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

[How Sway?!]

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.

Well if you read the memo you'd have seen that they are not talking about NIL but revenue sharing. They even state explicitly that third party NIL does not fall under Title IX. But I guess we gotta act enraged somehow...

 

[HuskyHawk]

Well if you read the memo you'd have seen that they are not talking about NIL but revenue sharing. They even state explicitly that third party NIL does not fall under Title IX. But I guess we gotta act enraged somehow...

I read other reports that mentioned NIL. Glad to see that's not the case. As for direct payments, yes, I can see the reasoning. All that will do is prevent schools from making them at all or will greatly reduce them.

 

[upstater]

Well if you read the memo you'd have seen that they are not talking about NIL but revenue sharing. They even state explicitly that third party NIL does not fall under Title IX. But I guess we gotta act enraged somehow...

I'm shaking my head reading the responses here.

"In the context of..." in the headline is the Dept. of Labor issuing a memo to clarify its position given the new forms of payments. We're in the first year or two of NIL and now we're going into the first year of school-paid NIL revenue sharing.

So they issue a memo. "In the context of..." simply means "Taking into account the new situation."

Then they distinguish between the schools paying students and 3rd parties paying students.

 

[upstater]

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.

Mostly they go after equal protection (rights of victims, identity classes) but not the heart of it, equal funding for men and women.

But -- as you say about 60 votes to repeal -- the schools are also going to be beholden to a new administration in 4 to 8 years that changes everything, and then they are screwed.

Certainly these schools should plan ahead.

 

[superjohn]

This isn't about the Title 9 issue which seems meaningless since this administration is finished in a few days but when does the NFL and NBA step in and look to crush college football and college basketball?

With more and more money going to the college athletes, adding a 5th year and the rest players will be staying longer in college and they will be direct competition with the pro leagues. It seems like just a matter of time before the NFL says enough is enough and the NBA will likely follow suit.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This isn't about the Title 9 issue which seems meaningless since this administration is finished in a few days but when does the NFL and NBA step in and look to crush college football and college basketball.

Why would they do that? They get for free what baseball and hockey have to pay for.

Anybody who thinks that minor league football or basketball would be any more popular than minor league baseball or hockey is not being realistic. It's 100% about the name on the jersey. If UConn was replaced with a Knicks minor league affiliate I'd never watch a single game.

 

[superjohn]

Why would they do that? They get for free what baseball and hockey have to pay for.

Anybody who thinks that minor league football or basketball would be any more popular than minor league baseball or hockey is not being realistic. It's 100% about the name on the jersey. If UConn was replaced with a Knicks minor league affiliate I'd never watch a single game.

I totally agree that nobody would care about minor league football and basketball but they want these kids in their leagues. They don't want them getting paid $6 million to stick around in college.

 

[CL82]

I read other reports that mentioned NIL. Glad to see that's not the case. As for direct payments, yes, I can see the reasoning. All that will do is prevent schools from making them at all or will greatly reduce them.

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.

 

[Hogoff]

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

Touché.

 

[upstater]

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.

How do you differentiate revenue sharing from university finances?

I think we've been over this ground over and over in the past.

This is ripe for a lawsuit if the next Admin. changes anything (I dont even see how they can).

It's one thing to spend more for football players. It's quite another to pay more.

But any lawsuit is going to take a fine-tooth comb to go through the finances, and as I've been saying for a long time, it's not what people think they are.

 

[Kolumbo]

I understand NIL is outside of the University. Of course there are always wrinkles

Bleeding Blue for Good

Bleeding Blue for Good is THE NIL Collective and Proud Sponsor of UConn Athletics. BBFG empowers UConn student-athletes to be champions in their sport and champions in their communities through name, image, and likeness opportunities that help them make a difference.

www.bleedingblueforgood.org

A Message from our Founders:​

“UConn is entering a new period of transition in NIL activities. Over the coming months, it is anticipated that with the impending House settlement, in which schools across the country, including UConn, would plan to revenue share with student-athletes starting in the 2025-26 academic year, the University will absorb all fundraising in support of student-athlete activities into the UConn Foundation beginning next fiscal year.

Accordingly, BBfG will no longer accept donations after December 31, 2024. We anticipate that BBfG will be formally dissolved in accordance with fulfilling all its contractual obligations to student-athletes. We will disburse previously received donations in accordance with our mission and we anticipate that any undisbursed funds will be distributed to other non-profit organizations, which may include the UConn Foundation. We will continue to work with local charities until we dissolve BBfG, which we expect to occur on July 1, 2025, in conjunction with the effective date for revenue sharing. As support for NIL and ways in which it can provide life-changing benefits for members of Connecticut’s underserved communities will continue to be critical, individuals associated with BBfG will work closely with the UConn Foundation to continue to further those objectives.”

 

[CL82]

How do you differentiate revenue sharing from university finances?

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.

 

[upstater]

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.

But a good lawyer will ask, "How did you pay for the stadium? Arena? Training facilities?" "Does any of the student fee go to the football team?" "What percentage of royalties and branding are part of the athletic budget?" "Are you athletic donations specifically billed to donors as money for football? Basketball?" "Do donors even know if they're contributing to sports?"

 

[JohnFSilver]

Well if you read the memo you'd have seen that they are not talking about NIL but revenue sharing. They even state explicitly that third party NIL does not fall under Title IX. But I guess we gotta act enraged somehow...

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.

It is the equal and in-kind publicity is the issue imo. Also, should a non-revenue sport really get a part of the house settlement?

 

[HuskyHawk]

It's not how it's done now.

But a good lawyer will ask, "How did you pay for the stadium? Arena? Training facilities?" "Does any of the student fee go to the football team?" "What percentage of royalties and branding are part of the athletic budget?" "Are you athletic donations specifically billed to donors as money for football? Basketball?" "Do donors even know if they're contributing to sports?"

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.

 

[noeynox]

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

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.

 

[UConnJim]

The original Title IX law never mentioned sports, but guidelines have been issued since that have included topics such as sports, sexual assault, LBGT protections,... Part of the reason there is confusion over Title IX and sports is that there was an amendment that was proposed to exempt revenue generating sports from Title IX which did not pass in 1974 called the Tower Amendment. And, there have been other attempts to exempt revenue sports from Title IX as well, but none have passed.

In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Title IX did not apply to sports, but in 1987, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 overturned the 1984 Supreme Court decision.

There have been many guidelines and rulings since. Bottom line, anybody who says they will just exempt revenue producing sports from Title IX doesn't understand the history. And, I think NIL is different than revenue sharing, but maybe a court will rule that revenue sharing is NIL and those revenues should be allocated based on revenue production.

 

[upstater]

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.

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.

 

[CL82]

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.

Yep, revenue sharing is an NIL and NIL isn't subject to Title XI. Both things are correct.

 

[upstater]

Yep, revenue sharing is an NIL and NIL isn't subject to Title XI. Both things are correct.

Why isn't it?

 

[noeynox]

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?

 

[Exit 4]

The original Title IX law never mentioned sports, but guidelines have been issued since that have included topics such as sports, sexual assault, LBGT protections,... Part of the reason there is confusion over Title IX and sports is that there was an amendment that was proposed to exempt revenue generating sports from Title IX which did not pass in 1974 called the Tower Amendment. And, there have been other attempts to exempt revenue sports from Title IX as well, but none have passed.

In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Title IX did not apply to sports, but in 1987, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 overturned the 1984 Supreme Court decision.

There have been many guidelines and rulings since. Bottom line, anybody who says they will just exempt revenue producing sports from Title IX doesn't understand the history. And, I think NIL is different than revenue sharing, but maybe a court will rule that revenue sharing is NIL and those revenues should be allocated based on revenue production.

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.

They will find a way to keep title ix and yet let players get their compensation.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

They will find a way to keep title ix and yet let players get their compensation.

Then make the case why this is different rather than just say it is different.

 

[upstater]

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 not. That's what this memo is saying in section 5.

I just realized I read the post wrong because of a typo.

It reads "revenue sharing is an NIL."

It should read "isn't NIL."

 

[upstater]

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.

They will find a way to keep title ix and yet let players get their compensation.

Wouldn't that be the Court legislating from the bench?

We have a law that is pretty specific regarding funding coming from a school source, and this same law has a history in which the courts have told politicians they need to legislate changes to the law if they don't like the regulations. Politicians have tried o change the law multiple times, but the efforts have failed multiple times.

Clearly, changing Title IX is the remedy if you don't like Title IX's regulations.

This current Supreme Court would be in line with such reasoning because they've already said departments like the DOE would need to follow strictly what the legislation dictates.