Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Title IX is not a sports statute, its an education statute.  Heretofore, the focus has been on the educational opportunity provided to women by sports scholarships, thus on the educational aspects of it.  So it governs the number of scholarships given to female athletes relative to male athletes, and only indirectly governs or impacts sports themselves.

Now that we're looking at it as a business and pretty much chunking the education part out the window (the education funding is still taken care of by scholarships I presume), an argument can be made that this has fuck all to do with education/educational opportunity (quite the opposite actually), so Title IX doesn't have any bearing on this.

Revenue sharing actually increased the amount of women’s scholarships to Texas if I’m not mistaken 

Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Title IX is not a sports statute, its an education statute.  Heretofore, the focus has been on the educational opportunity provided to women by sports scholarships, thus on the educational aspects of it.  So it governs the number of scholarships given to female athletes relative to male athletes, and only indirectly governs or impacts sports themselves.

Now that we're looking at it as a business and pretty much chunking the education part out the window (the education funding is still taken care of by scholarships I presume), an argument can be made that this has fuck all to do with education/educational opportunity (quite the opposite actually), so Title IX doesn't have any bearing on this.

This is one way to look at it.

But another is that, just like scholarships, revenue paid directly to athletes is another manner to influence and affect educational opportunity offered to women vs. men.  And if more money is being paid to men, or men's sports, then you're right back in the middle of a Title IX issue.  None of them are employees, they're still considered students, so Title IX implications could still be in effect.

I expect plenty of Title IX cases to be filed, and so I suppose the courts will have their say in the matter.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, utee94 said:

This is one way to look at it.

But another is that, just like scholarships, revenue paid directly to athletes is another manner to influence and affect educational opportunity offered to women vs. men.  And if more money is being paid to men, or men's sports, then you're right back in the middle of a Title IX issue.  None of them are employees, they're still considered students, so Title IX implications could still be in effect.

I expect plenty of Title IX cases to be filed, and so I suppose the courts will have their say in the matter.

/no CR but it's informative here..

 

February 12, 2025

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) today announced it has rescinded the nine-page Title IX guidance on Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) issued in the final days of the Biden administration: 

“The NIL guidance, rammed through by the Biden Administration in its final days, is overly burdensome, profoundly unfair, and it goes well beyond what agency guidance is intended to achieve. Without a credible legal justification, the Biden Administration claimed that NIL agreements between schools and student athletes are akin to financial aid and must, therefore, be proportionately distributed between male and female athletes under Title IX. Enacted over 50 years ago, Title IX says nothing about how revenue-generating athletics programs should allocate compensation among student athletes. The claim that Title IX forces schools and colleges to distribute student-athlete revenues proportionately based on gender equity considerations is sweeping and would require clear legal authority to support it. That does not exist. Accordingly, the Biden NIL guidance is rescinded,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

/no CR but it's informative here..

 

February 12, 2025

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) today announced it has rescinded the nine-page Title IX guidance on Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) issued in the final days of the Biden administration: 

“The NIL guidance, rammed through by the Biden Administration in its final days, is overly burdensome, profoundly unfair, and it goes well beyond what agency guidance is intended to achieve. Without a credible legal justification, the Biden Administration claimed that NIL agreements between schools and student athletes are akin to financial aid and must, therefore, be proportionately distributed between male and female athletes under Title IX. Enacted over 50 years ago, Title IX says nothing about how revenue-generating athletics programs should allocate compensation among student athletes. The claim that Title IX forces schools and colleges to distribute student-athlete revenues proportionately based on gender equity considerations is sweeping and would require clear legal authority to support it. That does not exist. Accordingly, the Biden NIL guidance is rescinded,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. 

Oh sure, the statute is rescinded.

But now come the court cases.  They're already happening.  There will be more.

Posted
28 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Revenue isn't federally funded, there is no legal standing.

We're absolutely going to find out whether or not the courts agree with you.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

This is where I was expecting it to go. They’re not going to be able to shut down the collectives and the old, poor bag cheaters can all go and keep getting fucked. All the way. Go fuck yourselves Bama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, FSU, and the like. Cry more. 

I'm not a lawyer but yeah, I don't see how anyone can legally limit compensation unless there is full collective bargaining like the NFL. I think it's a question of when, not if, this clearinghouse stuff that limits collectives gets thrown aside.

Posted
36 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

This is where I was expecting it to go. They’re not going to be able to shut down the collectives and the old, poor bag cheaters can all go and keep getting fucked. All the way. Go fuck yourselves Bama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, FSU, and the like. Cry more. 

I would assume that's why Texas One is staying independent?  Or at least a large driver of that?  So that if/when everyone says "just kidding- the collectives can still pay whatever they want to on top of the school revenue share" we will have fully established that UT kicks in 20M for student athlete salaries and the collectives drive the number higher so we can get all the 5 stars that Tech or Baylor won't deign to sign?

Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Title IX is not a sports statute, its an education statute.  Heretofore, the focus has been on the educational opportunity provided to women by sports scholarships, thus on the educational aspects of it.  So it governs the number of scholarships given to female athletes relative to male athletes, and only indirectly governs or impacts sports themselves.

Now that we're looking at it as a business and pretty much chunking the education part out the window (the education funding is still taken care of by scholarships I presume), an argument can be made that this has fuck all to do with education/educational opportunity (quite the opposite actually), so Title IX doesn't have any bearing on this.

That said, there are few schools in compliance from a scholarship perspective. Some, like Oklahoma State, are far off the numbers. The only enforcement mechanism for Title IX is the court system. There's no regulatory body - state, federal, or a third party like the NCAA or conferences - enforcing the federal law when it comes to scholarship opportunities. And while Title IX isn't about compensation, there are still lawyers who are filing suits that say schools administering NIL to athletes directly should be complying with Title IX statutes. Whether I agree with that stance or not, the lawsuits are being filed. 

It's not necessarily about the merits of each case. It's about how much of a threat it can be to the NCAA so they're forced to settle rather than risk a judgement in court. 

Posted
2 hours ago, closetojumping said:

This is where I was expecting it to go. They’re not going to be able to shut down the collectives and the old, poor bag cheaters can all go and keep getting fucked. All the way. Go fuck yourselves Bama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, FSU, and the like. Cry more. 

Interesting article.  This goes back to my primary question (I never came back to repost in a more concise manner) which is, if, hypothetically, a Collective has $10MM cash on hand tagged for football (via combination of recurring monthly donations + larger individual donations), how is that money allocated by the Collective post settlement considering it can no longer be used to subsidize non-profit appearance fee contracts, etc. 

Seems like per the reddit post above + this article this is still very much TBD?  

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...