Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2024 22:48:14 GMT -5
It's one thing for schools to violate NCAA rules in their quest to pay Jonny Strongarm enough money to get him to QB their team. It's another thing for schools to jeopardize the BILLIONS of dollars they get from Federal funding by breaking Federal law. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it (see USC et al.), but it would very much not be a smart thing for them to do. Title IX specifies equity in participation opportunities and scholarships. Ultimately the courts will decide about whether to expand Title IX. But as the guidance is currently written, I see nothing that would require universities to PAY male and female athletes the same amount. If they go by Tilte 9, the $22 million will be divided by school population which is mostly 60% female and 40% male. Thats around $12mill for women and $10mil for men. For VB, how do they decide the salaries? By position? Leftsides / 6 rot $8000 Leftside /3 rot $6000 Middles $6000 Setters $7000 Libero’s $4000 |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 14, 2024 22:50:59 GMT -5
Title IX specifies equity in participation opportunities and scholarships. Ultimately the courts will decide about whether to expand Title IX. But as the guidance is currently written, I see nothing that would require universities to PAY male and female athletes the same amount. If they go by Tilte 9, the $22 million will be divided by school population which is mostly 60% female and 40% male. Thats around $12mill for women and $10mil for men. Proportionality is only one of the three prongs of title IX. Schools do not have to meet the proportionality standard to be in compliance with federal law. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 14, 2024 22:59:37 GMT -5
If they go by Tilte 9, the $22 million will be divided by school population which is mostly 60% female and 40% male. Thats around $12mill for women and $10mil for men. Proportionality is only one of the three prongs of title IX. Schools do not have to meet the proportionality standard to be in compliance with federal law. Proportionality is one of three ways to meet the participation requirement. Regardless, the scholarship dollars MUST be distributed proportionally to the actual M/F makeup of the athletes. TBD if that would mean that revenue sharing money from the school must also be proportional. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 14, 2024 23:11:41 GMT -5
If they go by Tilte 9, the $22 million will be divided by school population which is mostly 60% female and 40% male. Thats around $12mill for women and $10mil for men. Proportionality is only one of the three prongs of title IX. Schools do not have to meet the proportionality standard to be in compliance with federal law. That’s not exactly true, or more precisely, the relationship between the prongs is actually more complex. Proportionality is one of the prongs used to evaluate compliance, but it also can fluctuate based on actual enrollment, so there is usually a percentage range of permissiveness in proportionality. The further out of the range, the greater likelihood of non-compliance. And proportionality is a criteria mostly tied to opportunities, which then correlate to expenditures. But if some sort of payment/salary system is implemented, evaluating pay disparities wouldn’t necessarily be related to proportionality at all, but some other (as yet unknown or undetermined) set of factors. Obviously, a lot depends on the details of the proposed settlement, and how much it has been thought out/through, but it’s likely to raise a whole range of other issues (which is pretty normal anyways). |
|
|
|
Post by Norah Sus on May 15, 2024 0:30:59 GMT -5
Title IX specifies equity in participation opportunities and scholarships. Ultimately the courts will decide about whether to expand Title IX. But as the guidance is currently written, I see nothing that would require universities to PAY male and female athletes the same amount. If they go by Tilte 9, the $22 million will be divided by school population which is mostly 60% female and 40% male. Thats around $12mill for women and $10mil for men. For VB, how do they decide the salaries? By position? Leftsides / 6 rot $8000 Leftside /3 rot $6000 Middles $6000 Setters $7000 Libero’s $4000 Poor opposites, working for free |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 15, 2024 0:33:02 GMT -5
If they go by Tilte 9, the $22 million will be divided by school population which is mostly 60% female and 40% male. Thats around $12mill for women and $10mil for men. For VB, how do they decide the salaries? By position? Leftsides / 6 rot $8000 Leftside /3 rot $6000 Middles $6000 Setters $7000 Libero’s $4000 Poor opposites, working for free It's because they love the game so much, they are just happy to be there. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 15, 2024 0:34:47 GMT -5
Getting paid several hundred K is of course nice, but does this mean SAs would no longer get scholarships?
|
|
|
|
Post by staticb on May 15, 2024 0:49:26 GMT -5
Getting paid several hundred K is of course nice, but does this mean SAs would no longer get scholarships? It reads like they still would. And a school can offer unlimited scholarships based on roster size. However, if they get classified as employees, then I wonder if those can possibly be taxed. |
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on May 15, 2024 1:05:44 GMT -5
Getting paid several hundred K is of course nice, but does this mean SAs would no longer get scholarships? It reads like they still would. And a school can offer unlimited scholarships based on roster size. However, if they get classified as employees, then I wonder if those can possibly be taxed. Money directed specifically towards school expenses is not taxable, but other compensation might be. I just read the IRS website, though; not an expert so don't know how the edge cases might work. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 15, 2024 1:20:48 GMT -5
A forum like Volleytalk is not exactly the best place to rely upon for tax advice.
|
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on May 15, 2024 6:54:22 GMT -5
A forum like Volleytalk is not exactly the best place to rely upon for tax advice. Online fan forums are where I go for all my tax, legal, and medical information. Also restaurant recommendations. |
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on May 15, 2024 8:44:18 GMT -5
A forum like Volleytalk is not exactly the best place to rely upon for tax advice. I mean clearly I am not going to file these SA's taxes for them but someone wondered out loud something that was easily Googleable. I could have posted a Let Me Google That for You link instead but it seemed nicer to just post the answer I found. A scholarship which directly pays for tuition, fees, books or required supplies is not taxable. Go ahead and Google it yourself. Although, it's much more the VT thing to cast aspersions on what someone else says, accurate or not, than to just simply confirm it as true or false, so you do you. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 15, 2024 9:26:41 GMT -5
Getting paid several hundred K is of course nice, but does this mean SAs would no longer get scholarships? It reads like they still would. And a school can offer unlimited scholarships based on roster size. However, if they get classified as employees, then I wonder if those can possibly be taxed. Part of the agreement is that they are not employees. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 15, 2024 9:31:57 GMT -5
Except the real value to college sports is that they ARE college sports. People simply do not pay large sums of money to attend or watch minor-league pro sports, and that's what college sports would become under your scenario. Hence the licensing fee arrangement. It's a private operation that pays for the exclusive right to retain and market itself as the school's sports arm. The spring football league (UFL? XFL? whatever it's called) has the advantage that many of these players are already "college famous," and in cities, and still nobody really cares about it. A minor league sports structure where the athletes are significantly less well known, and the franchises are in Starkville, Mississippi; Manhattan, Kansas; and Blacksburg, Virginia - I don't know why people think that has promise. You aren't alone, but I don't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 15, 2024 9:40:26 GMT -5
It's one thing for schools to violate NCAA rules in their quest to pay Jonny Strongarm enough money to get him to QB their team. It's another thing for schools to jeopardize the BILLIONS of dollars they get from Federal funding by breaking Federal law. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it (see USC et al.), but it would very much not be a smart thing for them to do. Title IX specifies equity in participation opportunities and scholarships. Ultimately the courts will decide about whether to expand Title IX. But as the guidance is currently written, I see nothing that would require universities to PAY male and female athletes the same amount. My guess is that the inputs would have to be comparable to justify the outputs being disparate. If the woman are making less in profit sharing and/or in direct NIL because of each program's profit, I think the question is going to be are the staffs resourced similarly? Are the marketing budgets similar? If the baseball team has heated seats in the stands, then the softball team is going to need heated seats in the stands if you are going to use higher attendance/gate to justify higher pay. It actually could be easier and more cost effective to pay them comparably than to go through the steps of proving why you shouldn't have to. |
|
