Welp. This was bound to happen but the Dept of Education

[IIIput]

Has weighed in on revenue sharing/NIL.

Per the article: The plans that many major college athletic departments are making for how they will distribute new direct payments to their athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a memo published by the U.S. Department of Education on Thursday.

In some cases, athletic directors have publicly shared that they intend to provide upward of 75% of that money to their football players.

However, the Office for Civil Rights -- the division of the Department of Education that enforces Title IX law -- said in its memo Thursday that those future payments should be considered "athletic financial assistance" and therefore must be shared proportionally between men and women athletes.

"When a school provides athletic financial assistance in forms other than scholarships or grants, including compensation for the use of a student-athlete's NIL, such assistance also must be made proportionately available to male and female athletes," the memo said.

Dept. of Education: Title IX applies to athlete pay

The direct payment plans that many major college athletic departments are making for athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a Department of Education memo.

www.espn.com

 

[l_________l]

Worth noting that this is a guidance memo. It's not a new law or regulation, it's merely the outgoing administration's interpretation of the law (which will be irrelevant in about a week).

I wouldn't be surprised if a judge or two agrees with the memo but this is still far from settled.

Source: me, a regulatory lawyer who works in DC.

 

[LawDawg86]

Worth noting that this is a guidance memo. It's not a new law or regulation, it's merely the outgoing administration's interpretation of the law (which will be irrelevant in about a week).

I wouldn't be surprised if a judge or two agrees with the memo but this is still far from settled.

Source: me, a regulatory lawyer who works in DC.

Not only that, but you have a new Dept of Ed coming in and they are going after Title IX anyway.

Also, with the Chevron deference standard case that SCOTUS ruled on last year, I am thinking this won't be an issue.

Substantively, it makes sense to say you have to have the same number of scholarships for men and women. Same amount for each. But, were you are paying athletes, and men athletes generated 95% of the money, the idea you would have to pay 50% to womens' sports is absurd.

 

[Lurk Russell]

I’m not an attorney, but if NIL was truly based on marketability of the athletes and was 100% reliant upon them securing revenue channels as originally intended, would this be an issue? Surely we wouldn’t have the “men’s sports generate more than women” argument as the market would dictate what college athletes are worth.

 

[DarthJaynus]

 

[LochDawg]

Dabo wrote the memo, using AI

 

[waydownsouthdawg]

Dabo wrote the memo, using AI

it works

 

[BigDaddyDawgBreath]

Title IX a clown show but the unintended consequences of college athletic monies getting poured into a very small number of athletes and agents is not likely to be good for the actual student-athletes in sports that lose money (the vast majority).

We are lunching towards burning down the village to save it.

 

[BeachDawg]

Has weighed in on revenue sharing/NIL.

Per the article: The plans that many major college athletic departments are making for how they will distribute new direct payments to their athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a memo published by the U.S. Department of Education on Thursday.

In some cases, athletic directors have publicly shared that they intend to provide upward of 75% of that money to their football players.

However, the Office for Civil Rights -- the division of the Department of Education that enforces Title IX law -- said in its memo Thursday that those future payments should be considered "athletic financial assistance" and therefore must be shared proportionally between men and women athletes.

"When a school provides athletic financial assistance in forms other than scholarships or grants, including compensation for the use of a student-athlete's NIL, such assistance also must be made proportionately available to male and female athletes," the memo said.

Dept. of Education: Title IX applies to athlete pay

The direct payment plans that many major college athletic departments are making for athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a Department of Education memo.

www.espn.com

I haven't read the link but I would not think it would have much chance of standing as a rule in the face of all the legal challenges that have gone on recently.

They can call it "athletic financial assistance" if they want but schools already offer unbalanced financial in many forms already... especially at the graduate level where assistantships and fellowships are heavily weighted (in cash value) in favor of science, engineering, and math students who routinely pull in the highest cash values of these at schools across the country.

One can say that those aren't weighted based on gender... but look down the hall at your typical math, science, and engineering department and see the gender makeup of those groups.... ands the argument can quickly be made that in athletics females have just as many athletic positions at each school because of title IX and NIL is an individual right to earn what your NIL is worth, not a gender based right to earn "equally".

AND.... it can easily be shown where there are many, many cases of females earning more in NIL than men at their various schools simply because they are able to based on their own notoriety.

I know the DOE has won in most cases in the past.... but that was before the recent NIL boom of cases where the NCAA and the schools have gotten their asses handed to them on case after case in the courts.

I'm not a lawyer and can certainly have all this wrong, but this is how it seems to me based on the recent state of court cases on this matter.

 

[MidwestDawgKC]

Has weighed in on revenue sharing/NIL.

Per the article: The plans that many major college athletic departments are making for how they will distribute new direct payments to their athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a memo published by the U.S. Department of Education on Thursday.

In some cases, athletic directors have publicly shared that they intend to provide upward of 75% of that money to their football players.

However, the Office for Civil Rights -- the division of the Department of Education that enforces Title IX law -- said in its memo Thursday that those future payments should be considered "athletic financial assistance" and therefore must be shared proportionally between men and women athletes.

"When a school provides athletic financial assistance in forms other than scholarships or grants, including compensation for the use of a student-athlete's NIL, such assistance also must be made proportionately available to male and female athletes," the memo said.

Dept. of Education: Title IX applies to athlete pay

The direct payment plans that many major college athletic departments are making for athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a Department of Education memo.

www.espn.com

It would be proportionately. Football makes 75% of the money for the schools; if not more tbh. This is what happens when govt gets involved in anything. There’s business sense I.e common sense and there is govt sense; which makes no sense!

 

[808 Dawg]

I haven't read the link but I would not think it would have much chance of standing as a rule in the face of all the legal challenges that have gone on recently.

They can call it "athletic financial assistance" if they want but schools already offer unbalanced financial in many forms already... especially at the graduate level where assistantships and fellowships are heavily weighted (in cash value) in favor of science, engineering, and math students who routinely pull in the highest cash values of these at schools across the country.

One can say that those aren't weighted based on gender... but look down the hall at your typical math, science, and engineering department and see the gender makeup of those groups.... ands the argument can quickly be made that in athletics females have just as many athletic positions at each school because of title IX and NIL is an individual right to earn what your NIL is worth, not a gender based right to earn "equally".

AND.... it can easily be shown where there are many, many cases of females earning more in NIL than men at their various schools simply because they are able to based on their own notoriety.

I know the DOE has won in most cases in the past.... but that was before the recent NIL boom of cases where the NCAA and the schools have gotten their asses handed to them on case after case in the courts.

I'm not a lawyer and can certainly have all this wrong, but this is how it seems to me based on the recent state of court cases on this matter.

The assistantships and fellowships in science, engineering, and math are largely grant funded. The grants are secured from outside entities by faculty members. The students working on these grants (via assistantships/fellowships) are temporary (length of the grant) University employees.

An overwhelming majority of the graduate positions are purely merit (academic performance, research interests, and prior experience) based with no regard for gender. It is true that women have started to overrepresented in some of these fields, but that is simply due to more women choosing these degrees (and attending college in general), not a sex based/biased selection process.

I'm a big supporter of Title IX. It has provided a lot of educational opportunities to women via sports that otherwise wouldn't have been there. That in my opinion is a great thing. All that being said, revenue from NIL (compensation for the university generating revenue through tv and other marketing avenues) should be split in an equitable manner based on the amount of revenue generation of each sport.

 

[ThreeDawgNight]

Hopefully, the dept. of Education will cease to exist in the not too distant future.

 

[Orlando.Dawg]

I’m not an attorney, but if NIL was truly based on marketability of the athletes and was 100% reliant upon them securing revenue channels as originally intended, would this be an issue? Surely we wouldn’t have the “men’s sports generate more than women” argument as the market would dictate what college athletes are worth.

That argument would still exist because the reality is that the market has dictated that men's sports - namely football, basketball and baseball - are where the true ROI/value exists. That notwithstanding, the DEI crowd wants women to get paid half because that is "equitable" or "fair."

It's no different than women's soccer getting half of the money that comes in even though women's soccer generates a fraction of the eyes on tvs, ticket sales, marketing deals, and ultimately revenue to the US soccer program. And, it's similar to the WNBA players failing to appreciate that their league has literally NEVER made a dollar of profit while cannibalizing their most profitable player in league history (Caitlin Clark).

In short, it's ABSURD.

 

[HHolland92]

My feeling is that the new administration is going to have differing opinions on this… this is more of a parting gift by the current admin, without true belief this will hold up. The more I dig into it, the more I wouldn’t worry about it.

 

[grungydog]

Worth noting that this is a guidance memo. It's not a new law or regulation, it's merely the outgoing administration's interpretation of the law (which will be irrelevant in about a week).

I wouldn't be surprised if a judge or two agrees with the memo but this is still far from settled.

Source: me, a regulatory lawyer who works in DC.

It is the law and will be impossible to work around imo.

 

[GOPUGA]

Meh. Come Monday this is toilet paper...

 

[Coach Reggie Dunlop]

It is the law and will be impossible to work around imo.

A guidance memo from an outgoing administration is not the law.

 

[doofusdawg]

My feeling is that the new administration is going to have differing opinions on this… this is more of a parting gift by the current admin, without true belief this will hold up. The more I dig into it, the more I wouldn’t worry about it.

One thing you can count on is that regardless of any rules, rulings or laws is that there will be numerous plaintiff lawyers filing suit in the most advantageous courts for their pleas and fees. And remember who negotiated and solved the streaming rights chaos for the music industry.

 

[jsrstsdawg]

Not only that, but you have a new Dept of Ed coming in and they are going after Title IX anyway.

Also, with the Chevron deference standard case that SCOTUS ruled on last year, I am thinking this won't be an issue.

Substantively, it makes sense to say you have to have the same number of scholarships for men and women. Same amount for each. But, were you are paying athletes, and men athletes generated 95% of the money, the idea you would have to pay 50% to womens' sports is absurd.

Agreed and I can’t fathom how that would apply to private organizations such as the CCC.

 

[l_________l]

It is the law and will be impossible to work around imo.

I don't even know why I bother...

 

[MepoDawg#]

This is what happens when the government gets involved. And I can’t understand why so many want that.

 

[MiddleTennDawg]

.

revenue from NIL (compensation for the university generating revenue through tv and other marketing avenues) should be split in an equitable manner based on the amount of revenue generation of each sport.

This sums it up. Same idiotic thing that NBA women's salaries should match NBA men's. Its just math.

 

[gtanduga]

Worth noting that this is a guidance memo. It's not a new law or regulation, it's merely the outgoing administration's interpretation of the law (which will be irrelevant in about a week).

I wouldn't be surprised if a judge or two agrees with the memo but this is still far from settled.

Source: me, a regulatory lawyer who works in DC.

So just wondering how crazy is DC in the transition period?..... Not political at all....

 

[Captain]

Not only that, but you have a new Dept of Ed coming in and they are going after Title IX anyway.

Also, with the Chevron deference standard case that SCOTUS ruled on last year, I am thinking this won't be an issue.

Substantively, it makes sense to say you have to have the same number of scholarships for men and women. Same amount for each. But, were you are paying athletes, and men athletes generated 95% of the money, the idea you would have to pay 50% to womens' sports is absurd.

This is the back and forth you and I had a week or so ago. While it may be absurd it is how it is being applied. Should the new Adm decide to take a different stance that will be well and good. However it will not stop lawsuits being filed alleging women must be treated equally to men and the source of revenue is not applicable.

 

[alw1776]

This is a pretty good article. Author is a lawyer in the sports world.

Fact Sheet on NIL, Title IX Should Be Considered With a Grain of Salt

While the fact sheet on NIL and Title IX compliance, issued Thursday, has attracted headlines, it's worth pausing to examine what it actually is.

www.sportico.com

 

[l_________l]

So just wondering how crazy is DC in the transition period?..... Not political at all....

People here are pretty used to regime changes. Lots of people leaving government work for private sector and vice versa but honestly it's mostly business as usual.

 

[AthensDawg189]

Has weighed in on revenue sharing/NIL.

Per the article: The plans that many major college athletic departments are making for how they will distribute new direct payments to their athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a memo published by the U.S. Department of Education on Thursday.

In some cases, athletic directors have publicly shared that they intend to provide upward of 75% of that money to their football players.

However, the Office for Civil Rights -- the division of the Department of Education that enforces Title IX law -- said in its memo Thursday that those future payments should be considered "athletic financial assistance" and therefore must be shared proportionally between men and women athletes.

"When a school provides athletic financial assistance in forms other than scholarships or grants, including compensation for the use of a student-athlete's NIL, such assistance also must be made proportionately available to male and female athletes," the memo said.

Dept. of Education: Title IX applies to athlete pay

The direct payment plans that many major college athletic departments are making for athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a Department of Education memo.

www.espn.com

I wouldn't read to much into this. Heck, the Dept. of Education might not exist by the time this would actually go to trial.

 

[MiddleTennDawg]

I wouldn't read to much into this. Heck, the Dept. of Education might not exist by the time this would actually go to trial.

YES. Undo the Jimmy Carter BS...we can talk about student loans in the other thread.

 

[TivoliDawg]

Has weighed in on revenue sharing/NIL.

Per the article: The plans that many major college athletic departments are making for how they will distribute new direct payments to their athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a memo published by the U.S. Department of Education on Thursday.

In some cases, athletic directors have publicly shared that they intend to provide upward of 75% of that money to their football players.

However, the Office for Civil Rights -- the division of the Department of Education that enforces Title IX law -- said in its memo Thursday that those future payments should be considered "athletic financial assistance" and therefore must be shared proportionally between men and women athletes.

"When a school provides athletic financial assistance in forms other than scholarships or grants, including compensation for the use of a student-athlete's NIL, such assistance also must be made proportionately available to male and female athletes," the memo said.

Dept. of Education: Title IX applies to athlete pay

The direct payment plans that many major college athletic departments are making for athletes would violate Title IX law, according to a Department of Education memo.

www.espn.com

I've posted this for years. Trying to take these, essentially, professional sports teams and tie them to a university is a waste of time and coming to an end.

Create a pro sports team and license the logo, rent the stadium, etc. The Athens Bulldogs, The Gainesville Gators, etc.

They'll be employees, have collective bargaining and contracts, and can pay whatever they want.

 

[BeachDawg]

It is the law and will be impossible to work around imo.

There is the law.... and there is the interpretation and application of the law.... Two very different things.

The guidance expressed by the DOE is but one interpretation... and as were about to see shortly, the interpretation of that law by the DOE will change soon for better or worse with the new administration. So we'll see how it all turns out.

 

[LawDawg86]

This is the back and forth you and I had a week or so ago. While it may be absurd it is how it is being applied. Should the new Adm decide to take a different stance that will be well and good. However it will not stop lawsuits being filed alleging women must be treated equally to men and the source of revenue is not applicable.

I've never said there wouldn't be lawsuits over Title IX. I still believe that common sense will prevail. You can't take 98% of the revenue generated by men's football and require that it be given 50% to women whose sports lose money. This is far different from ensuring that (1) women have equal opportunity and that (2) the scholarship counts are the same.

Women's sports have never been treated fully equally with men's sports, and it isn't required by Title IX.

This is one of many memos, regulations, and orders being made in the last hours of the current administration. It's non-binding. The department that issued the memo likely won't even exist in a year.

 

[DarthJaynus]

I've never said there wouldn't be lawsuits over Title IX. I still believe that common sense will prevail. You can't take 98% of the revenue generated by men's football and require that it be given 50% to women whose sports lose money. This is far different from ensuring that (1) women have equal opportunity and that (2) the scholarship counts are the same.

Women's sports have never been treated fully equally with men's sports, and it isn't required by Title IX.

This is one of many memos, regulations, and orders being made in the last hours of the current administration. It's non-binding. The department that issued the memo likely won't even exist in a year.

I’m not asking for a political opinion but I’d be interested to hear what you think about getting rid of the DOE? Any positives or negatives you can see from a legal standpoint, if you’d be willing to indulge me

 

[BeachDawg]

The assistantships and fellowships in science, engineering, and math are largely grant funded. The grants are secured from outside entities by faculty members. The students working on these grants (via assistantships/fellowships) are temporary (length of the grant) University employees.

An overwhelming majority of the graduate positions are purely merit (academic performance, research interests, and prior experience) based with no regard for gender. It is true that women have started to overrepresented in some of these fields, but that is simply due to more women choosing these degrees (and attending college in general), not a sex based/biased selection process.

I'm a big supporter of Title IX. It has provided a lot of educational opportunities to women via sports that otherwise wouldn't have been there. That in my opinion is a great thing. All that being said, revenue from NIL (compensation for the university generating revenue through tv and other marketing avenues) should be split in an equitable manner based on the amount of revenue generation of each sport.

Yep, I'm very familiar with the whole process. I was a physics phd student and post-graduate researcher for several years after working with one of our national laboratories... my graduate education and post-graduate research was all funded and paid for by various combinations of assistantships, fellowships, and grants.

I understand the difference and as you said, largely grant funded, but not entirely as schools often kick in as well... especially when a particular school is making a push to increase the standing of a particular department and needs to increase their assistantship payouts to attracted a higher quality student.

As you said, grants are secured from outside entities.... just as NIL funds are currently. The revenue sharing portion that is proposed to start next year with schools kicking in $20.5 million per year would come from the school, but its funneled through the school in the form of revenue that people that people pay to see these football teams. The DOE obviously doesn't see this distinction but I'm sure some savvy lawyers can state the case very well as they have been lately, winning case after case on these NIL funds and athletic revenue. So we'll see what it all leads to.

And for the record... I didn't say the awarding of assistantships and fellowships is sex based... I just implied that there is a disproportionate amount of males and females in these science and technology fields, which there is. Why that is the case is a whole different discussion not really meant for this board... I just point it out because it exists.

 

[LawDawg86]

This is a pretty good article. Author is a lawyer in the sports world.

Fact Sheet on NIL, Title IX Should Be Considered With a Grain of Salt

While the fact sheet on NIL and Title IX compliance, issued Thursday, has attracted headlines, it's worth pausing to examine what it actually is.

www.sportico.com

Everyone should read this. It just saved me a bunch of time.

 

[808 Dawg]

YES. Undo the Jimmy Carter BS...we can talk about student loans in the other thread.

What a world we live in. The existence of government agency whose mission is to ensure proper and equitable education of our youth, is considered a bad thing. SMH. Do there need to be some reforms, sure. All government agencies and departments should continually be looked at and changed, if needed, do better serve the public. Let's not get carried away with our actions or our rhetoric.

 

[LawDawg86]

I’m not asking for a political opinion but I’d be interested to hear what you think about getting rid of the DOE? Any positives or negatives you can see from a legal standpoint, if you’d be willing to indulge me

Honestly, I haven't paid much attention to it. My guy reaction would be that getting rid of it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It's only 40 years old - Carter admin I think. And the bulk of funds for education are from local millage taxes. And Education should be something governed closer to home, IMO. I am sure there are some things that the federal laws did well - special education comes to mind.

I was actually a school board lawyer for about 10 years so this is an area of interest. Just been too busy to look into it. When it becomes a hot topic, I'll jump on it.

 

[LawDawg86]

What a world we live in. The existence of government agency whose mission is to ensure proper and equitable education of our youth, is considered a bad thing. SMH. Do there need to be some reforms, sure. All government agencies and departments should continually be looked at and changed, if needed, do better serve the public. Let's not get carried away with our actions or our rhetoric.

There are numerous arguments that can be made against the DOE, and many for it, I am sure. But you knee-jerking against the idea of doing away with it is just as bad as those who want to do away with it.

 

[BeachDawg]

To add to my thoughts above.... I always thought Title IX was about guaranteeing equal opportunities, which is a good thing, and is largely accomplished by allowing for females to have just as many athletic/academic opportunities afforded to them as their male counterparts.

Its not about guaranteeing equal outcomes. That's based on the individual and what they produce from the opportunity given to them or their own genetic good fortune... looks, brains, athletic ability.... that belongs to them by all interpretation of the law.

 

[LawDawg86]

To add to my thoughts above.... I always thought Title IX was about guaranteeing equal opportunities, which is a good thing, and is largely accomplished by allowing for females to have just as many athletic/academic opportunities afforded to them as their male counterparts.

Its not about guaranteeing equal outcomes. That's based on the individual and what they produce from the opportunity given to them or their own genetic good fortune... looks, brains, athletic ability.... that belongs to them by all interpretation of the law.

I believe that will be the ultimate way this comes out.

 

[DarthJaynus]

Honestly, I haven't paid much attention to it. My guy reaction would be that getting rid of it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It's only 40 years old - Carter admin I think. And the bulk of funds for education are from local millage taxes. And Education should be something governed closer to home, IMO. I am sure there are some things that the federal laws did well - special education comes to mind.

I was actually a school board lawyer for about 10 years so this is an area of interest. Just been too busy to look into it. When it becomes a hot topic, I'll jump on it.

Fair enough, thanks. Something happened in Texas that I thought was interesting. The school board voted to implement a curriculum that includes Bible verses for language arts age k-4 in public schools I believe. It’s not mandatory but the schools that use it get extra money, I think that’s the general gist. When I found out I felt like that would open the door for law suits on religious freedom/discrimination grounds. Was I off in that reaction or what do you think the response would be to that?