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

Donate To GopherHole

hello-world said:
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.
Click to expand...
Apologies, again I spoke poorly and used "profitable" instead of something like "increasing revenue".

I'm guessing two things are true:
- if WBB were only spending $3M instead of $5M, that would not give football an extra $2M to spend
- if Coyle/Fleck matched Miami's offer, Hetherman still goes to Miami.


So ... what is your opinion on the whole deal, then? If you had a magical power, would you have never allowed Title IX to become law?

Women's sports would be non-existent without it. I assume that's not what you would want?
 

To be sure, all the money in college sports in the last 10-15 years is because of the explosion in TV money.

And I agree 100% that that money is largely from college football and March Madness, with bits here and there sprinkled in. Don't disagree at all.

Title IX was originally seen about giving women opportunities to participate in varsity sport and have scholarships to do that. I would say that has been a smashing success.
 

GopherGrit said:
Apologies, again I spoke poorly and used "profitable" instead of something like "increasing revenue".

I'm guessing two things are true:
- if WBB were only spending $3M instead of $5M, that would not give football an extra $2M to spend
- if Coyle/Fleck matched Miami's offer, Hetherman still goes to Miami.


So ... what is your opinion on the whole deal, then? If you had a magical power, would you have never allowed Title IX to become law?

Women's sports would be non-existent without it. I assume that's not what you would want?
Click to expand...
This is a lie.

The University of Minnesota does not provide financial support to its athletics programs so the program has to be self-sustaining. The Gophers football team turned a profit of 43.3 million last year which was the primary source of funding covering 4M in losses for women's basketball and 25M in losses across all other sports.

Every dollar the Gophers spend on non-revenue sports is taken from the football or men's basketball teams.

Title IX is about equal access to education. The fact that its been perverted to do things like forcing athletics departments to subsidize travel, equipment, and scholarships for money-losing sports is ridiculous. The WBB team loses (not spends) $300K per player. It spends $450K per player. You cannot tell me that the University could not provide an elite student-athlete experience for WBB players on $150K per player per year and run the program in the black, but they don't.

I think a reasonable person could make just as strong of an argument that it's discriminatory to make the men's football team subsidize $40M in losses across other programs.

The whole system is dumb, but if I'm going to be a fan of the football team, then the part where the University steals resources from its biggest money maker is extra dumb.

And, by the way, none of this conversation is new or modern. People had issues with Maturi under-emphasizing the football team in favor of a focus on non-revenue sports as well. It's just becoming a hot topic again because the athletes are about to start getting paid.
 
Last edited:

hello-world said:
This is a lie.

The University of Minnesota does not provide financial support to its athletics programs so the program has to be self-sustaining. The Gophers football team turned a profit of 43.3 million last year which was the primary source of funding covering 4M in losses for women's basketball and 25M in losses across all other sports.

Every dollar the Gophers spend on non-revenue sports is taken from the football or men's basketball teams.

Title IX is about equal access to education. The fact that its been perverted to do things like forcing athletics departments to subsidize travel, equipment, and scholarships for money-losing sports is ridiculous. The WBB team loses (not spends) $300K per player. It spends $450K per player. You cannot tell me that the University could not provide an elite student-athlete experience for WBB players on $150K per player per year and run the program in the black, but they don't.

I think a reasonable person could make just as strong of an argument that it's discriminatory to make the men's football team subsidize $40M in losses across other programs.

The whole system is dumb, but if I'm going to be a fan of the football team, then the part where the University steals resources from its biggest money maker is extra dumb.

And, by the way, none of this conversation is new or modern. People had issues with Maturi under-emphasizing the football team in favor of a focus on non-revenue sports as well. It's just becoming a hot topic again because the athletes are about to start getting paid.
Click to expand...
Agree with most but the pay for Heatherman was a choice for the administration and Fleck. The school has the money to pay more, they chose not to and it isn’t because of the other sports.
 


hello-world said:
Title IX is about equal access to education. The fact that its been perverted to do things like forcing athletics departments to subsidize travel, equipment, and scholarships for money-losing sports is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You are not quite right (to say the least):

Title IX​

10. Athletics (ｧ __.450)

No person shall on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person, or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide such athletics separately on such basis. ...

... A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics shall provide equal opportunity for members of both sexes. A number of factors are set forth to determine equality of opportunity including but not limited to the provision of equipment, scheduling of games and practice time, travel and per diem allowances, assignment and compensation of coaches, provision of locker rooms, provision of medical and training facilities, provision of housing and dining facilities and publicity.

See 65 Fed. Reg. 52873 - 52874 at ｧ ___.450(c).
 
Last edited:

I think the key phrase in the DOE statement is "athletic financial assistance."

the DOE sees NIL revenue-sharing payments as being no different than a scholarship or payments to cover books and tuition. in their view, it's all money going to student-athletes and must be distributed equally under Title IX.

but - I think a case can be made - and will be made at some point in court - that the NIL revenue-sharing belongs in a different category. In this sense, the revenue-sharing is not "financial assistance" that all student-athletes are entitled to. No, the revenue-sharing is compensation to student-athletes who generate revenue on behalf of their schools. It's like a salesman on commission - If Joe sells more cars than Fred, Joe gets more commission. it's not shared equally.
that is how (I contend) the revenue-sharing needs to be viewed.

whether a court will agree with me remains to be determined.
 

WoodburyTim said:
The old system was the closet thing to your last sentence. College sports was essentially a socialist economy. Many football programs made huge amounts of money but it wasn’t in most cases a straight profit. It went to subsidize the non-revenue sports. But many pushed a narrative that this money was simply pocketed by the universities. But in actuality it was going to give opportunities to athletes whose sports don’t make money.

And now we are left with the problem of how do we stick that false narrative and hand out the money to the revenue athletes and still fund non-revenue sports. The answer is it probably can’t unless the revenue athletes get paid from actual revenue and the non-revenue athletes are subsidized by increased fees on the students and reliance on the taxpayers.

in short how do we pretend college athletes are pro athletes and still stick the rules like Title IX that were written for amateur athletics? Like Bob said. You probably can’t
Click to expand...
The old saying:

"The biggest fans of the football and men's basketball teams are the coaches of the non-revenue sports."
 

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...

I don't see that as a bad thing. Make men's football and basketball players employees and include a requirement that they take classes and be in good standing academically. I'm also required to take continuing ed and be in good standing to stay in my profession. I think that can be figured out.

Calling these players college athletes is no longer accurate. They're athletically gifted, "semi-professional" players that should be paid because a lot of people will pay money to watch them perform. Big TV contracts radically (catastrophically) changed the world for those two sports. Time to radically adapt to those changes. These major universities are now running profitable businesses based on their strong brands and their employees' talents. It is what it is. If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...

By the way, I think it's great that some of these kids come from low income backgrounds and should soon be in a better position to work for a living, help support their families and still get an education. Why impede that?

"College athletes" (formerly known as non rev sports) would then lose their golden goose and have to operate more efficiently and lower their expenses moving forward. Isn't that how it was before TV? College athletics DID exist before. The only difference is now you have equal representation of women in college athletics non rev sports, but less college athletes overall because your sports don't make money! It would be catastrophic to many of those sports which is why it would need to be phased in over time.

DI schools that aren't profitable enough and DII and DIII schools can just operate the way they always have.
 



short ornery norwegian said:
one thought - on January 20th, a fellow named Trump will be sworn in as President of the US.

Trump's nominee as the new Secretary of Education is Linda McMahon - as in the wife of Vince McMahon. She was the Administrator of the Small Business Administration for two years during Trump's 1st term.

at the risk of turning this into the off-topic board - I do not see the new Administration as being overly concerned about defending Title IX. Shoot, Trump has talked about eliminating the entire Department of Education.

I'll bet this directive gets rescinded.
Click to expand...
But wait, I thought banning transgender athletes was because Trump's party cared about women's sports. Isn't that the grift? "Protect girls and womens sports." "We care about women's sports."

I guess not, huh?
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I think the key phrase in the DOE statement is "athletic financial assistance."

the DOE sees NIL revenue-sharing payments as being no different than a scholarship or payments to cover books and tuition. in their view, it's all money going to student-athletes and must be distributed equally under Title IX.

but - I think a case can be made - and will be made at some point in court - that the NIL revenue-sharing belongs in a different category. In this sense, the revenue-sharing is not "financial assistance" that all student-athletes are entitled to. No, the revenue-sharing is compensation to student-athletes who generate revenue on behalf of their schools. It's like a salesman on commission - If Joe sells more cars than Fred, Joe gets more commission. it's not shared equally.
that is how (I contend) the revenue-sharing needs to be viewed.

whether a court will agree with me remains to be determined.
Click to expand...

I think there is little political will presently to enforce equality of revenue sharing payments based on gender. I suspect anyone in the federal government trying to advance that will be shut down administratively and, if not, overruled by federal courts.

People always need to keep in mind Whoopi Goldberg's words when asked whether it was unfair that she didn't make as much money as Arnold Schwarzenegger: "No, my films don't make as much as his."
 

SeaBee_Gopher said:
I don't see that as a bad thing. Make men's football and basketball players employees and include a requirement that they take classes and be in good standing academically. I'm also required to take continuing ed and be in good standing to stay in my profession. I think that can be figured out.

Calling these players college athletes is no longer accurate. They're athletically gifted, "semi-professional" players that should be paid because a lot of people will pay money to watch them perform. Big TV contracts radically (catastrophically) changed the world for those two sports. Time to radically adapt to those changes. These major universities are now running profitable businesses based on their strong brands and their employees' talents. It is what it is. If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...

By the way, I think it's great that some of these kids come from low income backgrounds and should soon be in a better position to work for a living, help support their families and still get an education. Why impede that?

"College athletes" (formerly known as non rev sports) would then lose their golden goose and have to operate more efficiently and lower their expenses moving forward. Isn't that how it was before TV? College athletics DID exist before. The only difference is now you have equal representation of women in college athletics non rev sports, but less college athletes overall because your sports don't make money! It would be catastrophic to many of those sports which is why it would need to be phased in over time.

DI schools that aren't profitable enough and DII and DIII schools can just operate the way they always have.
Click to expand...

What I've always wondered is how a D1 university benefits AT ALL from providing a non-revenue sport athlete a full scholarship and living costs plus the hundreds of thousands in extra expenses per athlete that can go with that.

D1 Men's football and basketball are great marketing and produce profits from games and media. Thousands of students and alumni go to games which has other benefits like alumni giving.

In the lower levels, athletics attract students that pay tuition, room and board.

In contrast, what good does spending huge dollars on a D1 track, swimming, etc. athlete actually do for the University? Do the "student body experience" benefits come even remotely close to the tens of millions it costs to field those sports? I doubt it.
 

so we can't find a way to lease all the concession areas to the NIL group at a discount, allowing them to sublease to the current vendors and use the profits to help retain players? Such NIL could pay players specifically related to the revenue generated from the specific stadium/sport.
 



SeaBee_Gopher said:
"College athletes" (formerly known as non rev sports) would then lose their golden goose and have to operate more efficiently and lower their expenses moving forward. Isn't that how it was before TV? College athletics DID exist before. The only difference is now you have equal representation of women in college athletics non rev sports, but less college athletes overall because your sports don't make money! It would be catastrophic to many of those sports which is why it would need to be phased in over time.

DI schools that aren't profitable enough and DII and DIII schools can just operate the way they always have.
Click to expand...

Granted some schools might decide to cut expenses for non-revenue sports in the future but Title IX will prevent that from happening to women's sports whether they produce revenue or not. Whatever the number of scholarships, sports facilities, travel and other expenses that colleges will continue to directly provide for men's revenue producing sports will also have to be provided to women's sports on a "substantially proportionate" basis.

If the currently proposed "House vs. NCAA" settlement agreement is approved, Division I schools will be permitted to engage in direct revenue-sharing and NIL payments with student-athletes beginning in the fall of 2025. As a result, many Division I colleges and universities are preparing to dole out direct payments of up to $20.5 million to student-athletes as compensation for the use of athletes’ NIL.

Since the proposed NIL payment strategies are market-driven and thus heavily favor men’s sports the Department of Education (DOE) has recently issued the following guidance:

"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."

Of course, the Trump administration will trash the DOE's guidance to colleges in very short order. But there is little doubt the next Democratic administration will bring it back at their first opportunity.
 
Last edited:

I am more interested in finding out ways to drive up interest in women's sports than I am in taking money away from men's sports or the general endowment. Yet, I don't want to create donor fatigue for reliable large donor groups. Maybe if we got the legislature to allow a small transfer from gaming to the U we would have a semi-reliable pool for all athletes at the U. Allow sports betting in the state with a transaction fee dedicated to the U of M NIL pool.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom