Title IX says give $10m of that $20m per school to women

[upstater]

This was the easiest most obvious predictable and forseeable outcome:

Dept. of Education: Title IX applies to athlete pay

The direct payment plans that many major college athletic departments are making for athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a Department of Education memo.

www.espn.com

 

[JohnFSilver]

It’s won’t stand With new admin. The Current title is rules, and how they are used for trans athletes, has put the entire law in jeopardy.

especially with recent Supreme Court rulings on rule making and such when congress didnt explicitly state its intention.

the memo is insane. Equity of publicity as well. I can feel Roberts chomping at the bit here. So the track teams have to get same publicity coverage as the basketball teams? you can drive a truck through the whole with that logic.

 

[upstater]

It’s won’t stand With new admin. The Current title is rules, and how they are used for trans athletes, has put the entire law in jeopardy.

especially with recent Supreme Court rulings on rule making and such when congress didnt explicitly state its intention.

the memo is insane. Equity of publicity as well. I can feel Roberts chomping at the bit here. So the track teams have to get same publicity coverage as the basketball teams? you can drive a truck through the whole with that logic.

Title IX goes well beyond concerns with sports.

When it was passed in 1972, it was incredibly specific and the bill itself is thousands of pages long. That's what I call explicit, especially when we're talking about institutions giving out money and at the same time receiving hundreds of millions in federal money.

They would have to VOTE to repeal Title IX.

 

[Fishy]

Title IX goes well beyond concerns with sports.

When it was passed in 1972, it was incredibly specific and the bill itself is thousands of pages long. That's what I call explicit, especially when we're talking about institutions giving out money and at the same time receiving hundreds of millions in federal money.

They would have to VOTE to repeal Title IX.

I told John on Twitter that they cannot do much with Title IX. It’s not malleable in that way.

But the enhancements and expansions that are done by unelected folks for whatever reason they chose are easily pruned in the courts.

I don’t think this interpretation has much chance of succeeding past the weekend.

 

[Patman]

There's a lot of reasons to expect this interpretation to fall apart. first is going to be the reversal of chevron. this is a rule the DoEd is instituting and not the given expression of congress so there will be strong investigations into the legitimacy of government power. next is that this is a doctrine passed by the DoEd and will likely fall apart under the next EO issued by the next president. This will be more like "the dear colleague" letter which lead to a great number of injustices on college campuses a decade ago where the next admin just rolls it away.

However. However the way that Title IX has been enforced with regards to 'equal money'... and often hasn't been enforced, makes these matters very questionable. it is clear that schools don't spend the equivalent of football money on women's sports... but now that we're talking about actual students is that where it becomes different? But don't students get differential benefits all the time butits more on the t-shirt and shoes level?

Whole lot in the air. the only thing for certain is that those who are always incorrect when they speak will continue to be incorrect in an embarrassing fashion. Title IX repeal will not be necessary. The next admin will roll back the rule, if not the courts will do the same.

 

[Stinger92860]

The next admin will roll back the rule, if not the courts will do the same.

Why would the next admin roll back the rule?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

There's a lot of reasons to expect this interpretation to fall apart. first is going to be the reversal of chevron. this is a rule the DoEd is instituting and not the given expression of congress so there will be strong investigations into the legitimacy of government power. next is that this is a doctrine passed by the DoEd and will likely fall apart under the next EO issued by the next president. This will be more like "the dear colleague" letter which lead to a great number of injustices on college campuses a decade ago where the next admin just rolls it away.

However. However the way that Title IX has been enforced with regards to 'equal money'... and often hasn't been enforced, makes these matters very questionable. it is clear that schools don't spend the equivalent of football money on women's sports... but now that we're talking about actual students is that where it becomes different? But don't students get differential benefits all the time butits more on the t-shirt and shoes level?

Whole lot in the air. the only thing for certain is that those who are always incorrect when they speak will continue to be incorrect in an embarrassing fashion. Title IX repeal will not be necessary. The next admin will roll back the rule, if not the courts will do the same.

The Chevron repeal works both ways. If existing rules are open to challenge, it also means the next administration can’t make up their own interpretation. Every aspect of our lives will be decided by judges that have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[CL82]

There's a lot of reasons to expect this interpretation to fall apart. first is going to be the reversal of chevron. this is a rule the DoEd is instituting and not the given expression of congress so there will be strong investigations into the legitimacy of government power. next is that this is a doctrine passed by the DoEd and will likely fall apart under the next EO issued by the next president. This will be more like "the dear colleague" letter which lead to a great number of injustices on college campuses a decade ago where the next admin just rolls it away.

However. However the way that Title IX has been enforced with regards to 'equal money'... and often hasn't been enforced, makes these matters very questionable. it is clear that schools don't spend the equivalent of football money on women's sports... but now that we're talking about actual students is that where it becomes different? But don't students get differential benefits all the time butits more on the t-shirt and shoes level?

Whole lot in the air. the only thing for certain is that those who are always incorrect when they speak will continue to be incorrect in an embarrassing fashion. Title IX repeal will not be necessary. The next admin will roll back the rule, if not the courts will do the same.

Agree that expansive agency rule making will be an express target of the new administration. I'm not sure that Title IX regs will be in the cross hairs at least initially.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

No way this comes to fruition. And if it somehow does schools will just cut all non-revenue sports. Football, mbb, wbb, and how ever many women’s teams it takes to keep the scholarships even. This would essentially destroy non-revenue sports.

 

[Exit 4]

I think the next administration will make a simple exemption on title ix for all NIL and any revenue generating sport that exceeds [insert figure here] per athlete in media and/or ticket sales. This will allow for title ix to remain in place for the majority of the 800+ schools playing D1 to D3 sports doing what it has always done since inception. But under the exemption, an institution must maintain the same number of male/female scholarships per title ix, its just that all the sharing/economic equalization concepts are no longer applicable for the exempt (high revenue) sports.

 

[JohnFSilver]

This was the easiest most obvious predictable and forseeable outcome:

Dept. of Education: Title IX applies to athlete pay

The direct payment plans that many major college athletic departments are making for athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a Department of Education memo.

www.espn.com

I told John on Twitter that they cannot do much with Title IX. It’s not malleable in that way.

But the enhancements and expansions that are done by unelected folks for whatever reason they chose are easily pruned in the courts.

I don’t think this interpretation has much chance of succeeding past the weekend.

I agree with both. i will say that if it isn’t in the law passed, then it is going to get struck down by this Supreme Court. New administration is Going to take title ix to the studs. They don’t have the senate 60 votes to repeal, but they are going to administratively take it apart.

Title IX is one of those laws that conservatives have been dying to go after From an intellectual framework.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Why would the next admin roll back the rule?

because it is a legal opinion, and they will have a different opinion that is more friendly to college athletic departments, which I would say every single college athletic department looks as this opinion as a non starter.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

No way this comes to fruition. And if it somehow does schools will just cut all non-revenue sports. Football, mbb, wbb, and how ever many women’s teams it takes to keep the scholarships even. This would essentially destroy non-revenue sports.

THAT would be a clear violation of Title IX under any circumstances. Maybe stay away from giving legal advice for a while.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

THAT would be a clear violation of Title IX under any circumstances. Maybe stay away from giving legal advice for a while.

How? Title IX at the collegiate level applies to the number of scholarships. How would cutting sports from both men’s and women’s programs be a violation?

PS - lol who’s giving legal advice here? You’re the one making legal generalizations.

 

[Chuck]

I started another thread because I somehow missed this one. Hopefully mods will delete.

DoE can't penalize schools for real NIL being paid to players, but there seems to be a legitimate interpretation that the $20.5mm paid directly by the schools to the players needs to be paid proportionally per Title IX.

Schools have already made it clear that the majority of that $20.5mm is going to be paid to football players, with a higher proportion also going to men's basketball. That's going to be a problem.

For those saying that more should go to football than women's crew because football earns more, that is a similar argument that people make for getting rid of women's crew and adding men's lax. Title IX doesn't allow that unless men's to women's scholarships are equal.

Title IX hasn't required full equality, however, so there is clearly wiggle room. I'm not an expert, nor do I want to become one. Clearly, P2 football teams have nicer locker rooms, training areas, better travel, etc. than that women's crew team. (Not trying to pick on women's crew, I just know that's a women's team that exists at many schools to balance out scholarships).

 

[upstater]

Women sports were a BIG part of the last campaign, so this Administration may tread carefully on trying to eliminate Title IX. It seems like making the athletes employees solves the problem though.

People are conflating NIL and the $20m revenue sharing. These 2 things are not the same, but many posters are treating them as the same. The vast majority of that very thick Title IX packet addresses funding. Funding is the key element in Title IX. I can't see how they get around $20m in revenue sharing when the law is specific and clear about it and it's been going on since 1972. NIL is outside the scope. People are conflating whatever is happening with LGBTQ protections (which were not part of the law at the time) with the fundamental basis of a law which is pretty specific and has a long history.

 

[upstater]

Right so cutting sports from both men’s and women’s programs is, equal, no?

The problem, I suspect, is that football is now going to 100+ scholarships.

Women's sports as always benefit rom the excesses of football.

Basketball teams cancel each other out.

Cutting programs has been a regular occurrence though in the past.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

People are conflating NIL and the $20m revenue sharing. These 2 things are not the same, but many posters are treating them as the same. The vast majority of that very thick Title IX packet addresses funding. Funding is the key element in Title IX. I can't see how they get around $20m in revenue sharing when the law is specific and clear about it and it's been going on since 1972. NIL is outside the scope. People are conflating whatever is happening with LGBTQ protections (which were not part of the law at the time) with the fundamental basis of a law which is pretty specific and has a long history.

This is what happens when too many media outlets let AI write their articles. Fact checking is history.

 

[upstater]

If you are referring to the confusion between NIL and revenue sharing, it's actually the Department of Labor itself that is calling this NIL. It's actually in the title of the memo. "Fact Sheet: Ensuring Equal Opportunity Based on Sex in School Athletic Programs in the Context of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Activities"

https://www.ed.gov/media/document/ocr-factsheet-benefits-student-athletes

But it's "in the context" of. That simply means that they are making a clarification given all the recent changes.

Revenue sharing is NIL in the sense that the money is nominally part of it.

Maybe I'm at fault for not making the distinction clearer in my post.

There's NIL that doesn't come through the AD and then there's NIL that is in effect the revenue sharing we're talking about.

Read Part 5 in which the Department of Labor specifically excludes NIL agreements between student athletes and third parties.

 

[Chuck]

But it's "in the context" of. That simply means that they are making a clarification given all the recent changes.

Revenue sharing is NIL in the sense that the money is nominally part of it.

Maybe I'm at fault for not making the distinction clearer in my post.

There's NIL that doesn't come through the AD and then there's NIL that is in effect the revenue sharing we're talking about.

Read Part 5 in which the Department of Labor specifically excludes NIL agreements between student athletes and third parties.

Yup, I read it subsequently. I think you and Nelson are right. The press is messing this up, which is pretty unimpressive considering it's a short memo. The memo is talking more about the Universities paying the players for the NIL as a back-door way to try to be disproportionate. They don't refer to revenue sharing at all.

 

[Exit 4]

Just a crap ton of bloviating in this thread as if we live in a world were laws don't change. Lawmakers will make new laws. And plus these courts are likely to recognize that equal access to resources (academic support, nutrition, sports health, etc) will be enough to meet the standard. Individual player comp will be carved out.

Times change. Situations change. Some laws evolve and this will be one of them.

 

[CL82]

No way this comes to fruition. And if it somehow does schools will just cut all non-revenue sports. Football, mbb, wbb, and how ever many women’s teams it takes to keep the scholarships even. This would essentially destroy non-revenue sports.

I don't see how that's avoidable at this point for most non revenue men's sports.

 

[CL82]

Title IX is about the equal treatment of men and women in all aspects of college athletics. While scholarships are a part of it, it’s not all of it.

NIL is, theoretically, outside the scope of the school/athlete relationship. It shouldn't be within the scope of Title IX.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This is stupid and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of NIL by the morons in government. NIL does not come from the school. All it is, and it is nothing else, is the removal of restrictions previously imposed by the NCAA on a student athlete's ability to make money from their own name, likeness or image. That's it.

I'd like to think that the Dept. of Education has someone smart enough to understand why Title IX cannot possibly apply to NIL, but that would probably be overly generous to the DOE.

 

[HuskyHawk]

NIL is, theoretically, outside the scope of the school/athlete relationship. It shouldn't be within the scope of Title IX.

Absolutely. It definitely is not.