As expected USDOE says NIL/Rev Distribution must be equally distributed
With most schools gearing up to spend 80% of their revenue distribution on football and men's basketball, the US Department of Education says that unless the revenue is distributed equally between men and women, then schools will be in violation of Title IX.
And NIL collectives must do the same.
True NIL between an athlete and a company would not fall under it.
Link:
DOE NIL ruling
59 Replies
L
lawhokie
1y
The timing of this letter is suspect. It could be nothing more than a petty jab by an exiting administration to make Trump’s job just a little more difficult. At the end of the day, Linda McMahon can repudiate the letter and call it pure overreach by a radicalized ED department. McMahon will be too busy trying to wind down ED to pick any Title IX fights.
I suppose a private party can find the farthest left corner of California and file a title 9 suit, and anything can happen there, including the ninth circuit court of appeals, whose opinions have made me laugh out loud more than once.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
The hypocrisy of stuff like this is a never ending source of amusement 2 me
Certain political regimes cannot even articulate what a female is, but then want a group they refuse to define, to get half the $.
How about the football team players simply all say they identify as female?
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
1y
I think it will be interesting to see how the money is shared. My hope / guess is that they'll say money generated by each sport can stay with each sport. And, anything that goes into a "general use" fund would have to be shared equally across everyone.
And, of course, each school would be able to change it how they see fit. If VT wanted to put all $20.5M into WBB to win a few Natty's, they could.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
1y
Revenue sharing with sports that don't produce revenue is another. If that becomes a requirement it will be challenged in courts. I doubt it would be upheld, but who knows. If it were to be upheld, I would expect it to trigger some major change with college football. Schools that wanted to pour the money into football and its players, would seek some way to further distance football from college Athletics, perhaps developing it into more of a minor league professional sport that would not be impacted by title IX.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
1y
Completely unsurprising and not necessarily that meaningful.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
L
lawhokie
1y
By schools on in-house and outside counsel, all because ED (during a time when kids can barely read or write) decided to pick up the collegiate NIL issue. It’s exhibit A for dissolving ED.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
VT football program specifically in order to boost the performance of the Hokie football team, want to see 90% of that money going to women's swimming or tennis or some other non-revenue sport that doesn't move the needle and bring them joy. My guess is that they don't bother and noone gets anything.
I understand that Title IX is intended to provide opportunities for all sports, not just football, but this isn't about opportunity.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
1y
In all of higher ed, not just sports...sports weren't even really specifically thought\written about when it was enacted.
(This doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with you)
(In response to this post by cincyhokie)
S
Stech
1y
and the University Collective could easily end up with a short life, or very small amount. Companies will bypass the collective and go directly to the Athletes they want it to go to IMHO.
(In response to this post by cincyhokie)
1y
when university administrators and coaches pull the strings wrt $$$ allocation, they open themselves up to Title IX questions.
(In response to this post by Stech)
Yup. Money will just go underground again if that's the case.
$Cam Newton's bag, Reggie Bush's Escalade and Eric Dickerson's Trans-Am are soooo back!
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 1/17/2025, 12:56:04 PM
(In response to this post by cincyhokie)
S
Stech
1y
and companies would likely not give it to the collective fund, which then gives it to the player based on the Department of Education letter rules.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
L
lawhokie
1y
As soon as any suit to enjoin compliance with ED’s letter passed summary judgment (probably in deep blue Kalifornia), NIL pools would dry up and NIL money would be routed directly to the players. By the time - assuming cert - the case arrives in the lap of SCOTUS, it would be moot.
But hey wouldn’t it be fun if Alabama had to slice a big chunk of their NIL pool off for the ladies?
(In response to this post by Stech)
Yes. Either way, the money will get to where the givers want it to go.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
currently exists in the rest of the world. Where the athletic departments make a truly clean break from the university and establish sponsorship deal so they can continue to use the name and/or mascot. In return the entities enter into lease deals with the schools to continue using the existing facilities. As a result, the athletes would be allowed to enter into contracts with the entities and sponsorship deals similar to what currently exists in the pro leagues. Even though NIL is a sponsorship deal, people may perceive it as somehow being different because it involves student-athletes. If the courts rule that schools have to treat student-athletes as employees, then the schools may see this option as a way out of taking on the additional cost.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
That's a good thing because they were a total farce from the start.
(In response to this post by Stech)
I also don't think they wanted to be involved in it.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
1y
"independent" collectives started popping up. As soon as others saw there were no restrictions, everyone fell in line and did the same. I've been onboard with NIL from the start. Just not with this collective nonsense.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
has a right to enforce Title IX which states "educational institutions that receive federal funding to provide equal opportunities to female students." Remember Title IX doesn't just apply to NCAA sponsored sports, but also club sports, intramural sports, research opportunities, work study programs, and other aspects of campus life. If enough people believe that the enforcement of Title IX should be limited in scope, then Congress has the power to amend the federal law(s).
(In response to this post by cincyhokie)
1y
Regarding NIL
“The fact that funds are provided by a private source does not relieve a school of its responsibility”
“Title IX is not based on the market. If the market discriminates, the schools cannot,” Bryant said. “The school can’t use a marketing agency to avoid Title IX.”
“Schools remain responsible for ensuring that they are offering equal athletic opportunities in their athletic programs, including in the NIL context,” the guidance says. “A school may violate Title IX if the school fails to provide equivalent benefits, opportunities and treatment in the components of the school’s athletic program that relate to NIL activities.”
Feels like they are waaay overstepping their authority with this guidance. If this holds, a lot of men’s sports are at major risk of getting cut.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
S
Stech
1y
even if the Department of Education goes away, does Title IX for equal gender scholarships and now compensation stay?
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
T
TerryD
1y
Title IX is a Federal statute passed by Congress, It is a Federal civil rights law enacted in 1972.
Eliminating the Dept. of Education would not get rid of the statute.
Both Houses of Congress would have to pass a bill to do so.
** Edited by TerryD at 1/17/2025, 10:09:04 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
particularly for Male Olympic sports.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
R
RJHokie
1y
also appears to make rulings applying the law. So if the DOE gets whacked, what agency is going to make the rulings and enforce the law? The FBI? That would be interesting. How about Homeland Security? HS gets thrown into a lot of situations these days. Department of Justice? DOJ will be busy prosecuting all of the president’s appointees who want to do things their way, regardless of the law.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
1y
was just announced.
"Guidance"
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
1y
And then issues proposed sanctions.
Then I suppose the cited schools take the issue to court if the matters/sanctions cannot be resolved administratively.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
on the gender equity side of this.
As it should surprise no one if this ends up in court if schools get sanctioned.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
1y
coming in. Just another uncertainty going forward
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
say how DOE's responsibilities would be divided up. For example, the Department of the Interior (DOI) is responsible for territorial affairs, insular areas of the United States, the outer continental shelf, and other things that logically would be considered within the interior's jurisdiction. The running joke within DOI is that it is called the "Department of Everything Else." Heck the Department of Energy (DOE) just handles nuclear energy. While the other energies are divided up among the DOI and the Department of Commerce. Logically the DOJ would make the most sense to take over the responsibility, but congressional politics may decide to go in a different direction.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
1y
Personally, I would be surprised if Congress voted to eliminate Education. It’s number two in the amount of grant awards each year with Health and Human Services being number one.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
It was part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare before becoming it's own agency in 1980, so the Title IX law probably has its enforcement under that agency. So, Health and Human Services might be the enforcing agency.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
1y
it has been established for various reasons. However, that tidbit doesn't make for a very good sound bite on the campaign trail. It isn't uncommon for politicians to say things on the campaign trail in order to get votes even though the politician knows it is unlikely that campaign promise will be fulfilled once in office. FWIW I believe James K. Polk is the only US President to deliver on every campaign promise once in office.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
1y
I believe all of them are active members of the Liars Club……
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
I see schools keeping football, men's and women's basketball and whatever women's sports to maintain Title IX compliance while dropping everything else (except maybe making them club sports).
Technically, could the colleges not fight back and state that it is football - it is not men's football or women's football since women are not prevented from playing. Or does Title IX see only that football is giving 85 (105) scholarships to men since these are the ones using the scholarships?
Could they start a women's football league and would that have any appeal to anybody (actual players/TV/boosters/college high-ups/etc)?
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
1y
schools won't be able to avoid the Title IX issue by making that decision. All that a school is doing is transferring the problem from the athletic department to the department that oversees the club and intramural sports. At VT it would be the Department of Recreational Sports, but that responsibility could vary from school to school.
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
S
Stech
1y
scholarships are given out. Not whether you could play the sport or not. So you basically have to match the football scholarships with women's scholarships. Consequentially, since this is on compensation, it looks like they need to do the same on matching paying them.
PS There is a lawsuit from the Oregon Women’s Club rowing team, stating they need to compensate Club Sports too. So turning sports into Club Sports, may not be the answer if that goes through.
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
1y
In that the way they are going, they will want to be paid as well. It will be interesting how many sports will be sponsored by the college in 5-10 years and that includes the club sports.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
SMU Pony
1y
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
1y
But, the thing happening on Monday pledged to protect women's sports. That may make it difficult for that happening to turn around and repeal it, especially since it is not an Executive Order but an interpretation by the Dept of Education, it might have to go through hearings and other comment periods before it can be changed.
Even with that, most if not all, college administrators are going to take a very cautious approach to this and will probably implement it just to protect the school from lawsuits.
Plus, the policy can change again in 4 years.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
L
lawhokie
1y
Just export the entire university NIL operation to a separate operation. They can even lease space from the schools for offices. Sure, NIL funds will have to pay for staff, but that seems apropriate given the driver for the change.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
S
Stech
1y
have on Title IX for scholarships and compensation? I realize it could be brought back in 4 years, but I am talking about if it’s eliminated now, what are the legal ramifications of that right now?
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
1y
doesn't matter.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
Dept. of Education, you're a mark. That was campaign trail, carnival barker, huckster BS. Will the leadership and mission there look a lot different? Yeah, sure.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
know the consequences if the long shot happened. I am just trying to gather the information, as I am heavily involved in an Olympic Sport.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
the consequences could be felt at multiple levels. For example, if a school decides to shift a sport from NCAA sponsored to club, then it could likely mean a club sport could be sacrificed to make room for the former NCAA sport unless the school decides to add enough club sports to offset the addition. Likewise, if a school decides to shift a club sport to an intramural sport, then an intramural sport could be sacrificed to make room for the former club sport unless the school decides to add enough intramural sports to offset the addition.
Unfortunately, the problem at the DI level will always be there isn't a women's sport that doesn't require a similar number of scholarships as what is required for football. If the DI schools want to find a real solution to the problem, then it may want to take a page out of the DII's playbook. FWIW DII schools are only allowed to offer (I think) 35 equivalent scholarships in football and I think the roster limit is capped somewhere in the 60s. Even though there is no women's sport that offer that amount of scholarships, it would be an easier goal to satisfy.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
That likely will be a huge factor for if Men’s Olympic sports in particular can just turn them into a Club sport. If they are required to pay Club Sports too, seems they would have to eliminate many of them. They could reduce the *roster on football, but since that is where the money is, I don’t see much if any of that happening. They need to win, to keep the money coming in!
*I was told the compensation is by if you have a roster spot, and not if you have a scholarship.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
scholarship rule would apply to club sports since those athletes at best only receive academic scholarships.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
changer if so!
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
1y
So yes, the Department of Education has the authority to make it happen and can withhold federal funding from schools for being in violation of Title IX
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
Dept. of Ed could do that, but they don't have the ultimate legal authority.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
Dept. of Education will disappear
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
1y
And I am someone who thinks it should, and all federal money for education should be block granted to the states for them to spend on education how they see fit.
Why? Because no politician running for office wants to be accused of "destroying the Department of Education". Secondly, the federal government is now a jobs program and getting rid of the Department of Education will result in a heap ton of people getting laid off. Finally, Congress has almost never shuttered any agency that they have created, and the way the government currently operates with spending resolutions instead of a budget, they can't cut the spending for the Department of Education.
Long story short, our grandchildren's grandchildren will still be paying taxes to run the Department of Education.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
L
lawhokie
1y
Key functions will be distributed to other relevant departments, making it easier to clear committee, and ED goes bye-bye.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
R
RJHokie
1y
with its rules, etc. through the issuance and administration of student financial grants and other assistance, of which most colleges and universities rely on to pay their bills. And they also have significant influence on other federal agencies that provide research grants.
If schools don’t require or seek federal funding, and perhaps federal tax exemption, they can just give the “middle finger of fellowship” to the DOE/feds and do what they want.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
Maybe appear on a local podcasts and talk about news, faith, arts, anything but sports or education.
Of course it would be easier in the case of commercial enterprises.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)