Title IX strikes again

[ctroberts1024]

Not only is title IX the most pointless and fraudulent thing ever. Ruined numerous people’s lives over false claims and is just a free handout.

But now, they’re stating that all NIL money should be distributed among all sports (they mean just women sports) evenly. So you won’t be able to donate to a schools NIL fund without that money going to all women’s sports as well.

Gonna completely change the landscape of NIL from here on out. Completely ignorant imo. The sports and athletes generating the most revenue should get the most money. I couldn’t care less what sex they are.

 

[Bigblue1894]

What idiots at the DOE. How the hell can you classify money paid to the players from proceeds from private sporting deals as “financial assistance” that’ll get slapped down in court.

 

[TTU/UK fan]

It won't hold. Most definitely just the DOE going rogue a few days before a lot of those employees are likely replaced.

 

[jeffries123]

Isn’t Trump getting rid of the DOE?

 

[TTU/UK fan]

This ruling is hogwash. So a player gets a sponsorship that his agent (that he pays), got for him, but he needs to share it with the volleyball team? This isn't going to hold up and will get destroyed in court. Even if not, there will be a work around.

 

[Catbare]

Not only is title IX the most pointless and fraudulent thing ever. Ruined numerous people’s lives over false claims and is just a free handout.

But now, they’re stating that all NIL money should be distributed among all sports (they mean just women sports) evenly. So you won’t be able to donate to a schools NIL fund without that money going to all women’s sports as well.

Gonna completely change the landscape of NIL from here on out. Completely ignorant imo. The sports and athletes generating the most revenue should get the most money. I couldn’t care less what sex they are.

That doesn’t coincide with what congress passed with the NIL Bill. They aren’t getting that money for their Name Image or Likeness, but off that of another person. I don’t see how they can possibly be legally allowed to take money away from those that put the money into the piggy bank.

 

[KentuckyDC]

The govt is my customer (multiple agencies) and I have no idea what the Dept of Ed does. They also have no money, so there's that too.

 

[Manhattan_Cat]

Don’t see the lasting with the regime change in less than a week.

 

[Ky grandpa]

I will be so happy if the DOE in DC get's closed down and go back to where it should always been, the state's... Money in DC gets lost and goes to political bull crap so politicians can party...

GBB

 

[Tannerdad]

There is really no such thing as NIL anyway. This thing won’t survive.

 

[rbs]

Have commented on this in the past ,.. this dispute was inevitable

 

[UKBrassowTipIN]

DOE mad "women" with ballsacks can't play women's sports after recent legislation, throwing this out at the 11th hour to tangle up the next admin.

 

[ukcatz12]

But now, they’re stating that all NIL money should be distributed among all sports (they mean just women sports) evenly. So you won’t be able to donate to a schools NIL fund without that money going to all women’s sports as well.

Everyone in this thread is misinterpreting this ruling. It has no bearing on normal NIL money that a player gets. This ruling is specifically referring to the revenue sharing that will now be distributed to the schools to pay players directly. A quarterback making $3 million on an NIL deal with a collective won't be affected by this. It says when schools get a $23 million payout from media deal revenue sharing and players are paid directly it will need to be paid out in a way that complies to Title IX.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

This means absolutely nothing. What the political trolls at the DOE dont understand Iis NIL is personally owned by the athlete. Every athlete is already the same. They each own their personal NIL.

No one, particularly the "state" can take NIL away from anyone. These must be the dumbest clowns on earth.

 

[Col. Angus]

Title 9 sucks. And swallows.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

It won't hold. Most definitely just the DOE going rogue a few days before a lot of those employees are likely replaced.

This. Zero way this withstands a legal challenge, but it will probably be rolled back before that ever even has to come about.

This is akin to requiring schools to distribute grades based on gender. Its dead on arrival. Sheer stupidity.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Everyone in this thread is misinterpreting this ruling. It has no bearing on normal NIL money that a player gets. This ruling is specifically referring to the revenue sharing that will now be distributed to the schools to pay players directly. A quarterback making $3 million on an NIL deal with a collective won't be affected by this. It says when schools get a $23 million payout from media deal revenue sharing and players are paid directly it will need to be paid out in a way that complies to Title IX.

I only know what has been posted in this thread. If you are correct, the ruling still does not make sense. The revenue earned has nothing to do with the women on the rifle team. So, should those women make as much as the women on the WBB team? Should the WBB make as much as the men’s football team (the real revenue generators)? Every student gets the same scholly, but should every student make the same in a revenue share when most do not make any revenue for the school?

I have friends who make a lot more money that I do, both women and men. Should I get some of their money because I don’t generate as much revenue as they?

Title IX can serve a purpose. Your communism explanation should not be included in that purpose.

 

[Perrin75]

Now that everyone has had time for their misdirected outrage, it might be time to actually read what this is actually regarding. First, it isn't a ruling, it is guidance. Second, it has nothing to do with NIL, but it is actually regarding whether schools could setup some sort of revenue sharing model so they could pay players directly. Third, the incoming administration won't impact this one way or the other. Congress would need to replace or repeal Title IX for this administration to have any say in this, and that isn't going to happen.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Now that everyone has had time for their misdirected outrage, it might be time to actually read what this is actually regarding. First, it isn't a ruling, it is guidance. Second, it has nothing to do with NIL, but it is actually regarding whether schools could setup some sort of revenue sharing model so they could pay players directly. Third, the incoming administration won't impact this one way or the other. Congress would need to replace or repeal Title IX for this administration to have any say in this, and that isn't going to happen.

Do not agree with that last comment. This “guidance” is not in a statute. The DOE is an executive branch agency. Who is president matters.

 

[Perrin75]

The guidance is just that, guidance. They are telling the NCAA that if you continue down your current path it most likely will not withstand legal scrutiny. The NCAA can certainly move forward if they want. This is not a mandate. The guidance can be withdrawn under a new administration. It could even be changed. It still won't have any impact on what the NCAA ultimately decides to do.

 

[JonathanW]

That would go completely against the concept of Name Image & Likeness.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Agency guidance does impact behavior. So, a change would be significant.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Now that everyone has had time for their misdirected outrage, it might be time to actually read what this is actually regarding. First, it isn't a ruling, it is guidance. Second, it has nothing to do with NIL, but it is actually regarding whether schools could setup some sort of revenue sharing model so they could pay players directly. Third, the incoming administration won't impact this one way or the other. Congress would need to replace or repeal Title IX for this administration to have any say in this, and that isn't going to happen.

When the doe gives direction about title 9 it's a promise theyll act if someone does the opposite. Thats not something schools will dare risk.

 

[sambowieshin]

Remember: party of norms, rule of law, and democracy

Right, @sambowieshin ?

View embedded media

Ol dude thought he could just declare an amendment on social media. Dems are something else

Meanwhile Trump promotes pedophiles like Gaetz, threatens to attack Greenland and Panama and pardon cop beaters.
Not a lot of room to crow on your nutty side either.

 

[Perrin75]

When the doe gives direction about title 9 it's a promise theyll act if someone does the opposite. Thats not something schools will dare risk.

Does everything have to break down to this red vs blue nonsense? The current Biden administration did not influence this guidance, the in-coming Trump administration will not influence it either. It is based on decades of legal interpretation of Title IX. The NCAA and member schools have already thanked the Office of Civil Rights for this guidance because it will help them in establishing their policies. For example, if you actually read the damn thing it says:

OCR does not view compensation provided by a third party (rather than a school) to a student-athlete for use of their NIL as constituting athletic financial assistance awarded by the school

So, the whole initial outrage regarding this was based on something that never existed. It will also be a positive thing, because if schools follow this guidance, it will provide pathways to avoid legal pitfalls in the future as they develop these new models for compensating players.

 

[bthaunert]

I only know what has been posted in this thread. If you are correct, the ruling still does not make sense. The revenue earned has nothing to do with the women on the rifle team. So, should those women make as much as the women on the WBB team? Should the WBB make as much as the men’s football team (the real revenue generators)? Every student gets the same scholly, but should every student make the same in a revenue share when most do not make any revenue for the school?

I have friends who make a lot more money that I do, both women and men. Should I get some of their money because I don’t generate as much revenue as they?

Title IX can serve a purpose. Your communism explanation should not be included in that purpose.

Lots of bad info in this thread.

This is not what many people think it is. In an athletic department budget, a vast majority of the financial support goes to football and men’s basketball. Title IX does not dictate that you spend equal resources, it’s about opportunity, not about splitting funding evenly. Where it might hurt is a school like South Carolina or UConn where their women’s basketball program has a much larger market footprint and is more of a revenue producer for their athletic department than a school like Kentucky. But it will still be relatively minor. Iowa women’s basketball the last few years is a good example too.

What will need to happen is UK will have to be able to show that football and men’s basketball are 90% of the reason that they get the revenue they do and then 90% of the $20 million go to those sports.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Does everything have to break down to this red vs blue nonsense? The current Biden administration did not influence this guidance, the in-coming Trump administration will not influence it either. It is based on decades of legal interpretation of Title IX. The NCAA and member schools have already thanked the Office of Civil Rights for this guidance because it will help them in establishing their policies. For example, if you actually read the damn thing it says:

OCR does not view compensation provided by a third party (rather than a school) to a student-athlete for use of their NIL as constituting athletic financial assistance awarded by the school

So, the whole initial outrage regarding this was based on something that never existed. It will also be a positive thing, because if schools follow this guidance, it will provide pathways to avoid legal pitfalls in the future as they develop these new models for compensating players.

Nothing in my post was anything about political parties.

Yes its obvious this has nothing to do with collectives. Strawman.

The outrage is warranted because its a directive to redistribute to another the fruits of someone's labor. Its akin to saying smart students need to redistribute their grades. It wont survive challenge nor should it.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Does everything have to break down to this red vs blue nonsense? The current Biden administration did not influence this guidance, the in-coming Trump administration will not influence it either. It is based on decades of legal interpretation of Title IX. The NCAA and member schools have already thanked the Office of Civil Rights for this guidance because it will help them in establishing their policies. For example, if you actually read the damn thing it says:

OCR does not view compensation provided by a third party (rather than a school) to a student-athlete for use of their NIL as constituting athletic financial assistance awarded by the school

So, the whole initial outrage regarding this was based on something that never existed. It will also be a positive thing, because if schools follow this guidance, it will provide pathways to avoid legal pitfalls in the future as they develop these new models for compensating players.

Wow. There is a lot of fiction in your post.

Members of the NCAA were reportedly shocked by this “guidance.” Pretending the executive office does not influence such things is ignorant. And, show me the legal cases that are precedent for this ruling about such a new issue.

 

[Nightwish84]

"The outrage is warranted"

Hear that everyone? Time to be outraged again! By tomorrow outrage will be warranted over something else and on and on and on and on and on.

The Paddock: Where outrage isn't just encouraged, it's warranted!

 

[bthaunert]

Not only is title IX the most pointless and fraudulent thing ever. Ruined numerous people’s lives over false claims and is just a free handout.

But now, they’re stating that all NIL money should be distributed among all sports (they mean just women sports) evenly. So you won’t be able to donate to a schools NIL fund without that money going to all women’s sports as well.

Gonna completely change the landscape of NIL from here on out. Completely ignorant imo. The sports and athletes generating the most revenue should get the most money. I couldn’t care less what sex they are.

I wanted to comment directly to your post because there are so many false claims you make. A few things:

1. This has nothing to do with NIL. Zero. If you give to a collective, that money will go to the sport it is earmarked for. NIL money will go directly to the individual or sport that the donor wants it to go to.

2. This is specific to revenue sharing that schools will now be required to do out of their budget.

3. Title IX says nothing about money being distributed evenly among men’s and women’s sports. In the UK Athletic Department FY25 budget, $61 million is allocated to support men’s sports and $15 million is allocated to support women’s sports. It’s about opportunity not about equal funding.

4. This is about revenue sharing from money that is made by the university. In FY25, UK expects football to make $46 million and basketball to make $30 million. They expect all women’s teams combined to make $650,000.

5. This is where Title IX will come into play. They will be able to prove that the revenue sharing can go predominantly to football and basketball because they bring in a vast majority of the revenue. Like most major universities, they will still distribute a vast majority of the $20 million of revenue sharing to football and basketball. This will meet Titke IX guidelines.

 

[ctroberts1024]

I wanted to comment directly to your post because there are so many false claims you make. A few things:

1. This has nothing to do with NIL. Zero. If you give to a collective, that money will go to the sport it is earmarked for. NIL money will go directly to the individual or sport that the donor wants it to go to.

2. This is specific to revenue sharing that schools will now be required to do out of their budget.

3. Title IX says nothing about money being distributed evenly among men’s and women’s sports. In the UK Athletic Department FY25 budget, $61 million is allocated to support men’s sports and $15 million is allocated to support women’s sports. It’s about opportunity not about equal funding.

4. This is about revenue sharing from money that is made by the university. In FY25, UK expects football to make $46 million and basketball to make $30 million. They expect all women’s teams combined to make $650,000.

5. This is where Title IX will come into play. They will be able to prove that the revenue sharing can go predominantly to football and basketball because they bring in a vast majority of the revenue. Like most major universities, they will still distribute a vast majority of the $20 million of revenue sharing to football and basketball. This will meet Titke IX guidelines.

My friend works in the athletic department at ETSU. He said it will 100% affect NIL collectives. They told them to g ahead and prepare for the backlash because the football and basketball teams will be giving money to every woman’s sport.

Granted, it’s going to get shot down because it’s completely ridiculous and shouldn’t even be thought of to do this. But it definitely will affect the NIL collective if it passes

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Hall Monitor redefining message boards. NO OUTRAGE!!!

 

[UKnCincy]

Nothing in my post was anything about political parties.

Yes its obvious this has nothing to do with collectives. Strawman.

The outrage is warranted because its a directive to redistribute to another the fruits of someone's labor. Its akin to saying smart students need to redistribute their grades. It wont survive challenge nor should it.

There’s nothing outrageous about this. If you’re outraged, then I suspect the issue is you’re not familiar with the law and its application over the past almost 50 years.

Title IX requires that the amount of athletic financial assistance provided to women athletes in aggregate must be substantially proportionate to the percentage of athletes who are women. So if 40% of a school’s athletes are women, then to be in compliance, 39% to 41% of the total spent on financial assistance must go to women.

The problem when it comes to NIL, is that athletic financial assistance is broadly defined. It is not limited to just scholarships. This has been consistent since 1979. And things like EADA have reaffirmed this approach. When schools disclose the amount of financial assistance in their equity in athletics reports to DOE, they are directed to include anything where the terms of the financial assistance require the recipient to participate in an intercollegiate athletics program.

Given that athletics financial assistance is broadly defined, it is no surprise that they’d issue guidance that they consider an NIL agreement between and athlete and their SCHOOL to be athletics financial assistance.

I think there should be debate around whether NIL is so fundamentally different that it warrants exemption from Title IX considerations. But even if we all agree it should be exempt, you still then have to ask the question about whether the existing law, as currently written and applied, allows for that exemption.

Either way, there is nothing surprising about this nor is it outrageous. I’m not sure I agree with it, but I understand how they’ve arrived at their position given the history of the law.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Revenue sharing is not NIL. It is also not financial aid. There is no precedent for this era.

 

[UKnCincy]

Revenue sharing is not NIL. It is also not financial aid. There is no precedent for this era.

And the DOE guidance doesn’t address revenue sharing. The guidance regarding payments from schools to athletes is specific to schools paying student athletes for use of the athletes’ name, image or likeness.

 

[bthaunert]

My friend works in the athletic department at ETSU. He said it will 100% affect NIL collectives. They told them to g ahead and prepare for the backlash because the football and basketball teams will be giving money to every woman’s sport.

Granted, it’s going to get shot down because it’s completely ridiculous and shouldn’t even be thought of to do this. But it definitely will affect the NIL collective if it passes

I have worked in Higher Ed, in and around college athletics, for 25 years so am pretty versed in Title IX also. The athletic department at the university where I currently work is in the deep dive into all of this right now too. I also read more into itje impact of Title IX on NIL after your reply.

This is from an article yesterday:

According to the Office of Civil Rights fact sheet, the Department of Education “does not view compensation provided by a third party (rather than a school) to a student-athlete for the use of their NIL as constituting athletic financial assistance awarded by the school.”

I’ve also seen other articles take a different view, similar to what you’re saying. The key in the other articles is that NIL has been tied more and more with the athletic department, which would be an issue.

It’s still important to note that men’s sports will get a vast majority of the resources, just like they have for years. Whether that’s coaching salaries, recruiting budgets, operating budgets, facilities, etc. This ruling will most likely not impact the fact most schools are looking at giving 80% - 85% of the money to football and basketball. I have a feeling that will still be the case.