The allocation of resources and participation opportunities in intercollegiate athletics has been a debate among researchers for nearly 40 years. Title IX and traditionally male-dominated budgeting practices continue to be opposing forces that shape the financial and gender makeup of university athletic departments. In fact, the need to be Title IX compliant often dominates discussions when structural changes occur in athletic departments. This case study analyzed the decision making process of distributing resources and participation opportunities at Division I University from 1998 to 2007 based on John Rawls’ arguments about distributive justice. Division I University administrators focused on the substantiality proportionality clause of the three-part test as the only method to comply with Title IX. The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act and other gender equity reports completed during certification play an important role in the decision making process. The analysis of the decision making process showed that Title IX was used as a political tool to deflect the controversy of program elimination. This analysis also showed that program elimination was not necessary in order to maintain Title IX compliance. Thus, the decision to eliminate sports was a violation of Rawlsian justice.