Nil, Revenue Sharing and Title IX

#26
#26
LWSVOL said:
www.sportico.com

NCAA Athlete NIL Pay Must Be Title IX Compliant, Dept. of Education Says

DoE's Office of Civil Rights has released its long-awaited guidance on Title IX and NIL, two weeks before House v. NCAA settlement objections are due.
www.sportico.com www.sportico.com

this could change a lot of the landscape and further delay "fixing" all the problems with NIL and Portal.
Click to expand...
Two critical things will affect this.

1. Will Trump change this back since Biden did it in his way out the door?

2. How is "proportionate" going to be interpreted in the courts? It could mean several different things.
 
#27
#27
omghulkhands said:
Before people lose their minds, this is nearly meaningless. It is just about money distributed directly by the universities. And obviously, that falls under title 9.

The money is going to get mostly driven through NIL collectives which won’t be privy to title 9.
Click to expand...
Actually, here is a quote from the article which quotes OCR (the part of DoE that handles Title IX) which seems to be a new wrinkle in the use of even private NIL.

"OCR has long recognized that a school has Title IX obligations when funding from private sources, including private donations and funds raised by booster clubs, creates disparities based on sex in a school’s athletic program or a program component,” OCR wrote. “The fact that funds are provided by a private source does not relieve a school of its responsibility to treat all of its student-athletes in a nondiscriminatory manner.”
 
#28
#28
Good luck enforcing this. If I’m a business and sign a college athlete to an NIL deal the DoE isn’t telling me who I can or can’t sign.

Collectives may be easier as they are pooling money. Caitlin Clark demonstrates you can get your market value so best of luck to all these athletes.
 
#29
#29
Also, just means they have to provide the same sports, same opportunities to sign deals IMO. The market isn’t forced to pay anyone.

If they start paying all players a salary then it would have to be the same based on how they set it up.

I’m not a lawyer though so just a lay opinion.
 
#30
#30
S.C. OrangeMan said:
Two critical things will affect this.

1. Will Trump change this back since Biden did it in his way out the door?

2. How is "proportionate" going to be interpreted in the courts? It could mean several different things.
Click to expand...
Per Vivek, who with Musk is leading the DOGE for Trump in streamlining government. I think there's a bigger agenda than just reversing this:

“This is a 5-alarm fire & President Trump’s vision to dismantle the Department of Education is the first step to fixing it,” he wrote. “The federal bureaucracy has wasted boatloads of taxpayer $$ while impeding the success of our students."
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#31
#31
S.C. OrangeMan said:
Two critical things will affect this.

1. Will Trump change this back since Biden did it in his way out the door?

2. How is "proportionate" going to be interpreted in the courts? It could mean several different things.
Click to expand...

The Oregon court case will likely have more impact than this... Until seeing this article I didn't realize there was already a case in the courts over Title IX
 
  • Like
Reactions: SayUWantAreVOLution
#32
#32
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Actually, here is a quote from the article which quotes OCR (the part of DoE that handles Title IX) which seems to be a new wrinkle in the use of even private NIL.

"OCR has long recognized that a school has Title IX obligations when funding from private sources, including private donations and funds raised by booster clubs, creates disparities based on sex in a school’s athletic program or a program component,” OCR wrote. “The fact that funds are provided by a private source does not relieve a school of its responsibility to treat all of its student-athletes in a nondiscriminatory manner.”
Click to expand...
Yeah, obviously none of that part is happening. Supreme Court has ruled you can't keep kids from making NIL deals. And you obviously can't force a counterparty to apportion those deals the same between the sexes. Schools don't even have a right to see the contracts.

This is just a political statement as those on the way out try to burn everything down and create as much havoc as possible for the next guy to deal with, all while knowing full well it never survives a court challenge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CAVPUT, BristolVol, S.C. OrangeMan and 1 other person
#33
#33
LWSVOL said:
The Oregon court case will likely have more impact than this... Until seeing this article I didn't realize there was already a case in the courts over Title IX
Click to expand...
As you probably have more knowledge and patience with such things than me, a pretty exhaustive look at where that case has been.

Since this was filed in late 2023 and we've not seen an injunction signaling it's a sure loser for Oregon (like we've seen in so many NCAA cases,) this one must have merits on both sides. At least that's my highly uneducated take. Most of the NCAA cases have gotten fast injunctions to make the NCAA change the rules quickly.

Schroeder v. University of Oregon, 6:23-cv-01806 – CourtListener.com https://search.app/uFyyDmZtNmVSRazbA
 
#35
#35
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
As you probably have more knowledge and patience with such things than me, a pretty exhaustive look at where that case has been.

Since this was filed in late 2023 and we've not seen an injunction signaling it's a sure loser for Oregon (like we've seen in so many NCAA cases,) this one must have merits on both sides. At least that's my highly uneducated take. Most of the NCAA cases have gotten fast injunctions to make the NCAA change the rules quickly.

Schroeder v. University of Oregon, 6:23-cv-01806 – CourtListener.com https://search.app/uFyyDmZtNmVSRazbA
Click to expand...

seems like cases involving NCAA get fast tracked while others with just a school move slower. I don't know that, just an observation..
 
#37
#37
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Actually, here is a quote from the article which quotes OCR (the part of DoE that handles Title IX) which seems to be a new wrinkle in the use of even private NIL.

"OCR has long recognized that a school has Title IX obligations when funding from private sources, including private donations and funds raised by booster clubs, creates disparities based on sex in a school’s athletic program or a program component,” OCR wrote. “The fact that funds are provided by a private source does not relieve a school of its responsibility to treat all of its student-athletes in a nondiscriminatory manner.”
Click to expand...
There are plenty of private companies that fund graduate fellowships (which cover tuition plus stipend)...they will tell the government any lie they want to hear...."Oh yes, we consider without regard to race, sex, blah, blah, blah...." Noncausal, yes...uncorrelated, no.
 
#38
#38
LWSVOL said:
The Oregon court case will likely have more impact than this... Until seeing this article I didn't realize there was already a case in the courts over Title IX
Click to expand...
I can't find anything about that case having an injunction or a decision.

It also doesn't involve the NCAA.
 
#39
#39
This is beyond stupid, let alone it's impossible to enforce. It's called NIL, Name Image and Likeness. That means players are getting paid based on the value of their NIL. For the obvious reason, females players' NIL are worth significantly less than male football and basketball players. If a female player is getting paid less for her NIL, it just means her NIL is not as valuable, not because she is being discriminated against. I don't even want to get into this absurd scenario, let's say an organization contributes $1mil NIL to football players. But wait! The school has to step in and chop up the money and send $500k to female players. SMH
 
  • Like
Reactions: CAVPUT
#41
#41
LWSVOL said:
www.sportico.com

NCAA Athlete NIL Pay Must Be Title IX Compliant, Dept. of Education Says

DoE's Office of Civil Rights has released its long-awaited guidance on Title IX and NIL, two weeks before House v. NCAA settlement objections are due.
www.sportico.com www.sportico.com

this could change a lot of the landscape and further delay "fixing" all the problems with NIL and Portal.
Click to expand...
This one sounds like a win for the University.
The school isn't responsible for NIL.
NIL isn't paid by the University.
 
#42
#42
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
While Randy Boyd refuses a salary currently, lots of similar university presidents make about $1M per year.

Coach Josh Heupel makes $9M+, so I can assume Josh Heupel is worth more to UT (and the State of TN, actually) than any other employee?
Click to expand...
One could argue that to be the case. His unique skill set allows him to assemble, lead and maintain a football team that brings in enormous sums of money when successful. He's worth more because of that. Some athletes draw attention while others are somewhat anonymous. From an NIL perspective(yeah I know but for now let's pretend and go along) would you hire Nico to endorse your product or a lady vol basketball player, softball player, etc? I can't name a single female athlete at UT. While many can, there are far more who will recognize Nico. No offense to the ladies, but that's reality and business. If a gal shines like the Clark girl and she's plastered all over TV, she deserves more and will get it. This notion of equal outcomes is what I have a problem with.
 
#44
#44
S.C. OrangeMan said:
This one sounds like a win for the University.
The school isn't responsible for NIL.
NIL isn't paid by the University.
Click to expand...

Colorado dropped their collective last week and other schools have also. There has been talk of bringing NIL inside schools opposed to outside entities handling. Not sure how much UT has thought about that.
 
#45
#45
Despite the NCAA currently forbidding schools from directly entering into NIL agreement, a number of state laws explicitly provide for those relationships. OCR now says that in such instances, NIL agreements would be considered a form of “athletic financial assistance,” and would be used for calculating whether schools are providing equal athletic opportunities for men and women.

No one mentioned the above from the article but it sounds like they are talking about schools that are in bed with the collectives due to state law (I think Tennessee may fall under this). If athletic dept is discussing with the collective how much to give to QBx or a lineman or how much to spend on a male athlete vs a female athlete, then yes I can see this becoming a title IX issue. Or if the collective is communicating with the school and says we have X amount to spend, how should we spread it, then yes that might be an issue. It is speculated Danny White said there would be more NIL funding for the Lady VOLS when getting a new coach which makes it sounds like the Athletic Department does have some say in NIL distribution.

Also, the OCR in the article said they don’t have legal authority but serve as guidance which they are providing the courts. So we will see in a few months
 
#46
#46
Collectives are not a legal part of the university so TIX doesn’t apply. Also NIL is paid directly to the athletes, not through the school treasury, so there’s no commingling of the money.
 
#47
#47
CAVPUT said:
One could argue that to be the case. His unique skill set allows him to assemble, lead and maintain a football team that brings in enormous sums of money when successful. He's worth more because of that. Some athletes draw attention while others are somewhat anonymous. From an NIL perspective(yeah I know but for now let's pretend and go along) would you hire Nico to endorse your product or a lady vol basketball player, softball player, etc? I can't name a single female athlete at UT. While many can, there are far more who will recognize Nico. No offense to the ladies, but that's reality and business. If a gal shines like the Clark girl and she's plastered all over TV, she deserves more and will get it. This notion of equal outcomes is what I have a problem with.
Click to expand...
My point is we don't address HUGE disparities in the money the school doles out for sports vs the actual impact on the school until it comes to athletes...... OMG! That's not right.

It's laughable to say: "The women don't do...." while the women's basketball coach of those unknowns you talk about makes about 80% of what the President of the entire UT system makes.

You'll never convince me anyone gives a damn about the "unique skill set or leadership abilities" worth of Coach Caldwell vs Randy Boyd.

That argument fails. While I think using Title IX for NIL is BS, the whole idea of what we've turned college sports into monetarily is why the university needs to get out of the pro sports business.

Why the hell would a university need to pay amateur coaches that kind of cash?
OR
Why the hell would a university be in the pro sports business?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top