|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 20, 2024 10:39:56 GMT -5
Whether as a direct employee model, or some other form of all SAs being paid NIL or other money directly from schools, wouldn't Title IX dictate that any payments to SAs be equally distributed? So if football and MBB players receive $20M/year, women athletes must receive the same amount? Maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 20, 2024 10:42:27 GMT -5
If the athletes are still students, I can see how Title IX could still apply.
I do think people who are invested in the current implementation of Title IX in college sports should be very wary of taking a lawsuit into the (current) federal courts.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 20, 2024 10:48:52 GMT -5
Everyone is approaching this in a way that seems to propose that Title IX will require equal compensation for female athletes in a salary model.
But Title IX in practice has never stood for absolute financial equality . For 50 years, with almost little to no enforcement, male/female scholarship allocations have rarely been equal, resources dedicated to programs have not been equal, and salaries of those paid to be involved (staff/coaches) have not been equal. That the continued improvement prong is still viable 50 years post-enactment is kind of laughable. (In my head I can almost hear some SCOTUS justices saying - "but what's the end date?")
At best, what Title IX actually means is that schools need to put in a good faith effort to dedicate a respectable amount of resources to women's athletics, or at least enough to forestall any complaints from the female athletes on campus. You could craft a fairly reasonable argument under the Major Questions Doctrine that Title IX was not intended to, and has never been intended to, to curtail investment in football.
If WBB stars are well-paid, and non-revenue sport female athletes get some version of a living wage, there's a good chance FB can continue to do what it wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by hanmertime on May 20, 2024 10:49:22 GMT -5
Whether as a direct employee model, or some other form of all SAs being paid NIL or other money directly from schools, wouldn't Title IX dictate that any payments to SAs be equally distributed? So if football and MBB players receive $20M/year, women athletes must receive the same amount? They’ll split the $20 million. Approx 60% women. 40 % men. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 20, 2024 10:51:25 GMT -5
If the athletes are still students, I can see how Title IX could still apply. I do think people who are invested in the current implementation of Title IX in college sports should be very wary of taking a lawsuit into the (current) federal courts. The current Title IX directive is that participation and scholarship money must be proportional. Of course, this came in a world where payments to athletes didn’t exist. But I agree. I suspect the courts would say “if you want equal pay for male and female college athletes, make a law”. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 20, 2024 10:56:46 GMT -5
If the athletes are still students, I can see how Title IX could still apply. I do think people who are invested in the current implementation of Title IX in college sports should be very wary of taking a lawsuit into the (current) federal courts. The current Title IX directive is that participation and scholarship money must be proportional. Of course, this came in a world where payments to athletes didn’t exist. But I agree. I suspect the courts would say “if you want equal pay for male and female college athletes, make a law”. I was thinking more along the lines of SCOTUS scrapping Title IX's applicability to sports, or severely neutering it at least. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 20, 2024 12:12:01 GMT -5
Also, I'm not fully on board with mikegarrison's claim that "the main source of those payments will be basketball programs".
From the Big East article... "Over a 10-year payback period, the NCAA is responsible for paying 40% of the $2.77 billion with the other 60% coming from a reduction in school distributions. To determine how much each of the 32 Division I conferences contribute, the association created a formula based on the amount of distribution that a league earned over a nine-year period starting in 2016, according to separate documents shared with commissioners. Most of the distribution that the NCAA divides among leagues— more than $700 million annually — is derived from revenues of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament." NCAA Distributions are based on NCAA D1 men's basketball tournament games played by each school. There are no NCAA distributions for any of the other 90 sport championships. The mechanisms can change slightly from conference to conference (see the ACC) but most schools share with their conferences who distribute that money equally. This is just how it is. I'm not sure what's to be on board with. I did read that in the article.
I think this is just a semantics squabble, so not worth your time to continue to reply to it.
Just for me, if some Big East school has a $700k settlement bill to pay per year for the next 10 years, then to rightfully claim "the basketball program is the source of those funds" it should mean that the MBB budget had a decrease of $700k each of those 10 years. But we know that won't be the case.
The athletics department will pay for it, one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 20, 2024 12:15:07 GMT -5
I would like to learn the basis for your last sentence, if you have some links to precedent or at least a reasonable argument that you think could be made for why? Currently the coaches direct third party non-profit organizations (so-called "collectives") on how much to offer specific players, with no Title IX issues so far that I've heard of. Obviously schools don't pay dues to these organizations, but I don't understand why that small bit of your second sentence is able to do such heavy lifting. Why?
And that's assuming that schools actually do pay dues to their respective conferences. I'm not sure that's actually true. AFAIK, conferences just skim a little bit off the top of the incoming revenues to pay for their own operating costs. Or, I don't see how they couldn't very easily switch to such a model if that was the lone thing preventing the bypassing of Title IX issues in the overall arrangement.
First, don't assume coach directed NIL complies with Title IX. Coaches were not allowed coordinate with collectives until the Virginia and Tennessee AGs got an injunction earlier this spring. Coordinating between the coaches and the collectives was an NCAA violation so while it certainly happened, it wasn't in the open. Now that the NCAA cannot enforce those laws and things are happening in the open, I imagine someone is collecting articles and public records while we wait for the new world order to unfold. The reports have been pretty consistent, nobody knows how to factor Title IX into the next iteration of college sports, and Title IX attorney's are standing by to "help" figure it all out. Fair points.
I'm just wondering then how you were able to confidently claim "Can a coach (or any employee or representative of the university's interests) direct an organization to which they pay dues to pay specific amounts of money without regard for title IX? Not a chance. " ?
Not trying to pull a gotcha. I genuinely just want to know what you meant.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 20, 2024 12:23:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 20, 2024 12:26:44 GMT -5
If the athletes are still students, I can see how Title IX could still apply. I do think people who are invested in the current implementation of Title IX in college sports should be very wary of taking a lawsuit into the (current) federal courts. The current Title IX directive is that participation and scholarship money must be proportional. Of course, this came in a world where payments to athletes didn’t exist. But I agree. I suspect the courts would say “if you want equal pay for male and female college athletes, make a law”. The letter of the Title IX law doesn't actually require equal scholarship (money), right?
How did that interpretation come to be? I'm sure a good and reasonable argument can be made that a scholarship enables participation. I'm just wondering if a similar line of reasoning could be attempted for the pay part.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 20, 2024 12:29:09 GMT -5
Whether as a direct employee model, or some other form of all SAs being paid NIL or other money directly from schools, wouldn't Title IX dictate that any payments to SAs be equally distributed? So if football and MBB players receive $20M/year, women athletes must receive the same amount? I guess it's all about who has the more convincing argument about if discrimination on the basis of gender has occurred, simply because the pay between football and WBB (or volleyball) players is proportional to the TV money for those sports.
I could see a reasonable argument that just because the pay is proportional to the market value, does not mean discrimination has occurred.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 20, 2024 12:34:10 GMT -5
Everyone is approaching this in a way that seems to propose that Title IX will require equal compensation for female athletes in a salary model. But Title IX in practice has never stood for absolute financial equality . For 50 years, with almost little to no enforcement, male/female scholarship allocations have rarely been equal, resources dedicated to programs have not been equal, and salaries of those paid to be involved (staff/coaches) have not been equal. That the continued improvement prong is still viable 50 years post-enactment is kind of laughable. (In my head I can almost hear some SCOTUS justices saying - "but what's the end date?") At best, what Title IX actually means is that schools need to put in a good faith effort to dedicate a respectable amount of resources to women's athletics, or at least enough to forestall any complaints from the female athletes on campus. You could craft a fairly reasonable argument under the Major Questions Doctrine that Title IX was not intended to, and has never been intended to, to curtail investment in football. If WBB stars are well-paid, and non-revenue sport female athletes get some version of a living wage, there's a good chance FB can continue to do what it wants. How much is a living wage when food and housing are already fully provided? I suspect female full scholarship athletes are already receiving that. In fact, I personally know an SEC volleyball athlete who was able to save a few thousand dollars per year because her scholarship amounts allowed her to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyballer8992 on May 20, 2024 12:56:48 GMT -5
Everyone is approaching this in a way that seems to propose that Title IX will require equal compensation for female athletes in a salary model. But Title IX in practice has never stood for absolute financial equality . For 50 years, with almost little to no enforcement, male/female scholarship allocations have rarely been equal, resources dedicated to programs have not been equal, and salaries of those paid to be involved (staff/coaches) have not been equal. That the continued improvement prong is still viable 50 years post-enactment is kind of laughable. (In my head I can almost hear some SCOTUS justices saying - "but what's the end date?") At best, what Title IX actually means is that schools need to put in a good faith effort to dedicate a respectable amount of resources to women's athletics, or at least enough to forestall any complaints from the female athletes on campus. You could craft a fairly reasonable argument under the Major Questions Doctrine that Title IX was not intended to, and has never been intended to, to curtail investment in football. If WBB stars are well-paid, and non-revenue sport female athletes get some version of a living wage, there's a good chance FB can continue to do what it wants. How much is a living wage when food and housing are already fully provided? I suspect female full scholarship athletes are already receiving that. In fact, I personally know an SEC volleyball athlete who was able to save a few thousand dollars per year because her scholarship amounts allowed her to do so. there are VB players who are saving (or able to if they choose) WAYYYY MORE than that with what they get. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 20, 2024 13:07:25 GMT -5
Everyone is approaching this in a way that seems to propose that Title IX will require equal compensation for female athletes in a salary model. But Title IX in practice has never stood for absolute financial equality . For 50 years, with almost little to no enforcement, male/female scholarship allocations have rarely been equal, resources dedicated to programs have not been equal, and salaries of those paid to be involved (staff/coaches) have not been equal. That the continued improvement prong is still viable 50 years post-enactment is kind of laughable. (In my head I can almost hear some SCOTUS justices saying - "but what's the end date?") At best, what Title IX actually means is that schools need to put in a good faith effort to dedicate a respectable amount of resources to women's athletics, or at least enough to forestall any complaints from the female athletes on campus. You could craft a fairly reasonable argument under the Major Questions Doctrine that Title IX was not intended to, and has never been intended to, to curtail investment in football. If WBB stars are well-paid, and non-revenue sport female athletes get some version of a living wage, there's a good chance FB can continue to do what it wants. How much is a living wage when food and housing are already fully provided? I suspect female full scholarship athletes are already receiving that. In fact, I personally know an SEC volleyball athlete who was able to save a few thousand dollars per year because her scholarship amounts allowed her to do so. Probably not much, assuming full scholarship. This will be a bigger deal for walk-ons and with non-headcount sports where kids are on partials - (you probably couldn't force employees to pay tuition as a condition of employment to effectively work for negative pay). |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 20, 2024 13:14:06 GMT -5
How much is a living wage when food and housing are already fully provided? I suspect female full scholarship athletes are already receiving that. In fact, I personally know an SEC volleyball athlete who was able to save a few thousand dollars per year because her scholarship amounts allowed her to do so. Probably not much, assuming full scholarship. This will be a bigger deal for walk-ons and with non-headcount sports where kids are on partials - (you probably couldn't force employees to pay tuition as a condition of employment to effectively work for negative pay). All of the settlement deals seem to agree that athletes will not be considered employees. I’m sure walkons will still be allowed. But yes, I would anticipate a roster cap and no scholarship cap. |
|
