The NCAA’s Emerging Sports Process: A System Designed to Serve the Few

The NCAA’s Emerging Sports Program was created to level the playing field for women’s sports, providing a pathway for underrepresented athletic opportunities to grow into fully sanctioned championship sports. In theory, this initiative should reward perseverance, expansion, and demonstrated interest. In reality, it functions as a gatekeeping mechanism, where access isn’t based on merit but on connections, financial backing, and institutional priorities that have little to do with equity. The double standard in how sports gain traction—whether it be rugby, equestrian, or now, flag football—exposes an approval process that is anything but fair.

A System of Selective Advancement

To understand why some sports flourish while others languish, one must first examine the approval structure. Emerging sports require at least 20 varsity programs to be recognized, but they must reach 40 programs before being eligible for NCAA championship status. Theoretically, this ensures that only sustainable sports move forward. However, history tells a different story. Some sports, like women’s rugby and equestrian, have spent decades fighting to reach the necessary benchmarks, only to be met with bureaucratic delays, moving goalposts, and outright dismissal.

Meanwhile, other sports—like beach volleyball—received a fast track. With minimal data, no requirement to prove grassroots expansion, and a well-connected NCAA insider leading the charge, beach volleyball ascended from an emerging sport to a championship sport in under five years. It wasn’t about meeting participation thresholds—it was about who was in the room and who was willing to advocate for them.

Rugby’s experience in the process is a prime example of this inequity. Despite years of dedicated outreach, detailed financial projections, and clear evidence of high school and collegiate interest, the NCAA’s Committee on Women’s Athletics responded with indifference. The message was clear: rugby didn’t have the right connections, and therefore, it wasn’t a priority.

Why Flag Football is Different

Enter flag football—the latest so-called “emerging sport” that has sidestepped nearly every barrier its predecessors faced. Unlike rugby or equestrian, flag football wasn’t left to struggle for institutional support. Instead, it has been ushered in with a national marketing campaign, financial backing from the NFL, and a full-throated endorsement from NCAA leadership, including President Charlie Baker.

Flag football hasn’t had to prove sustained growth. It hasn’t had to attend meetings where advocates are ignored or patronized. Instead, it has been granted instant legitimacy, with NCAA administrators pushing the narrative that this is the future of women’s sports.

Why? Because flag football serves a larger purpose: it protects men’s football.

The NFL’s investment in flag football isn’t an altruistic effort to grow women’s sports—it’s a calculated strategy to safeguard football’s pipeline. High school football participation is declining, with parents increasingly wary of the dangers of full-contact play. By promoting girls' flag football, the NFL ensures that future mothers—who may have played the sport at the high school or college level—are more likely to encourage their sons to play tackle football.

At the same time, flag football provides a convenient Title IX compliance loophole. Schools struggling to balance football’s massive roster numbers can add 85-115 female flag football athletes, artificially “balancing” gender equity numbers while freeing up institutions to cut other non-revenue sports.

The  NCAA’s  Real  Priorities

The message from NCAA leadership is clear: some sports have to fight for every inch of progress, while others are handed a golden ticket. Women’s rugby, equestrian, and other sports have spent years proving their worth, only to be ignored. Meanwhile, flag football bypasses the entire process and is catapulted into the spotlight.

This isn’t about growing women’s sports—it’s about maintaining the status quo. The NCAA isn’t prioritizing the best interests of female athletes; it’s prioritizing money, legal protection, and institutional convenience.

For decades, emerging sports have been told they need to prove their viability. But if flag football’s meteoric rise tells us anything, it’s that viability was never the real requirement—only connections, financial backing, and a willingness to serve the NCAA’s larger agenda.

The approval process isn’t broken; it’s working exactly as intended. It just wasn’t designed to be fair.