Still, if the settlement is about prior Revenue sharing 1 wonders if it's appropriate to direct that to women's players when the revenue earned by it is relatively nominal for most schools.
Touché.
How do you differentiate revenue sharing from university finances?
www.bleedingblueforgood.org
Revenue would be the income earned directly by athletics. The university finances would include that, but would also include every other source of revenue for the university.
It's not how it's done now.
the memo states schools, as part of house settlement, must equally pay athletes. Secondly, they must also gave equal publicity for men and women as now there are NIL opportunities available and to have more publicity for men’s football will Impact NIL opportunities for a women’s rower.
Yes, you are both showing why the whole thing is an absolute disaster. I think the courts got it wrong to begin with and the only result is an eventual end to intercollegiate athletics. Schools and the NCAA did a very poor job outlining the expenses of running these programs, showing that they are not profit centers and were not shortchanging athletes. It's completely out of control now.
Isn't this muddled because revenue sharing is technically not NIL? I don't get how anyone has any real clear handle on this since the schools themselves don't seem to.
And the reason the schools did this is because their #1 customers, parents of current students, needed the truth to be hidden from them or else the whole thing comes tumbling down.
Yep, revenue sharing is an NIL and NIL isn't subject to Title XI. Both things are correct.
Why isn't it?
Maybe I'm confused, but if company wanted to pay a particular athlete NIL money to endorse them, why is that subject to title IX?
It’s a different supreme court. Other long standing positions have recently changed. There are a lot of factions that want and can justify change here. History is a pertinent guide- but many things assumed to be permanent in their time are not in the long run.
It's not. That's what this memo is saying in section 5.
Wouldn't that be the Court legislating from the bench?
I'm sure this has been coming post election. The news on the ground is all recent regarding the court case. Revenue sharing hasn't even started yet. This is only a memo anyway.
It depends. If the regulations were outside of the mandate provided in the original statute, then they are overreach by a federal agency and would be properly struck down if challenged. In essence overly expensive regulation is "legislation by agency" to paraphrase the language you use above.
I still say that ruling any different than the memo would be the opposite of overreach. If you ignore the legislation, then you're making your own ruling outside the legislation.
This interpretation would give agencies, essentially unelected, bureaucrats supremacy over both Congress, and the judiciary. There are some countries where the state is this supreme authority unchecked by the judiciary or any elected representative body. Thankfully the US isn't one of them.
This would pretty much be the point. If the agency goes beyond the scope of the legislation then it is making it on law which is impermissible in the US system.
?????
If you did "revenue sharing" wouldn't that at all depend on what "revenue" each sport brought in?
Not trying to be insulting but you have a fundamental lack of understanding of constitutional law.
No, because it is the university. You'd have to break out the bean counting and look at all subsidies for everything, buildings, food, dorms, stadiums, training, student fee, etc. The amount of inputs would be endless.
This is laughable. It's gone through the Supreme Court. I really dont think you know what you're talking about.
I'm sure you don't. Obviously your concept of administrative agency superiority over the legislature, and the judiciary is a unique one, well, at least unique in non-totalitarian states.
It's the opposite.