Ahhh I get where you’re coming from. Might not agree with it but I get it now.
Title IX New Ruling Changes NIL Payments for Athletes
- Thread starter hall4cy
- Start date
It'll probably be the other way around.
Schools will do what they want. There's nothing for them to sue over until someone like the DoE actually tries to take action instead of just issuing an advisement that holds little weight.
I think its unlikely the DoE actually takes action against the schools on this in the next administration. (That's not to be political, I just think that would be the most likely course of action they'll take based on prior statements). In 4 years maybe that'll be different and then lawsuits may fly.
We sure the DOE is going to exist long enough to be in the fight?
They'd love to, but the current SCOTUS rulings basically make this impossible without some kind of antitrust exemption granted by congress, and that's seemed to be pretty much dead in the water.
Problem is any agreement between P4 conferences on rules - or anything really - is collusion - So they need an entity with an anti trust exception or they will keep losing in court.
In the current form and state of the NCAA, no, probably not. There are probably other avenues the athletic departments could take apart from the NCAA but I'd guess they probably aren't interested in that.
The thing is, the P4 isn’t losing in court. The NCAA is. If the P4 decide the NCAA is more trouble then it’s worth then they just break away and there is no collusion.
As these changes continue to happen most of the G5 programs won’t even be around in football, some basketball programs will still be around like in the big east but that’s really it
I mean, the same rulings that underpin banning the NCAA from engaging in these practices would likely apply to the P4 trying to make organized rules for themselves too. The collusion between those members is no different than colluding under the NCAA rules.
Agreed but you have to be colluding against something. The XFL can’t claim collusion over the NFL. At that point we’re talking about two different entities
Oh I think we might be talking about two separate things. Or I could just be off, long night and the brain isn’t firing on all cylinders
Problem is paying athletes $20M based on the House Settlement isn't a minor thing. It's a can't put toothpaste back in the tube if political winds change. So I would think Presidents and AD's will take a path that meets the scrutiny of Title IX. So if the gender split at a university is 50/50, then the $20M will need to be split proportional. That wouldn't prevent elite athletes from getting a big paycheck, would seem to ensure a large % of athletes might not get any House Settlement monies or maybe just a "true" living stipend.
NIL Collectives would seem to create another issue. Pretty tough for 3rd party collectives to operate without some input from the coaching staff on prioritizing players to pay and amounts. And does that input automatically qualify NIL Collective payment for Title IX jurisdiction?
Would be interesting if at some point some University Presidents say their out of semi-pro sports. Let PE come in an buy teams and take them private. Maybe universities get an upfront check and annual royalty payment to use the university name/facilities.
I disagree with that Interpretation of Title IX. No federal law requires equal salaries for men and women-i know it's been proposed. So it would make little sense to pay women more than their NIL value to create some false sense of an equal playing field.
If I was a university, id ignore it and let the chips fall where they may.
If I was a university, id ignore it and let the chips fall where they may.
Licensing out the football program (rather than "sell" per se) has been talked about, and wouldn't shock me. I don't think it is likely, but there are worse possible outcomes.
The big brands all license out to a single entity that buys the rights, then that single entity negotiates an NFL-like contract to maximize TV revenue.
The universities get more money, less liability, less regulation and compliance hassle, and less negative publicity about money, greed, bad player behavior, et al.
Athletes could get paid properly, the whole thing could be antitrust+union, etc etc.
I think it would work for the big brands that have lots of fans and lots of casuals. I don't know if it works for small-medium schools where most of the interest is from alumni.
It hasn’t been talked about seriously by any real programs. That’s just a horrible idea designed to obliterate fans interest. It’s basically just inviting PE in which will be the true end times
Title IX is a federal law. Since athletes aren't employees, the NIL payments from the House Settlement wouldn't be "salaries". But the DOE has said the NIL payments fall under educational benefits.
This is were the current model continues to run afoul with the legal system. Schools don't want athletes to be employees, but as student athletes then Title IX applies.
I didn't read through all of this. So, players are going to get a paycheck from the school? Correct? Can they also sign deals with Dr. Pepper, Nike etc on the side still? Can they also still get money from a collective?
At the time PE wasn't in the picture (at least in the open).
But Notre Dame's former AD Jack Swarbrick speculated a few years ago that 2 models of college sport would exist:
- Semi-pro teams loosely affiliated with the universities.
- Traditional sport model of scholarship athletes with athletes ability to earn NIL.
Title IX is silent as to NIL, and it wasnt even a thought in 1972 when title IX was passed. The new, conservative, Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down expansive readings of old federal laws to cover new situations, saying it is Congress' duty to amend existing laws, not administrative agencies.
I would NOT apportion NIL based on gender, but actual value--unless the university wants an equal distribution. The feds cant force NIL, a lot of which is privately funded, to go to underserving athletes based on gender.
This will be challenged, and it will go to the Supreme Court. The sct has already struck down affirmative action, I cant imagine it would uphold this DOE ruling based on a 1972 law.
NOT POLITICS< JUST FACTS> It is telling that this came out right before the new Trump-appointed head of the DOE takes charge. Trump has said he wants to get rid of the DOE entirely, so Im not sure this ruling even lasts more than a couple of days.
I agree with most of this especially the private funding aspect. The 20mil or whatever it ends up being that schools are paying out I’m guessing will have to be equal or will have to be challenged.
