian community, with athletes, parents and supporters arguing that it will fundamentally alter riders’ careers. In response to the report, advocates for reinstatement cited “conflicting data, faulty reasoning, and a pattern of inconsistent and inflated budget figures.”
Supporters note that the team’s accomplishments have often gone unrecognized and say athletes were informed midyear that their program would be replaced by STUNT, a Division I women’s sport derived from cheerleading. They argue the abrupt decision has disrupted athletes’ academic and athletic futures while undermining the university’s longstanding commitment to equestrian sport.
The university’s official statement said the decision was not made lightly and was driven by structural and sustainability considerations, including evolving NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) opportunities, finances, long-range athletics strategy and gender equity obligations. Varsity equestrian was described in the statement as among the most resource-intensive sports to sponsor at the NCAA level due to the specialized care, housing, veterinary services and training required for horses.
Financial data in the third-party report has become a central point of contention. The document claims the program costs $1.5 million annually, yet elsewhere lists $1.35 million.
Federal Equity in Athletics Data Analysis data reports $861,053, while independent public budget records suggest operating expenses closer to $500,000. The report provides no methodology to reconcile these discrepancies.
Supporters also question category-level spending figures. The report attributes $722,000 to equipment and $372,000 to “Other” expenses, amounts that far exceed comparable institutions, including California State University, Fresno, without explanation.
Critics argue these figures appear inflated, particularly since student-athletes contribute significant labor and facilities costs are budgeted separately.
Additional concerns center on factual inaccuracies. Supporters point out that the report misidentifies ECAC as Division III and compares UC Davis to IHSA-only programs such as Long Island University and Stonehill College. It also includes Dartmouth College, a single-discipline program requiring fewer athletes, potentially skewing roster and cost comparisons.
“We are not deterred by the release of this long-awaited report,” a statement from the Reinstate UCD Equestrian team reads. “If it truly strengthened the university’s case, it would have been released on January 9, but it wasn’t.”
In its official release, UC Davis noted that about 14 Division I institutions nationally sponsor dual-discipline equestrian under the National Collegiate Equestrian Association and that the sport has limited pathways to NCAA championship sponsorship or expansion. The university said the broader intercollegiate landscape, travel and scheduling realities also factored into its decision.
UC Davis remains fully compliant with Title IX requirements and said the choice to transition equestrian to club status “is not a reflection of choosing favorites” and “in no way does it diminish the value of Varsity Equestrian or the impressive accomplishments of its student-athletes.”
The official statement also emphasized that current varsity equestrian student-athletes will retain their financial aid, academic advising, tutoring and other institutional support services through the completion of their undergraduate degrees, in accordance with university policy. Student-athletes who wish to continue competing at the NCAA varsity level at another institution will be supported in exploring transfer opportunities consistent with NCAA rules and university procedures.
The university stressed that decisions of this nature are made with confidentiality and careful analysis before public announcement and that timing can feel abrupt to community members. It added that it respects First Amendment rights to advocacy and public expression, while condemning harassment, intimidation, threats or targeting of university employees or their families as contrary to its values.
Supporters have not limited their pushback to statements and petitions. Several members of the equestrian team have filed a federal lawsuit seeking reinstatement of the varsity program and a preliminary injunction to keep the team competing at the varsity level, alleging fraud, intentional misrepresentation and negligent concealment by university leaders.
The lawsuit claims UC Davis misrepresented material facts about the future of the program, inducing athletes to commit, enroll or remain at UC Davis under false pretenses and argues that monetary damages alone cannot compensate for the loss of NCAA eligibility, competitive opportunities, recruiting exposure and career trajectories associated with Division I athletics.
“For the media campaign, we’re really just making a lot of noise,” one equestrian alumna involved in advocacy efforts said, adding that the decision’s impact on athletes and their families has been profound.
UC Davis leaders say they acted in good faith, consistent with governance processes, ethical standards and institutional responsibilities, with the long-term interests of the broader university community in mind. The university said it remains deeply grateful to the equestrian student-athletes and coaches for their commitment, resilience and contributions to UC Davis athletics, and that the sport’s legacy will always be part of the university’s story.
The Reinstate UCD Equestrian team said it will continue to “demand UC Davis reverse their decision, and protect women’s sports.”