Dep't of Education says Revenue-sharing should be subject to Title IX

Donate To GopherHole
Make football a club sport. No scholarships. Pay 105 football players the equivalent of a scholarship. Say 20k/yr. Any football revenue received would be going to a club team vice a scholarship sport so would not have to be title 9 compliant. Distribute all BIG football tv revenue directly to the club football team.

I’ll wait patiently for Bob to destroy my ridiculous proposal. 😂
 

SomeGopherFan said:
I think those offering their opinion were specific to the university side. From my recollection (...so take it for what it's worth - maybe I will try to revisit the arguments), they seemed to think this money would be considered outside of the opportunity Title IX dictates.

Also, as an aside, in thinking about this more, I am less sure of what the impact would be should this hold. Assuming the U would still max out, they aren't spending any more total than they were planning to spend. Perhaps they would just look at the 10.25 million they would be required to spend on women's revenue sharing as a sunk cost to be compliant in the same way they might see a women's rowing program today (...albeit this one would be more expensive and nonsensical...).
Click to expand...
I agree. Even more nonsensical. Everything has its limits. I'm thinking we've finally reached it. As Big Dawg just said, football (and men's basketball) will be carved off somehow.

Let's assume the federal law around Title IX is finally addressed. What is the outcome that you would predict? How can it reasonably be modified? I know it's been around for a long time, but maybe now things have finally gotten ridiculous enough for change. I'm hoping some of you smart legal people will reply. It's both fascinating and horrifying to me.
 

Slim Tubby said:
This is an interesting equation that simplifies a school's potential approach to these revenue sharing guidelines.

Football - 105 scholarships
Volleyball - 15 scholarships
Basketball - 13 scholarships each
Hockey - 20 scholarships each

We are now down to 186 scholarships which would quadruple the annual payments to each athlete. Cut every other program in hopes of maximizing the payouts and potential success of each remaining program?

For those here that know way more about this stuff, does this mean we would need to still maintain other Women's programs to balance out the extra 90 scholarships going to football?
Click to expand...
Dance. National champions.
 

Wouldn't the NAACP be against Title IX in this situation? Black men make up about 50% of D-1 football players and close to 60% of basketball players while only being about 14% of the US population. They are finally on the verge of being paid at least something remotely close to what they are worth by these huge universities and now Title IX is trying to take a big bite out of it.

Although not the emphasis of the below linked article, it states, “It must be emphasized that Black and White football players graduate at a higher rate than their male non-athletic peers in the student body within (Division I) schools."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/05/us/football-racial-disparity-trnd/index.html

Wouldn't, therefore, paying these players something nominal in addition to their scholarship increase graduation rates? As has been said before, Title IX isn't going to have a large impact on elite college football players that are getting a lot of NIL on the side, but that's not most football players. The NAACP has already locked horns with Title IX on other issues.

https://apnews.com/missouri-naacp-b...e-ix-process-a528afb8668147dd9ee686637e919935

I'm surprised we haven't seen them pop up on this issue. I'm admittedly way out of my depth here. It just seems like we've opened up a big, complex, bag of worms here.
 

Some of the takes on this thread are hilarious...
 


When a school provides athletic financial assistance in forms other than scholarships or grants, including compensation for the use of a student-athlete's NIL, such assistance also must be made proportionately available to male and female athletes," the memo said.
Click to expand...

The legislation is interpreted by politically appointed bureaucrats. If challenged in court the legislation/rule is interpreted via oftentimes tortuous logic by attorneys/judges, to fit their preconceived bias and outlook.

There is zero chance this new rule interpretation will survive the regime change intact. When the lawsuits come we’ll see what happens. The bolded is obviously ridiculous, far beyond the original spirit or intent of Title IX.
 

House settlement lead plaintiff hired gun/hopeful soon-to-be billionaire Kessler weighs in, curiously states antitrust claims have been resolved 🤔

Not too late to blow this thing up, folks. Blank sheet. Blue sky.

I may be the only one that finds this hilarious, but c’mon. Chaos.



Kessler, however, disagrees. “The injunction does not require the schools to spend the new compensation and benefits that are permitted to any particular group of athletes and leaves Title IX issues up to the schools to determine what the law requires,” he said. “We resolved antirust claims–not Title IX claims.”
 

I'll make the same post here as I made in the Unionization thread:

Before we get too far out in front of our skis on this, I would encourage you all to read the following, by sports law attorney and journalist Michael McCann:

www.sportico.com

Dept. of Education’s NIL, Title IX Fact Sheet Deserves Scrutiny

While the fact sheet on NIL and Title IX compliance, issued Thursday, has attracted headlines, it's worth pausing to examine what it actually is.
www.sportico.com www.sportico.com

"Dept. of Education’s NIL, Title IX Fact Sheet Deserves Scrutiny

There are persuasive arguments that Title IX ought to apply to distributions from the NCAA’s pending settlement to resolve the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations.

But just because the Department of Education says Title IX applies, according to a fact sheet issued Thursday, doesn’t make it so. The DoE’s Office of Civil Rights published the memo in the waning days of a presidential administration, and it is not a law, regulation, opinion, ruling or other document that shapes the law.

Agencies can, and do, promulgate regulations, which have the force of law. Regulations are borne through a multifaceted rule-making process, which includes opportunities for stakeholders and the public to weigh in on how an agency has interpreted a federal statute. Required procedures are detailed in the Administrative Procedure Act, and they entail public notice via publication in the Federal Register, followed by a comment and review period and then issuance of a final rule that can be challenged in court by opponents. In short, there’s a lengthy, public-facing process with regulations and rules. "

(bold emphasis mine)
 

Pompous Elitist said:
The legislation is interpreted by politically appointed bureaucrats. If challenged in court the legislation/rule is interpreted via oftentimes tortuous logic by attorneys/judges, to fit their preconceived bias and outlook.

There is zero chance this new rule interpretation will survive the regime change intact. When the lawsuits come we’ll see what happens. The bolded is obviously ridiculous, far beyond the original spirit or intent of Title IX.
Click to expand...
100% agreed.

Not to mention, back when the Title IX law was being written, debated, and enacted, there wasn't even a glint in anyone's eye about how much college sports would be popular TV broadcasts in the first place (the source of most of the money) -- let alone that there would be a thing called NIL!
 



MaxyJR1 said:
I read somewhere that potential formula that schools are looking at for spending the $20.5M was:

Roughly
75% Football ($15.4)
10% Men's basketball ($2M)
5% Women's Volleyball ($1M)
5% Women's Basketball ($1M)
5% Non revenue. ($1M)

Hockey schools would be at a disadvantage if Title IX plays into the formula.

Sample for B1G

2025 NCAA Revenue Sharing Estimates – Big Ten Schools – NCAA Revenue Sharing & NIL Estimates 2025

nil-ncaa.com nil-ncaa.com
Click to expand...
This is completely fair, equitable, and whatever word you want to use.

Almost all of the money that pays for this is coming from increases in TV contracts for broadcasting football games.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I'm someone who loathes Title IX, but it is current law and I actually agree with the DOE's memo. It's why I've been saying, since these litigations started, Title IX was going to be a massive barrier to this having realistic and rationale guardrails. I have not seen a single instance where the schools were not forced to distribute everything in an equitable fashion.

The thing that is stopping the athletes from making that claim is that it's hard to argue the schools are doing anything unfairly if they are simply following the law. The schools are being forced, legally, to distribute revenue share to non-revenue female athletes.
Click to expand...
As I said in the post above:

when Title IX was being written, debated, and enacted ... there wasn't even an idea of huge revenue from broadcasting college sports on TV in the first place, let alone that college athlete's NIL (if that was even a thing back then??) would be so valuable that schools would want to share some of that TV money with certain athletes to pay them to use their NIL.


I therefore disagree that Title IX applies to this revenue sharing scheme, on its face.

Any judge who agrees with me, I agree with them and I will declare that they got it right! :)
 

Absolute "worst case" what about this:

the money won't come from the schools anymore. It will come directly from the Big Ten. That's where the TV money goes "into" in the first place. It's the Big Ten's money. They then just split it up and write checks to the schools.

Take the rev share money out of the school's checks and give it to the athlete's right off the top.

Problem solved?
 

The bottom line is there are interested parties, many of them JDs, that are twisting Title IX to not only include any tv publicity rights revenue share but ALL NIL revenue due to collective and athlete association with the schools, from which the schools indirectly benefit. I suppose, from a certain POV, this makes sense. Does this make sense to the average person? I don’t know, you guys tell me.

An example of what’s out there. The authors are a JD professor of Women’s studies and an economics professor that cofounded a title IX advocacy group

msmagazine.com

The Latest Title IX Battleground: Publicity Rights in College Sports

Most institutions today are failing to support female athletes equally to males in publicity, promotion, recruiting and athletic financial aid. These failures are now significantly compounded by a new form of inequality: payments to student athletes for use of their names, images and likenesses...
msmagazine.com msmagazine.com
 
Last edited:



Pompous Elitist said:
The bottom line is there are interested parties, many of them JDs, that are twisting Title IX to not only include any tv publicity rights revenue share but ALL NIL revenue due to collective and athlete association with the schools, from which the schools indirectly benefit. I suppose, from a certain POV, this makes sense. Does this make sense to the average person? I don’t know, you guys tell me.

An example of what’s out there. The authors are a JD professor of Women’s studies and an economics professor that cofounded a title IX advocacy group

msmagazine.com

The Latest Title IX Battleground: Publicity Rights in College Sports

Most institutions today are failing to support female athletes equally to males in publicity, promotion, recruiting and athletic financial aid. These failures are now significantly compounded by a new form of inequality: payments to student athletes for use of their names, images and likenesses...
msmagazine.com msmagazine.com
Click to expand...

Women may not have the law on their side but they bloody well are going to do whatever they can to turn the politics in their favor by reminding universities, politicians, and NIL business donors that they have power and influence at the ballot box and where they choose to spend their money. Leaving women college athletes out of the NIL gold rush is not going to last long term.
 

Go4Broke said:
Women may not have the law on their side but they bloody well are going to do whatever they can to turn the politics in their favor by reminding universities, politicians, and NIL business donors that they have power and influence at the ballot box and where they choose to spend their money. Leaving women college athletes out of the NIL gold rush is not going to last long term.
Click to expand...
Is Caitlin Clark broke? I think she's doing quite well.

Women's basketball is doing great.
 

Go4Broke said:
Women may not have the law on their side but they bloody well are going to do whatever they can to turn the politics in their favor by reminding universities, politicians, and NIL business donors that they have power and influence at the ballot box and where they choose to spend their money. Leaving women college athletes out of the NIL gold rush is not going to last long term.
Click to expand...
Having an honest discussion about college athletics and revenue generation/sharing as it pertains to gender will find you downstairs sleeping on the couch in a hurry.
 


GopherGrit said:
I'll make the same post here as I made in the Unionization thread:

Before we get too far out in front of our skis on this, I would encourage you all to read the following, by sports law attorney and journalist Michael McCann:

www.sportico.com

Dept. of Education’s NIL, Title IX Fact Sheet Deserves Scrutiny

While the fact sheet on NIL and Title IX compliance, issued Thursday, has attracted headlines, it's worth pausing to examine what it actually is.
www.sportico.com www.sportico.com

"Dept. of Education’s NIL, Title IX Fact Sheet Deserves Scrutiny

There are persuasive arguments that Title IX ought to apply to distributions from the NCAA’s pending settlement to resolve the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations.

But just because the Department of Education says Title IX applies, according to a fact sheet issued Thursday, doesn’t make it so. The DoE’s Office of Civil Rights published the memo in the waning days of a presidential administration, and it is not a law, regulation, opinion, ruling or other document that shapes the law.

Agencies can, and do, promulgate regulations, which have the force of law. Regulations are borne through a multifaceted rule-making process, which includes opportunities for stakeholders and the public to weigh in on how an agency has interpreted a federal statute. Required procedures are detailed in the Administrative Procedure Act, and they entail public notice via publication in the Federal Register, followed by a comment and review period and then issuance of a final rule that can be challenged in court by opponents. In short, there’s a lengthy, public-facing process with regulations and rules. "

(bold emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
Law (to the extent the action is constitutional) overrides rule, but I doubt Congress will intervene here. I think there's a lot of overreaction going on because this falls into the area of "guidance."
 

Go4Broke said:
Women may not have the law on their side but they bloody well are going to do whatever they can to turn the politics in their favor by reminding universities, politicians, and NIL business donors that they have power and influence at the ballot box and where they choose to spend their money. Leaving women college athletes out of the NIL gold rush is not going to last long term.
Click to expand...
Probably Reason #1 why Congress won't intervene.
 

Go4Broke said:
Women may not have the law on their side but they bloody well are going to do whatever they can to turn the politics in their favor by reminding universities, politicians, and NIL business donors that they have power and influence at the ballot box and where they choose to spend their money. Leaving women college athletes out of the NIL gold rush is not going to last long term.
Click to expand...

They haven’t been left out. The schools have given the athletes every opportunity to market themselves, promoted their sports to a reasonable extent. Every single women’s sport at the U loses money. Not even remotely close to breaking even. The old opportunity equaling outcomes debate gets tiresome. Reasonable people (some of them) can disagree on Title IX.

If we look I’d bet we can find many instances of unequal opportunities, awards, services. The sticking point here is the outsize dollar amount generated by the huge interest in college football and basketball. Disney ain’t knocking on the gymnastics team door. That’s just the way it is. Trying to appropriate the dollars generated by the revenue athletes is probably not fair or in any way going to increase interest in non-rev/women’s sports.

That said, it looks like we’re hurtling towards an employment model with potential to be catastrophic to non-rev sports and maybe revenue sports at many schools.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
well, this could gum things up. the US Department of Education has issued guideance to schools on the revenue-sharing payments scheduled to begin this year under the 'House' settlement - stating that the payments must follow Title IX guidelines. from ESPN:

The plans that many major college athletic departments are making for how they will distribute new direct payments to their athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a memo published by the U.S. Department of Education on Thursday.

the Office for Civil Rights -- the division of the Department of Education that enforces Title IX law -- said in its memo Thursday that those future payments should be considered "athletic financial assistance" and therefore must be shared proportionally between men and women athletes.

"When a school provides athletic financial assistance in forms other than scholarships or grants, including compensation for the use of a student-athlete's NIL, such assistance also must be made proportionately available to male and female athletes," the memo said.

The memo provides some long-awaited guidance about how gender equity laws will apply to a new era of college sports that is on track to begin this summer. It's not clear if the Department of Education will interpret Title IX law the same way when incoming President Donald Trump's administration installs new officials in the near future.

The NCAA and its power conferences have agreed to allow each school to share up to $20.5 million in direct payments to its athletes via name, image and likeness deals as one of the terms of a pending antitrust settlement. Many schools from those power conferences have developed plans to distribute the majority of that money to athletes in sports that generate the most revenue -- mostly football and men's basketball players.

In some cases, athletic directors have publicly shared that they intend to provide upward of 75% of that money to their football players.

Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs. If 50% of a school's athletes are women, then 50% of the school's financial aid for athletes must be allotted to women.

The memo is not as clear in providing guidance on how payments from booster collectives closely associated with their schools are impacted by Title IX law. It states that the department does not consider money provided by a third party in an NIL deal as athletic financial assistance like the future revenue sharing payments or scholarship dollars.
Click to expand...
There is no teeth behind a 'memo' released immediately before a new administration takes over.
 
Last edited:


You all forget Monday is coming. Income in>>>income out. Real world economics. Move on folks.
 


Slim Tubby said:
Honest question...how many women's college basketball programs are operating in the black?
Click to expand...
hello-world said:
Minnesota women’s basketball lost $4.1M last year and $5M in 2023.
Click to expand...
You guys are right. I overstated it.

CC herself is obviously doing great.

I'm sure a few college programs are doing really well. Iowa (now), UConn, South Carolina, some others. Don't follow or know that for the WNBA, guessing at least a couple franchises are doing relatively well? I was wrong to state it as generally as I did.

I do think the sport is becoming more profitable than women's sports have usually been. Agree?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
They haven’t been left out. The schools have given the athletes every opportunity to market themselves, promoted their sports to a reasonable extent. Every single women’s sport at the U loses money. Not even remotely close to breaking even. The old opportunity equaling outcomes debate gets tiresome. Reasonable people (some of them) can disagree on Title IX.

If we look I’d bet we can find many instances of unequal opportunities, awards, services. The sticking point here is the outsize dollar amount generated by the huge interest in college football and basketball. Disney ain’t knocking on the gymnastics team door. That’s just the way it is. Trying to appropriate the dollars generated by the revenue athletes is probably not fair or in any way going to increase interest in non-rev/women’s sports.

That said, it looks like we’re hurtling towards an employment model with potential to be catastrophic to non-rev sports and maybe revenue sports at many schools.
Click to expand...
Many DII and DIII schools will drop varsity athletics if it otherwise means that student-athletes are employees of the school, with all the legal rights/requirements that employees are due and employers are required for follow.

Probably some low-major DI schools too, particularly the ones that are small-ish private schools that don't really look much different than high-level DIII schools but by some twist of history decided to be DI decades ago and have just kept going with it.
 

GopherGrit said:
Many DII and DIII schools will drop varsity athletics if it otherwise means that student-athletes are employees of the school, with all the legal rights/requirements that employees are due and employers are required for follow.

Probably some low-major DI schools too, particularly the ones that are small-ish private schools that don't really look much different than high-level DIII schools but by some twist of history decided to be DI decades ago and have just kept going with it.
Click to expand...

Intramurals are great
 

GopherGrit said:
I do think the sport is becoming more profitable than women's sports have usually been. Agree?
Click to expand...
No, because to be ‘more’ profitable they have to be profitable in the first place and they’re not. Minnesota could have kept Hetherman if they weren’t burning $5M per year on the lady Gophers. They are taking football fan money and giving it to other programs while not putting the best possible coaching staff together. It’s ridiculous.

Also, this isn’t a sexism thing. I feel the same way about non-revenue men’s sports. Women’s basketball just happens to be the biggest offender.
 
Last edited:

I recall an article from a couple years ago stating Nebraska volleyball was the only profitable women's program across all women's sports among the power conference schools. It wouldn't surprise me if that is still true today.
 

SomeGopherFan said:
I recall an article from a couple years ago stating Nebraska volleyball was the only profitable women's program across all women's sports among the power conference schools. It wouldn't surprise me if that is still true today.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I've heard softball at some southern or West Coast schools were profitable. Softball gets quite a bit of air time on ESPN in the spring.

Edit: I take that back. I checked EADA and no softball programs technically operated at a profit per their data. Schools like Florida State and Alabama produce $4M-$5M in revenue but the data has expenses perfectly offsetting for zero profit/loss. There's a bunch of revenue that doesn't get allocated to specific sports (TV and donation stuff?) so it's hard to know.
 
Last edited:

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom